What works with one child doesn’t always work with another: The case for a nuanced approach to the teaching of reading by Dr. Sam Bommarito

I’ve spent the last 5 decades of my life in the reading field. I’ve taught reading in every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. Many of the programs I’ve worked with were among the most successful of their time. Back in the day, Frank Smith characterized the great debate around how reading should be taught as “The Never-Ending Debate.” Unfortunately, his assessment still applies to the current dialogue around the best ways to teach reading. But wait a minute, Dr. Sam. Hasn’t the science of reading settled all that? Don’t we now know “the answer,” thanks to SOR? The short answer is NO!

In recent years. I’ve written many blogs around the topic of SOR. Here is the upshot of what I’ve discovered:

1. After looking at ALL the research and what ALL the researchers have to say on the topic, I think the most sensible view about teaching reading is to view things as the Sciences of Reading. This LINK is to a blog entry/YouTube Video where I make the case for using the Sciences of Reading Perspective (Sciences with an s!)
2. I had the privilege of interviewing P.D. Pearson on the topic of the best ways to teach reading. The blog entry includes his thoughts and links to his extensive look into issues raised by SOR. This includes a free, well-researched book about this topic. He also talked about Scanlon’s large body of research, which supports including context clues as part of  teaching word recognition. LINK.
3. I’ve also interviewed both Dr. Andy Johnson LINK  and Dr. P.L Thomas LINK. Both these researchers have pushed back on what I have come to call the Social Media version of SOR. Dr. Johnson rightly points out that given that reading scores have been essentially flat for at least 3 decades, the claims of a “reading crisis” caused by Balanced Literacy simply do not hold up when all the research is considered.
4. It takes more than providing background knowledge to improve reading comprehension. LINK. The key to effective strategy instruction is to go beyond simply naming the strategy, describing the strategy or “practicing” the strategy. The key to effective strategy instruction is to learn how to internalize and use the strategy. 
5. Rather than looking at Balanced Literacy at its worst, essentially strawman versions of BL, we should be looking at both the strengths and weaknesses of Balanced Literacy. Let’s start looking at more than just strawman versions of BL practices like Guided Reading, Reading Recovery and Workshop teaching. LINK.
6. SOR is not the cure-all some make it out to be. Consider Bower’s findings LINK and the lack of progress in England despite 10 years of mandated systematic synthetic phonics instruction. On this side of the pond, some parents have begun to question the efficacy of some SOR-based programs LINK. Even SOR supporters like Shanahan have questioned some of the conclusions of what I have come to call the social media version of SOR. LINK, LINK.
7. In another blog, I reported that SOR advocates like Seidenberg said there comes a time when the need for direct, explicit instruction diminishes (ends?). His use of the term “achieve escape velocity” is revealing. In the end game of reading instruction, skilled readers “continue to increase reading skill, knowledge of language, knowledge of the world. Entirely implicit. No Teacher. Feedback is self-generated:” That sounds suspiciously like Clay’s self-extending system. Perhaps there is more common ground than we might think. LINK.

Most of my readers are familiar with the idea of the swinging pendulum in the discussions around best reading practices. In my time in the reading world, I’ve seen several swings from one extreme (overemphasis on phonics, underemphasis on comprehension) to the other (overemphasis on comprehension, underemphasis on phonics/decoding). Underlying these swings is the fact that “What works with one child doesn’t always work with another.” When we look at things through opposing sides (BL vs SOR) or other similar dichotomies, some children get left out, and some children are not served well by one approach or the other. When it becomes apparent the newest ways aren’t working for everyone, we shift yet again, and the pendulum continues to swing.

Lately I have seen some movement in online discussions toward looking at things in a more nuanced way. Leah Mermelstein makes this case in the following Facebook post LINK:

IN CONCLUSION:  The blog entry summarizes some of the things I’ve learned and talked about this year. As we get ready to move into the New Year, let’s consider adopting a more nuanced stance toward the teaching of reading. Adopting a curriculum should not be determined by folks pushing their products or approaches. It should be determined by local districts using ALL the research to locate methods and resources that best fit the needs of their particular students. It should involve empowering teachers to use those methods and resources in the spirit of carrying out the Art and Science of Reading LINK. Dare to dream.

Copyright 2024 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.

An overview of the newly released  Poetry Issue of The Missouri Reader  by Dr. Sam Bommarito

The Missouri Reader has been around for over 40 years. It started as a “paper journal.”  Now, we publish digitally. We have two issues each year. We are peer-reviewed, and over the years, our editorial board has included many highly qualified people (see the sidebar on the Table of Contents page of the journal). We publish many articles by well-known experts in the reading field. However, we also encourage teachers to publish, especially action research, book reviews, and app reviews. The last page of each issue explains how to submit an article for review. We are an official publication of the Missouri Literacy Association. Missouri Literacy Association is an ILA affiliate.

The newest issue of The Missouri Reader is out. Its focus is on the use of poetry in the teaching of reading. This issue joins two previous issues around that topic. The materials from the three issues will give teachers of all grades many ideas and effective FREE materials to work with.

A few reminders- The poetry issues were originally the brainchild of David Harrison. David is the Missouri poet laureate. Over the past few years, he has worked closely with folks like Tim Rasinski and George Heard. See the interview in the journal for details about that. He has written content-area poems that have been included in several recent publications co-authored with Rasinski and others.

One of the things to be aware of is that the effect sizes of teaching fluency are greater than effect sizes of teaching systematic phonics. Hansford reported on that in a paper found on Rasinski’s website LINK.

I mention this research not to suggest we replace systematic phonics with fluency instruction, I advocate using both. However, I don’t think that the tremendous impact fluency instruction can have on reading is as widely known as it should be. Please spread the word. Using poems provides the kind of instruction and practice students of all ages need to improve their fluency. Rasinski has said many times that fluency is the bridge to comprehension. It is an important, powerful bridge. The information from these special issues will help teachers include that bridge in their overall instruction.

Let’s have a look at the newest issue. Anyone with the following link can read the current issue for free; no special software is needed:

https://joom.ag/vfSd

This issue has several articles that talk about the nuts and bolts of using poetry to TEACH fluency. Kershaw & Gregory give us an overview of why poetry is effective.  Amos and Marcy’s The Poet’s Dozen, gives readers information on a dozen novels that provide great resources for teaching poetry. Altier’s article explains how students can create their own content area poems. Harrsion and Hurd give the story of how the Fluency Development Lesson evolved from a single day lesson to a semester long complete set of daily lessons.

Poems have the advantage of packing a lot of meaning into relatively short texts. Add to that the teaching move of creating content area themed poems and teachers will find they have a powerful set of materials to teach from. Don’t forget to explore the previous two poetry issues for more ideas and materials. LINK, LINK. We want to thank all the various authors who have contributed to these issues.

Part of our way of distributing The Missouri Reader is using what we call “word of cyberspace.” We ask our readers to share the links to the magazine with other readers. As a result, we are now read all around the world. So, if you like what you see in these issues, please share the links. They’re all free. THANKS!

So, until next week, Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2024 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.

A Centrist Perspective on What Tim Shanahan Had to Say in his latest blog post: Analyzing SOR 2.0 by Dr. Sam Bommarito

The “my way or the highway” views expressed by what I call the social media version of SOR are not the only views being shared in the SOR community. I’ve already talked about Seidenberg’s latest pronouncements indicating that while direct, explicit phonics instruction (synthetic phonics instruction) is needed in the early stages of reading development,  readers eventually need to have the focus of instruction shift from explicit to implicit instruction. He called this “achieving escape velocity”.  I wrote an entire blog about this point and how this take-off point is seen by many to correspond to what Clay called a self-extending system LINK. I call this newest vision of SOR,  SOR 2.0.  I see Shanahan’s latest blog as an example of the kind of thinking that goes into SOR 2.0.

Tim Shanahan has a long-standing friendship and collaboration with Tim Rasinski. Tim Rasinski co-authors the book Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading. In that book, Tim and his co-authors maintain that teaching is both an Art and a Science. In a recent Facebook post, Leah Mermelstein called what Shanahan had to say in his post a nuanced point of view. I agree with Leah. Let’s look at the post to see what is involved in that nuanced point of view.

LINK to the blog.

Here are a few key excerpts from Shanahan’s blog.

“Science may contribute to that, but it will never be sufficient. Art must have a place.”

“Maybe we educators start from a better spot. Witness Chase Young, David Paige, and Tim Rasinski’s book, Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading. That title certainly argues for a unity in this regard.”

“Yes, with research, we can identify potentially positive practices. What we can’t do is tell teachers how best to implement these insights in real classrooms. Having everyone mindlessly read a purpose-setting script at the start of a lesson may be a no-brainer. Noticing that some kids neglect that purpose, seems more in the realm of art.”

“Science and art are both about trying to maximize student learning. (bolding is mine)

Science powerfully identifies what has been proven to be workable. I believe only foolish educators would ignore the valuable insights it offers. But those educators must recognize that these findings cannot be implemented successfully without a lot of effort aimed at making them work.

Art, on the other hand, includes everything else that teachers do to increase success. For me, William Faulkner’s definition of art is best: “Art means anything consciously well done.” That’s where patience, careful listening, empathy, rapport, clarity, and persistence come in. Knowing when to double down and when to back off. Implementing a science of reading successfully requires a thoughtful dose of such ingredients – items that may not have shown up in the research study, but which certainly were in the classrooms with the greatest learning.

Remember the old commercial? “Peanut butter and chocolate, chocolate and peanut butter, two great flavors that taste great together.”

Perhaps we need to hire an advertising exec to come up with something like, “Art and science, science and art… two great sources of success that work great together.” (bolding is mine) I doubt that will sell anything, but its heart is in the right place.”

My thoughts about Shanahan’s blog entry.

I’m not saying that Shanahan and Seidenberg view themselves as centrists. I am saying that the ideas they have expressed lately (what I have dubbed SOR 2.0) hold out hope that taking a centrist approach is not only plausible but also ones that I would highly recommend. We may yet be able to find common ground using common sense. Here is the chart I use to explain what I think the centrist approach is all about.

We must all recognize that, over the years,  no one approach has given us all the answers. There is no one science of reading. There is only the Sciences of Reading and all that that implies LINK. As Shanahan rightly points out, the teacher should not have carte blanche to leave out instruction, especially in teaching phonics. On the other hand, I think that the questions of how and when to implement particular practices is clearly part of the art of teaching. We need laws that empower teachers, not restrict them. We need to take the kind of nuanced view about this subject that folks like Shanahan seem to be embracing. Dare to dream!

So, until next week, Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2024 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.

Happy Thanksgiving from Dr. Sam Bommarito

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. In these times of trouble, it is important that we still take time to find the things to be thankful for. I am thankful that I was able to have friends and family over for a wonderful Thanksgiving Day.  I will see you next week.

Dr. Sam

Dr. Noella M. Mackenzie talks about the new edition of her book Understanding and Supporting Young Writers from Birth to 8, an interview by Dr. Sam Bommarito

The connection between reading and writing instruction is well-known and well-documented. Helping kids learn the strategies to become good writers also helps them become good readers. I remember when I first learned that good readers learn to read like writers. I began seeing the writing craft contained in all the things I read. I began thinking of myself as a writer, something I’d never done in my early teaching career. Over the years, I’ve learned from experts like Lucy Calkins, Katie Ray Woods, Isoke Nia, Leah Mermelstein, Gravity Goldberg, Janet Steinberg, Ralph Fletcher and others. Taking advantage of the symbiotic relationship between reading and writing has helped me help my kids. Today, I’m adding one more expert to the list of folks who help teachers to do just that. Her name is Dr. Noella Mackenzie. She is a widely published professor from Australia. See the biography below for details. She has spent a lifetime teaching teachers the benefits of teaching their kids how to write. She has also helped teachers to overcome their fears about teaching writing. The main audience for her work has been in Australia. I thought it important to share her ideas and resources with an American audience. She just released the second edition of her book, Understanding and Supporting Young Writers from Birth to 8. In today’s interview, she talks about that book and the ideas and resources from that book. Her biography and the YouTube interview now follow:

BIOGRAPHY

Dr Noella Mackenzie is an Associate Professor (adjunct) in the School of Education at Charles Sturt University, NSW, Australia. She is also a Senior Fellow with the Australian Literacy Educators Association (ALEA) and an independent consultant. Noella is an experienced literacy educator and researcher. Her research has focused on teachers and the learning and teaching of multimodal text creation, the relationship between drawing, talking and writing, and the transition from drawing to writing. Noella has worked in both California and Canada, been on study trips to Finland, Scotland and New Zealand, and has presented keynotes at conferences as far afield as Iceland. She has co-edited three books, written numerous invited chapters and published many papers in professional and research journals.

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:

Link to the book: LINK

Link to Website (contains resources explained in the interview): LINK  

Link to her blog: LINK

My Thoughts about the interview:

The folks in the United States are not the only people concerned about the issue of best practices in teaching reading and writing. I thought my readers would enjoy a fresh perspective on that topic. I find several encouraging things in Dr. Mackenzie’s work. Her blog posts around literacy issues add new ideas and information. The resources from her book and the free resources from her webpage will give teachers many useful things they can “use on Monday.” Dr. Mackenzie has done many keynote speeches. She shared that duty with Tim Shanahan in one of her recent ones. She reported that there was common ground and common research-based practices in their two presentations. In addition, she is hopeful that ideas like Seidenberg’s take-off point, where he says there needs to be a transition from explicit to implicit instruction, open up the possibility that the discussions can lead to greater agreement. As a centrist, this encourages me to continue to make my readers aware of several ideas and possibilities.

So, until next week, Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2024 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.

Highlights from my presentations at the MARRE conference: In Defense of Balanced Approaches to Literacy by Dr. Sam Bommarito

This week, the MARRE (Missouri Associations of Reading Recovery Educators) conference was held in Springfield, Mo.

I had the honor of making two presentations at the conference, and I would like to share some highlights of what I said about the importance of having a balanced approach to literacy. This was from my first presentation:

I explained that, as a centrist, I believe that going to extremes is not the best path to literacy. Overdo phonics, and you create word callers. Overdo meaning, and you create word guessers. The best path is to include elements of both. That way, you can create engaged lifelong readers.

Meaning Matters:

There is really more to comprehension than building background knowledge. As Shanahan points out, focusing comprehension instruction solely on building background knowledge ignores many issues and studies.

I talked about the Science of Reading comprehension and the many resources available to implement that science,

I talked about how developing fluency does not automatically lead to developing comprehension.

I also talked about Reading Recovery Teachers’ success in creating students who are readers, not just word callers. Reading Recovery has a strong research base and record of success if you look at all the research.

The folks at this session learned how to make elevator statements. They created and shared those statements. Here is a sample of one (used with permission)

In the other session, we discussed how to Sing and Perform Your Way into fluency.

Based on the work of folks like Tim Rasinski, Chase Young and Eric Litwin, we shared ideas about resources for sing-alongs and readers theatre. We also broke into groups and performed some Readers Theatre pieces.

We shared research showing the power of repeated reading.

We shared a new book by Rasinski et al., which gives you everything you need to implement a Fluency Development Lesson (including word ladders, content area poems, and more!).

I want to thank the MARRE board for the opportunity to give these presentations, and of course, I’d like to thank all the RR folks for their enthusiastic participation in these events. These highlights provide many ideas to unpack. If you want copies of the full presentations, write to me at bommaritosam@yahoo.com with the subject line Springfield.

Happy Reading and Writing,

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

Copyright 2024 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.

Let’s Use Common Sense to Find More Common Ground in the Reading Wars by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Next week, I’m off to the MARRE Conference, where I will speak about the current state of the world of reading. I’m also scheduled to speak at the Write to Learn Conference in the spring on the same topic. Both these conferences are held in my home state of Missouri. Considering the current polarized state of our country, does it still make sense to try to find common ground in the various positions folks are taking on the important issue of best ways to teach reading? I think it does. I think it does because the fact remains that different kids have different needs. If we ignore that fact and try to go to one-size-fits-all approaches, we are bound to help some kids and not help others. Consider this quote from a Washington Post Newspaper article LINK. The authors of that article are all top researchers in the literacy field and are convinced that taking polarized positions hurts kids in the long run.

Nuanced. Remember that word

That is why, when it comes to reading wars, I am a centrist, and I continue to be a centrist. What do I mean by the term centrist? This is taken from one of the slides I’ll be using in my upcoming presentations:

Let’s remember there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that failure to include enough phonics instruction can result in students having ongoing problems reading LINK. It is clear that for various reasons, many students didn’t get the kind of instruction they needed. However, it has also become increasingly clear that the jury is still out on what constitutes a strong and appropriate phonics program. There is also doubt about what constitutes an effective program for promoting comprehension.

SOR is not the monolithic group that some make it out to be. Some SOR advocates call for using speech-to-print phonics rather than print-to-speech phonics, which synthetic phonics advocates champion. LINK

On the other hand, it is clear that the use of synthetic phonics is not the cure-all it is sometimes made out to be. Synthetic phonics does improve decoding but does not always produce gains in comprehension. A number of folks have found the exclusive use of synthetic phonics questionable. They base their concerns on things like the less than stellar results using that approach has had in England over the last decade. LINK.

For yet another view about things, consider these two slides from Seidenberg’s presentation at the Accelerated Literacy Conference this summer. (Here is a link to more information about that conference LINK).

I interpret what Seidenberg is getting at in these two slides as follows: He is saying there comes a time when the need for direct, explicit instruction diminishes (ends?). His use of the term “achieve escape velocity” is revealing. In the end game of reading instruction, skilled readers “continue to increase reading skill, knowledge of language, knowledge of the world. Entirely implicit. No Teacher. Feedback is self-generated:” (bolding is mine).

It is in this newest development that I find some hope. If one views the extremes of the current reading wars discussion, one group essentially underemphasizes phonics and overdoes comprehension. The other group overemphasizes phonics and underemphasizes comprehension. The time has come for those of us in the center to say both sides are right AND both sides are wrong. If we make our voices heard on this point, there may be real hope for finally finding a middle ground, a common ground we can all agree on.

At the start of this essay, I reminded the readers of the importance of the word nuanced. We need a nuanced approach. What fits one child and one group of children doesn’t necessarily fit the other. Folks have to consider ALL the research. They must see how that research might best be applied in their particular settings. In sum, both sides (all sides) have gotten some things right and some things wrong. I strongly feel that we must reject each side’s extreme views and start conversations about what works for each child.

I will explore that topic in depth at these upcoming conferences. After doing those presentations, I’ll have much more to say about finding common ground. I think we can and will find it if we are willing to avoid extremes and move to the center. Dare to dream.

So until next week- Happy Reading AND WRITING!

Dr. Sam (the guy in the middle happily taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2024 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s view and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Don’t forget to vote by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Before I was a reading teacher and a reading professor, I taught government and history at a high school for five years and was also a small-town alderman for six years. So, over the years, I’ve learned many lessons about why voting matters. Please take the time on or before Nov. 3rd to let your voice be heard.

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

Copyright 2024 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Leah Mermelstein talks about her latest work in promoting reading/writing connections: An Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

I’ve known Leah for a couple of decades. She has had a stellar professional career. My last interview with her was carried out several years ago when her book We Do Writing was first published. A lot has happened since then. She provides professional development for teachers, nationally and internationally. She is a go-to person for implementing instruction based on the reading/writing connections. For me, she epitomizes what I look for in folks taking a centrist point of view. As you will see in the interview, she discusses the pros and cons of different positions folks are taking regarding best ways to teach literacy. She talks about both the strengths and weaknesses of those positions. She does so through a teacher’s perspective, giving concrete advice about how teachers can help their students develop the wide range of literacy skills and strategies they need. She does so with research-based, easy-to-follow teaching moves. She provides a treasure trove of reading resources for teachers. Before looking at what she had to say in the interview, let’s look at Leah’s biography.

Biography

Leah Mermelstein is a literacy thought leader, published author, and passionate writing, reading, and language development authority.

For the past 25 years she has provided professional development for teachers, nationally and internationally, translating literacy research and data into successful and impactful classroom application. Leah helps teachers connect the learning dots so students realize and reach their full potential.

Leah holds a Master’s in Cultural Diversity and Curriculum Reform and a Bachelor’s of Science in Education from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She’s a graduate of the Science of Reading Academy and is trained in Sounds-Write. She also earned a supervisory license from Rowan University. She has authored five instructional literacy books focused on deconstructing the reading and writing process and how to leverage reading to support writing and writing to support reading. Leah lives in Hoboken, New Jersey with her daughter. She can be reached at www.leahmermelstein.com or leah@leahmermelstein.com.

Now it is time to have a look at the interview. Here are the Talking Points from the Interview

Here is the YouTube interview:

Link to Leah’s book:  Leah’s Book

THE WE-DO MODEL

FOR INFORMATION ABOUT LEAH’S MANY RESOURCES– write me directly at bommaritosam@yahoo.com. Include the words “Leah’s Books & Services.” I will send you a PDF with links to Leah’s books, websites and other resources.

My thoughts about Leah’s work:

I’ve written many times about moving between the extreme views about teaching reading- exclusively synthetic phonics taught through direct instruction vs. no phonics or analytic phonics taught through discovery methods. I’ve long maintained that going to either of these extremes results in pendulum swings. That is because while each of these extremes meets the needs of some readers, neither meets the needs of all readers. Also, focusing mainly (sometimes exclusively) on how decoding is taught ignores the incredibly important issue of comprehension. A complete view of reading instruction must include both decoding and meaning-making. One needs to take elements from both extremes in order to do that. I think what Leah had to say in the interview clearly does that.

Instead of using a one-size-fits-all all approach with the schools she partners with, Leah uses a nuanced approach. With each partner, she carries on this dialogue, and they create programs based on research, including things they have learned from the national conversation. The end results of this dialogue vary. Some sites have adapted their workshop models, and some sites have changed models completely, and it’s worked for them. For me, the important takeaway here is that each site has created a research-based program for their district that works for them. Fortunately, Leah is working in states where this is still possible. An unfortunate development on the national scene is that in many states, one-size-fits-all programs are being mandated, and in some places, programs are being effectively banned despite the fact they work LINK. Leah’s path means that instead of clinging to one approach no matter what, Leah and her partners are open to nuanced dialogue about their programs. They are open to changing those programs when necessary. It seems to me that this path is much better than the path some states are now taking. That point is definitely a topic that will be explored further in future blog posts.

I was also impressed by the fact that Leah’s thoughts around current issues in literacy, issues like the use of decodables, recognize that we must listen to and act on what ALL the research is showing us about such materials. Rather than rejecting decodables out of hand, as some do, she helps teachers find a path to use them. The examples she uses in the interview clearly demonstrate how applying ideas around the concepts of a set for variability and self-teaching theory clearly impacted the practices of the teachers she works with. Her focus on watching the impact the program being developed is having on students is one that is well worth considering. I would add that her approach allows programs to be tailored to fit the local populations and doing that is the key to why Leah and her partners are successful in what they do. They do take the time to find out the answers to the questions she is always asking her teachers:

1. What students are learning? (How do we know)
2. What are their confusions?
3. What can we do to untangle those confusions?

I want to highlight something Leah said at 13:09 on the YouTube recording. She said, “That’s something I’ve always known since I was a baby teacher- that students don’t have to learn everything explicitly. They need to learn enough to figure out the rest through reading and writing.”

In conclusion, we should all consider Leah’s idea of dialoguing instead of fighting. The nuanced path to literacy she and her partners are on includes something I’ve long been advocating- Use all the research. Give control back to the districts. Allow districts to use what they learn to develop programs that best serve their kids. After all, they know their students the best. Dare to dream!

So until next week- Happy Reading AND WRITING!

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

Copyright 2024 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s view and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Dr. Danny Brassel talks about bringing joy back into education & the teaching of reading. An Interview with Dr. Sam Bommarito

.

Introduction

I first met Dr. Danny Brassel at the Write to Learn Conference several years ago. He is the kind of speaker teachers look for at such conferences- the kind that gives you things you can use on Monday when you get back from the conference. He was both entertaining and informative. I noticed on social media that he had just written a new book and has been championing the cause of bringing joy back into the teaching of reading. I was thrilled when he agreed to be interviewed about his newest endeavors in this area. Let’s take a quick look at his biography.

BIOGRAPHY

Here is the YouTube VIDEO of the interview:

Free gifts from Danny.Com LINK.

Link to Danny’s newest book, Bringing JOY Back into Education

 LINK

My thoughts about this interview:

When I do my conference presentations, I often bill them as the “land of a thousand takeaways.” Teachers need ideas and the resources to carry out those ideas. Danny’s interview perfectly exemplifies the “land of a thousand takeaways.”

His core ideas are simple enough. If you want students to read, give them books (comic books, magazines, short stories) about things that are meaningful to them. Choose the things in which they have the most interest. Find the time to include those in your daily teaching routine. He has given us a treasure trove of such stories by giving us a free PDF copy of his book Read, Lead and Succeed. I can’t wait for his soon-to-be-released as yet unnamed book to come out. In it, he has promised to give us high-interest stories about a more diverse group of people. As a teacher who has worked with grades K-graduate school, I recognize that teachers of the youngest students may need different kinds of short passages. I would look to resources from folks like Tim Rasinski LINK. In the past few weeks, I’ve been exploring the value of songs, poems and nursery rhymes as sources for daily read-alouds. Included is the practice of using a daily read-aloud of materials with short, high-interest passages that pack a lot of bang for the buck. This practice can easily supplement any reading program.

I especially enjoyed Danny’s explaining the conditions necessary to create new habits. In point of fact it takes an average of 67 exposures to establish a new habit. He also wants teachers and students to establish reading habits daily. He also points out the major benefit of reading self-selected materials for at least 20 minutes daily. Such readings need not be consecutive minutes. All this leads to the possibility of implementing such time as “sponge activities,” meaning that teachers can fit such activities into time during the day that might otherwise be wasted. Last week, I gave the example of having passages ready to read aloud in case a class cuts in front of you at the lunch line. That can happen sometimes.

I would also urge readers to explore Danny’s five-day reading challenge for parents. It is full of easy-to-implement ideas that will help their children develop daily reading habits. One example of such an idea is to have parents turn on close captioning on their TV. He talks about how successful that idea has been in places like Finland.

Over the next few weeks, I will continue to explore the idea of bringing joy back into the teaching of reading. Next up will be an interview with Leah Mermelstein. I think she will provide another treasure trove of teaching ideas. I’ll leave you with this thought. Meaning matters. It is important that the content of materials we use to teach reading is meaningful. I urge teachers to ensure that this is the case for as many of your materials as possible and to take advantage of the practice of including supplemental high-interest materials. So, until next week:

Happy Reading and Writing.  

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

Copyright 2024 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.