It’s Time to Empower Teachers: Let’s Stop the Nonsense and Start Using Common Guide Our Reading Practices. By Dr. Sam Bommarito

For those who don’t know me, I began teaching in 1970 and became a reading teacher in 1977. I’ve taught every grade from K to graduate school, including master’s degree courses in reading. Most of my career was spent as a Title I Reading Teacher/Staff developer. Today I am a reading consultant, blogger and I still find time to do pro bono literacy work for teachers and students.

Ever since the publication of the First-Grade Studies in 1967, we’ve known that when it comes to reading instruction, teachers make a greater difference than programs. The study also demonstrated that programs incorporating phonics instruction yielded better reading performance among students. During most of my six-plus decades in literacy education, there has been a war going on between two camps. The current iteration of those camps includes SOR folks (code-emphasis) and the Balanced Literacy folks (meaning-emphasis). In that time, I’ve seen the pendulum of reading instruction swing several times between code emphasis and meaning emphasis approaches. Yet each time the literacy world moves to the exclusive use of one or the other of these approaches, overall student performance fails to improve. Each approach helps many students, but never all students. The bottom line is that WHAT WORKS WITH ONE STUDENT DOESN’T NECESSARILY WORK WITH ANOTHER. That is the reality that faces classroom teachers every day.  

Currently, many SOR advocates claim they’ve finally found the solution that works with all students. They present data claiming to show huge improvements. Yet critics examining that data challenge whether that is the case. I’ve written about why folks like Dr. Paul Thomas feel that the decline in the NAEP scores demonstrates the need for a new story LINK. He is not alone in that analysis. Teachers using successful practices,  who really did teach both phonics and comprehension all along are being forced to abandon their practices and implement one size fits all programs being mandated by many states.  So, the Great Debate continues. It has become increasingly contentious, especially on social media. What has happened is that both sides use strawman tactics, presenting the other side at its worst, and ignoring or discrediting studies that support the other side. The most concerning thing is that instead of promoting things that help teachers and students, they promote things that help them make the most profit.

What do I have to say about this?

Of all the many hats I’ve worn over the course career the one I am most proud to wear is that of a teacher. I am writing this blog series from the perspective of a teacher. Teachers, especially more experienced teachers, are being put in impossible situations. This has had dire consequences. A recent University of Missouri survey found that 78% of nearly 500 teachers have considered quitting, with more experienced teachers being likelier to make that decision. Teachers who have been teaching phonics (and comprehension) for years are being mandated to follow plans created by individuals who don’t know their students and are unfamiliar with the nuances of their particular setting. Districts are being stripped of their right to create curriculum, and teachers are being mandated by law to follow “research-based programs” that fail to consider all the research, including both quantitative and qualitative studies.

It’s time for all of us to agree that we should apply practices from different perspectives and incorporate those supported by both qualitative and quantitative research. It’s time to empower teachers by helping them to learn about AND USE a variety of practices. They would use those practices within the confines of each district’s curriculum. In that way, teachers won’t find themselves in the impossible situation of replacing things that were mostly working with the latest greatest product, only to have that product replaced in a couple of years with the next latest greatest product. Wouldn’t it make more sense to replace the parts that aren’t working, but keep the parts that are? It’s time to stop the Swinging Pendulum in the middle and for all sides to allow teachers to examine all the practices. It’s time for folks to start taking a more nuanced position on the whole issue of how to teach reading.

My future blogs will deal in depth with each of the topics listed below. Taken together, I think the discussions around these topics will promote the finding of common ground and common practices. For this to work, both sides must acknowledge they don’t have all the answers. These answers are best found at the district level, where districts empower teachers by providing training and then allowing teachers the latitude they need in the practices they use with different students. This would be a major improvement over what is currently happening. Too often, the answer to what to do when the latest greatest programs don’t work for all students is to give them even more of the same program and to blame the teachers who have carried out the latest/greatest programs for not doing them correctly.  They fail to consider the possibility the programs clearly don’t fit all of the students in the population being served and that is why the practices fail..

It’s Time to Empower Teachers: Let’s Stop the Nonsense and Start Using Common Sense to End the Reading Wars.

Dare to Dream!

Dr. Sam (The guy in the middle taking flak from both sides!)

Here is the list of topics:

What brain research really says- READING IS A COMPLEX PHENOMENON. We will do best if our practices reflect that fact. Some of the claims being spread on social media are simply not supported by brain research. LINK

Instructional time is a finite commodity. Let’s not Rob Peter to pay Paul. We must find a way to balance the time spent on comprehension instruction and decoding instruction. We can’t give teachers mandates of teaching time that exceed the time we allocate for classroom instruction. Yet we are routinely doing that, especially at the elementary level.

The history of Structured Literacy and Direct Instruction. Direction Instruction as an instructional method vs direct instruction as a marketing tool- Andy Johnson’s ideas about that.

Let’s not let profit get in the way of real progress. An analysis of what Billy Mollaso and others have had to say, “Profit over Progress? When Market Hype Masquerades as Science, Kids Lose

 “   https://readingrecovery.org/profit_over_progress/  Some SOR advocates seem intent on “selling their product”. Too often, they ignore or discredit alternative approaches.

Best practices in teaching decoding: The role of prosody in reading instruction and Rasinski’s work in teaching prosody and using his research in repeated reading to improve the fluency instruction for readers K-12. 

Writing to read- ways to use writing in Reading Instruction. We will explore ways to connect reading and writing instruction at the word, sentence, and passage levels. See the work of Leah Mermelstein. https://www.leahmermelstein.com/

The case for having a nuanced view of Reading Instruction. Doing that can lead to identifying common ground.

One clear example of common ground is the case for using gradual release of responsibility as a central feature of our educational instruction, especially reading instruction. This seems to be a model that most educators still agree on. Done correctly, it helps ensure that students move beyond naming and describing strategies to internalize and use them effectively.

I want to propose a more provocative example of Common Ground. It is this: Seidenberg’s “takeoff point” and Clay’s “self-extending system” indicate there is an area of important agreement between some SOR and BL advocates. Kids really do reach a point where they start teaching themselves how to use phonological information to unlock words and their meanings. https://doctorsam7.blog/2024/09/07/the-ever-changing-world-of-literacy-my-analysis-of-what-seidenberg-is-now-saying-about-sor-by-dr-sam-bommarito/

Resolving the issue of when this should happen would go a long way toward cutting through the Gordian knot we face regarding reading instruction.

ClauDean ChiNaka Kizart discusses her book, Beyond Implicit & Explicit Bias: Strategies for Healing the Root Causes of Inequality in Education, in an interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

ClauDean ChiNaka Kizart is a longtime friend and colleague. I first got to know her and her work when she was at Harris-Stowe State Teachers College in St. Louis. As you will see in her biography, she has accomplished a great deal since then. She is a teacher of teachers, a strong advocate for educational equality.

Her new book was not about what I was expecting. It was about bias, but not institutional bias. Rather, it was about bias at a personal level. Based on the research she cites, we are all biased in some way. She has identified six such research-based biases in her book. The book focuses on how teachers can manage their personal biases in a way that doesn’t adversely affect their teaching. 

Let’s talk about one of the biases she explores. That is the group bias. That bias occurs when you identify with an in-group. Let’s say you identify with a particular group, say women. Her book provides you with several tools to use so that you don’t treat boys or men in your class unfairly. Those tools would be valuable for any teacher to use. Let’s now look at ClauDean’s biography and learn what she had to say in her interview.

BIOGRAPHY

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Here are the time-stamped talking points for the interview (so you can go to the sections that interest you the most first)

Here is a link to Kizart’s Book:

LINK

Here is a link to a book review of her book. The review was written by Walter Hudson

LINK

Here is a link to her LinkedIn page:

LINK

Final Thoughts

ClauDean ChiNaka Kizart has spent her entire career addressing the issues of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As Walter Hudson says in his book review:

 “The book’s greatest strength lies in its practicality. Kizart—who is director of student success at Tidewater Community College—consistently bridges theory and practice through authentic school-based scenarios that illustrate how biases manifest in educational contexts. These narratives, drawn from her 25+ years of experience as an educator, resonate with authenticity and provide readers with contextual understanding of how bias impacts decision-making.”

I highly recommend this research-based book to any teacher who wants to explore the best ways to address bias in the everyday decision-making processes found in our educational institutions.

Happy Reading and Writing,

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the center taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

Gwen Pauloski, Teacher, Researcher, Consultant, and Author, discusses her new book, Making Deep Sense of Informational Text, in an interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

I’ve been on hiatus now for over a month due to some health issues. Things are much better now and Dr. Sam is back! This is the first of several posts I’ve gotten ready. By the way, the next one will be about a new book by Dr. Claudine Kizart. It is about social justice.

Dr. Gwen Paulski is a teacher, researcher, consultant, and author. It’s not often that you find a person who has a clear-cut, compelling background in each of those roles. A review of her biography and interview in the next sections of this blog provides ample evidence that Dr. Gwen Pauloski is clearly such a person. Like many intermediate and secondary teachers, Gwen has been on a lifelong quest to find things that can motivate adolescent readers to read and also to make sense of what they read. To help in that quest, Gwen not only reviewed the research but also contributed to it with articles of her own. She eventually used all the things she learned in her teaching to complete a Doctoral Thesis. Her new book’s audience is her fellow teachers. For many of them, the what and how to teach adolescent readers has been a Gordian knot. I think teachers will find Gwen offers some practical solutions that will help them help the kids. Her consultant work shines through as the book explains what teachers can do and why they should do it. Her story tells how she helped students who lacked confidence in their reading, become readers and critical thinkers. Before discussing that, let’s take a look at her biography and interview.  

BIOGRAPHY

Here are the timed stamped talking points for the interview (so, you can go to the sections that interest you the most first)

Here is a link to the U-Tube Interview:

Here is a link to Gwen’s Book:

LINK

Here is a link to Gwen’s Web Page:

LINK

Final Thoughts

Due to Gwen’s unique background, she has a wealth of knowledge to share with her fellow teachers. Her seventeen-plus years as a social studies teacher and nine years spent coaching teachers and principals mean she knows the nuts and bolts of teaching adolescents and knows how to address the concerns of those who work with them. Having someone as well-known in the field as Cris Tovani write the forward to her book is a clear indication that Gwen really knows her stuff and that her stuff is worth learning about. I strongly recommend that my readers take the time to visit and carefully examine Gwen’s web page LINK. There, you can learn about her pedagogy and discover the strategies she believes are worth teaching. If you like what you find there, you could then consider adding her new book to your go-to resources LINK.

For those of you who might have doubts about taking the  time to teach reading strategies, please review the work of Dr. Tim Rasinski  LINK, LINK, LINK. Please examine his slide about the effect sizes of various components of the reading process.  He included the slide below in his keynote at last year’s Lit Con conference:

There is a considerable effect size for word recognition. However, there are even larger effect sizes for the bridging processes like reading fluency and language comprehension processes. We need folks like Dr. Gwen Paulski to remind us that comprehension strategies can be, and should be, taught. We need folks like Dr. Tim Rasinski to show us ways to use fluency development to help build orthographic knowledge. That doesn’t mean doing these things instead of word recognition. It means doing them in addition to word recognition. Dare to dream!

Happy Reading and Writing,

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the center taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

My Take on the Recent Hechinger Report about Comprehension: It still takes more than building background knowledge and vocabulary to improve comprehension. Comprehension strategies can and should be directly taught in a way that assures students can internalize and use them.

 If you haven’t seen the new Hechinger Report about comprehension, here is a LINK  and a brief excerpt:

  A landmark study          relatively good evidence        paper published in a 2025 issue  

Here is the results and conclusions section of the 2025 article Reading Comprehension Instruction: Evaluating Our Progress Since Durkin’s Seminal Study by Philip Capan et al.

As a reminder, Durkin’s landmark study  found that in 1979 less than 1 percent of classroom time was spent on TEACHING comprehension. Over 4 decades later, Capan et al.’s new study reports that time spent on TEACHING comprehension is still woefully inadequate. Time spent on comprehension, more often than not, comes in the form of simple comprehension checks, not in  the form of teaching comprehension. Things like improving knowledge of text structures or teaching reading comprehension strategies continue to be ignored in 2025, just as they were in 1979. I’ve written before about how and why this has happened- LINK.

I think part of the reason this is happening is because of the misinterpretation of what research by Willingham and others shows about how comprehension should be taught, specifically how much time needs to be spent on teaching comprehension strategies. Even staunch SoR advocates like Tim Shanahan called Willingham’s conclusions about significantly reducing the amount of time spent teaching comprehension strategies to be faulty LINK.

For more information on Shanahan’s views, please see his March 10 2025 post. LINK

In my blog about this topic, I also point out that research by folks like Nell Duke indicates that teaching comprehension strategies should be an important part of any literacy program.

I talk about Duke’s idea that reading is much more than decoding words- LINK. I also talk about her idea that it is clear that “if we explicitly teach and then give students lots of opportunity to practice specific comprehension strategies, their reading comprehension will improve….” This even includes students in the very early years of schooling LINK.  I also discussed what Duke had to say at the What Research Says about Reading Instruction session at the 2019 ILA convention.  She said, “It’s as though because we think content knowledge building is so important, we’re just going to ignore three decades of research on comprehensive strategy instruction,” said Duke. “This isn’t a zero-sum game saying, ‘if you can’t attend to content, then you can’t teach comprehension strategies’ or ‘if you teach comprehension strategies, you must not be paying enough attention to vocabulary or morphology.” LINK

Please do not interpret what I’ve just presented as meaning that teaching vocabulary and background are unimportant. Rather, I’m saying that teaching vocabulary and background is necessary but not sufficient.

When In-servicing teachers on how to teach comprehension strategies, here is what I have to say:

I am saying that the first step is teaching the strategy. Then, ask the students to use the strategy when they are reading. Finally, after several weeks of using the strategy AS NEEDED, report back to the class about what they did and how the strategy helped them. By the way, NRP indicated that teaching more than one strategy at a time is effective. So these discussions can and should include information about more than just one strategy.

Instructional time is a zero-sum game. So, how we spend our instructional time matters. When I asked Shanahan about recent studies on how teachers actually spend their time, he indicated that there was not much current information. Without that information, we are flying without instruments. I have listened extensively to folks from all sides of the great debate in reading. When talking to teachers who say they are following SoR, I hear much evidence of time spent on decoding, with little or no evidence that they are directly teaching reading strategies. At best, their comprehension work falls into the category of “checking comprehension” and building background and vocabulary. In addition, many of the most popular decoding programs require so much class time that there is a real danger that if you follow all the prescribed lessons,  there won’t be time for anything else. Perhaps the recent drops in NAEP scores can be partly tied to the failure to teach comprehension strategies directly. That means teaching them in a way that guarantees students internalize and use them. As Leah Mermelstien and others have said, we need to learn how to teach things so they stick. We need new observational studies along the lines of those done by Durkin.

Here is a final thought about why it is important that reading instruction needs to include a wide range of activities. Tim Rasinski shared this chart as part of his LitCon2025 keynote address:

Notice the effect sizes of the various components of reading. Word recognition does have a significant effect size. However, so do Active Self-Regulation, the various Bridging Processes et. al.  Spending too much instructional time on one (in this case, word recognition) means that others are ignored. We should be looking at the reading curriculum through all these lenses, not just the lens of word recognition. Most importantly, we must act on something we’ve known for decades. Comprehension/comprehension strategies can and should be directly taught in a way that assures students can internalize and use them. Dare to dream.

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

I gave three in-person presentations in Missouri last week and will give a virtual presentation in New York today. So, I will be taking a break from the blog today, I will resume next week to discuss all the ideas I’ve been presenting.

Dr. Jill Kerper Mora talks about how the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) blocked the Science of Reading legislation AB2222

This week, I interviewed Dr. Jill Kerper Mora. In the interview, Jill explained how and why the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) blocked the Science of Reading legislation AB2222 in California last year. She played an important role in that process. The lessons she learned will be helpful to anyone trying to stop the adoption of cookie-cutter SOR legislation that is currently sweeping the nation. I think it is an important part of developing the new story about literacy that P.L. Thomas is calling for LINK.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

February 2025

Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D.

Jill Kerper Mora is Associate Professor Emerita from the School of Teacher Education at San Diego State University. Dr. Mora’s career as a biliteracy educator began in Texas, where she was an elementary bilingual teacher, a secondary Spanish teacher, and a consultant for the Texas Education Agency’s Region IV Service Center in Houston. She has engaged in scholarship, leadership and teaching as a university teacher educator specializing in preparing teachers for work with culturally and linguistically diverse students in Texas, California, and Mexico. She brings an international perspective to the arena of Spanish language and literacy education. Dr. Mora served as Resident Director of the California State University International Program and Mexico Bilingual Teacher Credential Program in 2003 to 2005.

Dr. Mora has received numerous honors and awards for her activism and scholarship. In 2002, she received the California Association for Bilingual Education Award for Excellence in Research and Scholarly Activity in recognition of her MoraModules Website for biliteracy and English language development educators. In 2009, Dr. Mora was recognized with the Promoting Biliteracy Award from the Two-way California Association for Bilingual Education for her strong advocacy for educational equity for language minority students.

In her active retirement, Dr. Mora continues to work as an author of professional books for dual language teachers and as a consulting author with Benchmark Education Company. She maintains her MoraModules Website at moramodules.com. The website includes a Book Companion Website to accompany her textbook Spanish Language Pedagogy for Biliteracy Programs (2016) with Montezuma Publishing. Dr. Mora’s book co-authored with Silvia Dorta-Duque de Reyes titled Biliteracy and cross-cultural teaching: A framework for standards-based transfer instruction in dual language programs will be published with Brookes Publishing in 2025.

 Here are the timed stamped talking points for the interview (so, you can go to the sections that interest you the most first)

Here is a link to the U-Tube Interview:

Mora’s Website LINK:

The LINK to MORA’s article in the 50^th-anniversary edition of the CABE Multilingual Educator published in the Spring of 2025. The article appears on page 42.

Mora’s Resources:

Science of Reading: A Critique | MoraModules

Oppose AB 2222 | MoraModules

Dual Language Researcher Fact-checks SoR | MoraModules

Dual Language Researcher Fact-checks SoR Claim 5 | MoraModules

CCTE Conference SoR Pushback Panel | MoraModules

Multilingual Educator 2025 50^th Anniversary Edition Mora Article

Final Thoughts

There are some critics of the folks who question the rush to SoR currently sweeping the nation, saying those that oppose it are ignoring/denying the research. I respectfully disagree with them. What is actually going on is that folks are looking at ALL THE RESEARCH, not just the research that supports one narrow and self-serving point of view. In the case of California, there was already a working set of practices in place and a curriculum backed by decades of research that was especially relevant to the population being served. The proponents of one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter reform use the public relations tactic of discount and discredit. They claim they are replacing “failed practices” with no “research base.” As with all things to do with research, the devil is in the details. What the California folks were able to do was show that what they were doing fit the population they served and actually had a substantial research base. I’m not saying we don’t need reform. Rather, I’m saying look at all the research, try to find common ground of best practices, and make the reforms fit the needs of the particular population being served in each state. Dare to Dream.

Happy Reading and Writing,

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the center taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization. PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Us

My take on Dr. Paul Thomas’s idea that the decline in NAEP reading scores shows it is time for a new story by Dr. Sam Bommarito

The Science of Reading star has been rising for quite some time. See this chart from the Jan. 21^st edition of Education Week LINK.

A quick glance at the chart shows that since 2019, sixteen states have mandated SOR practices. By 2021, another 14 states joined, bringing the number of states with three to five-year commitments to SOR practices up to 30. Given the promises made by SOR proponents and the number of districts adopting SOR practices in the past few years, one would expect substantial gains in reading scores nationally. Instead, NAEP scores have DROPPED to below pre-pandemic levels. Remember that those scores provide a long-term longitudinal look at national reading scores. Paul Thomas, a major critic of SOR, has written some posts on this very topic. Let’s look at some highlights from his recent posts.

LINK

Paul’s post provides a lot of well-researched information. This post is a must-read, and I suggest that my readers take the time to read the full post. I want to call attention to several important points he makes.

• “reading achievement on NAEP was flat during the balanced literacy era and now has dropped steadily during the SOR era”

• “NAEP “basic” is approximately grade level (although even that claim is problematic since no standard exists in the US for “proficient” or “grade level”), and “proficient” on NAEP is high:”

This point is especially important in light of a point he made in an earlier post LINK.

“As I have noted, NAEP achievement levels are confusing since “proficient” is well above grade level and “basic” tends to correlate with most state metrics for “proficient” (see here for a full explanation and state/NAEP correlations).”

MY TAKE- The bottom line is that the claim often made in the media that about 2/3 of our students are reading below grade level is completely inaccurate and greatly exaggerates the actual problem.  Paul labels this as one of the “Big Lies” being told by SOR advocates.

• But a key element of the SOR story is often overlooked: “One of the excuses educators have long offered to explain America’s poor reading performance is poverty.”
• “In other words, the SOR story argues that the US has a reading crisis that is entirely the result of in-school policies and practices, that SOR-based reading instruction guarantees 95%+ of students will achieve reading proficiency.”

MY TAKE- The relationship between poverty and low reading achievement is well established. Yet SOR advocates downplay/ignore the impact of poverty on reading achievement. In addition, the claim that SOR-based instruction guarantees 95% of students will achieve reading achievement simply is not borne out by the longitudinal NAEP data In addition, England’s experience with synthetic phonics for over a decade has demonstrated that synthetic phonics is not the cure-all some make it out to be LINK.

I agree with Paul that it is time for a new story. It is time for the WHOLE STORY. It is time to look at ALL the research, not just that research that supports one side or the other’s point of view. My own opinion is that if we stay the course with the brand of SOR currently being mandated, the result will be yet another very expensive swing of the pendulum LINK.

I’ll say it again- it is time to stop taking sides. It is time to end the “Big Lies”. It is time to talk about what we can all agree on so we can find a path to improving the literacy performance of all students (see my blog last week, LINK). Dare to dream!

Happy Reading and Writing,

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the center taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

Seeking Common Ground Using Common Sense, my recent exchanges with Dr. Claude Goldenberg.

For the past 5 years, I’ve promoted the position that we should look at ALL the research in the “Great Debate”  about reading. I’ve done interviews with folks promoting different ideas and practices. I’ve been critical of folks from either side who “put blinders on”. They sometimes leave out research and sometimes define their opponents in a way that effectively creates strawmen. Here is one important conclusion I’ve reached. We need to USE ALL THE RESEARCH and draw on practices from all sides:

Figure 1

For more details on this position, please visit my previous blog post LINK.

A while back, I suggested that instead of taking sides and looking at things as a dichotomy, we should start conversations about things most of us can agree on. To that end, I recently had several exchanges with Claude Goldenberg on his substack Ending the Reading Wars Now LINK. Thanks to Dr. Goldenberg for taking the time to seek some areas of common ground (some areas of agreement).

This is the message I got back from Dr. Goldenberg:

I don’t mean to get overly optimistic (I’ve been there before). Still, one string of comments initiated by Sam Bommarito (https://doctorsam7.blog/) yielded the following, which many readers might not have seen unless they read the string of comments/discussion on the last post, “Can we talk?”

If this needs context to make sense, please see the comments there for other tidbits.

Sam’s comments are in quotes:

1. “context needs to be used in word recognition. Current laws are removing it entirely. That is a HUGE mistake.” Completely agree. (Tim does, too, btw).
2. “Frankly, the words cue/cueing have become divisive.” Agree again. 100%, or more, if it’s possible to agree more than 100%. That’s the point of the DEADLY WORDS posts I’ve been working on.
3. “When in-servicing teachers, I urge them to encourage students to use the graphophonemic information first and then cross-check it against context & syntax.” Once again, we are in agreement…
4. …. whether we call it “a “take off” point” or a “self-extending system” is less important than providing the sort of instruction that will hasten students’ getting there. What you provide in your in-services sounds like it will help accomplish that.

Common Ground

I find his statement #1 around the use of context particularly hopeful. He says that he and Shanahan feel that the current laws removing the use of context from word recognition are a bad idea. I’d love to hear more from him on that point (and I’m posting this blog entry on his site to see what he meant by that).

Rather than focusing on claims and counterclaims around “The Three Cueing System” (BTW, it is NOT a system of instruction), I think his point #2 establishes the need to stop using the term cue and to start discussing what information readers use with decoding. Most importantly, what information do readers use when the graph phonemic information fails to produce a meaningful word? That can sometimes be because the word is not spelled the way it sounds (irregular word). It can sometimes be because it is not in the reader’s current listening vocabulary. I’d especially like to clarify his views about this in light of the concept of set for variability.

Point 3 is one on which I hope teachers from many points of view can agree. Students should use grapho phonemic information first. Other information can be used to confirm the grapho phonemic information or, in the case of irregular words, can be used to start a problem-solving process.

Ground for Future Discussion

Point 4  indicates that establishing a “take-off point” or a “self-extending system” is less important than establishing practices that get us there. This misses a very important point. Folks like Mesmer indicate that using decodables is a temporary practice and should end fairly early in the reading process. Shanahan has indicated that those advocating using decodables for years and years and years based on “research” are simply making that stuff up. Ultimately, I think the time comes to take off the training wheels and start riding the bike on your own. We don’t want to under-scaffold or over-scaffold (see figure 1 at the start of this blog). I’ll end with the thought that I would like to continue the discussion with Dr. Goldenberg about the best ways to ensure we promote the creation of engaged readers. I think that is best done by allowing teachers to use both the art and science of reading to achieve that end.

I’m looking forward to the future discussions.

Happy Reading and Writing,

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

Lisa Stringfellow, Middle School Author/Teacher ©2025- An Interview by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Lisa Stringfellow is a middle-school teacher. She is also the author of two books for middle school children. As her biography indicates, she writes for her twelve-year-old self, the kid waiting to be the brown-skinned hero of an adventure, off saving the world. I had the pleasure of interviewing her about her upcoming appearances at the Write To Learn  Conference in Columbia, Missouri. She’ll be conducting three different workshops at the conference. We’ll talk more about that conference in a minute. Let’s first look at Lisa’s biography and what she had to say in her interview.

BIOGRAPHY

Here are the time-stamped talking points for the interview (so you can go to the sections that interest you the most first)

Here is a link to the U-Tube Interview:

Lisa’s Website LINK:

LINKS TO ORDER KINGDOM OF DUST- LINK                 

Final Thoughts

This is what Willy Wood (who is in charge of the Write to Learn Conference), had to say about this interview:

“It’s a quick YouTube video (13 minutes), so it won’t take much of your time. And if you’re like me, you’ll be captivated by how engaging (and knowledgeable) Lisa is.

After watching the interview, I’m confident you’ll want to sign up for as many of Lisa’s sessions as possible!”

I was definitely impressed by Lisa. It is amazing that in addition to being a full-time middle school teacher, she finds the time to write books and is willing to share those books with classrooms in person and through virtual visits. See her website for details. Her workshop topics for this conference will include:

 “Read Like a Writer: Engaging Readers and Writers Through Verse Novels”

“Using Social Justice-Themed Literature to Promote Student Advocacy”

 “Teachers as Writers: Creating a Classroom Writing Community”

So…, Lisa has many choices to pick from, and all are “hot topics.”  You can go to all three of the sessions if you want. A reminder that Lisa is not the only one presenting at Write To Learn– there are Over 50 practical, research-based breakout sessions, exhibits, and special events. There will also be contests and door prizes. I will be presenting at this conference as well. I hope to see many of you there!

Happy Reading and Writing,

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the center taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

For more information about Write To Learn, use this LINK:

Thanks to those who helped promote the last ILEC webinar last.  We had one of our largest number of registrants at 280.  Our next one is on the 21st. Hope to see you there.

Dr. Sam Bommarito, ILEC team

• Tuesday, January 21, 2025, at 7:00 PM, EST, 6:00 PM CST, 4:00 PM EST.

“Pushing Back Against Science of Reading Mandates: The California Story.”

Panel discussion by Dr. Barbara Flores, Dr. Edgar Lampkin, Dr. Jill Kerper Mora, and Dr. Esteban Díaz

We are limited to 500 participants. CEU certificates from Minnesota State University are available. Register in advance for this free webinar:

https://minnstate.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_bjKSXoVUTBSwGE_M2DnPdw