Originally published June 12, 2023.  Republished with permission of Dr. Sam Bommarito, author of Dr. Sam 7, Seeking Ways to Grow Proficient, Motivated, Lifelong Readers & Writers: https://doctorsam7.blog/2023/06/12/about-literacy-instruction-a-letter-to-the-new-york-times-by-dr-sam-bommarito/

To whom it may concern,

I have been in education for over five decades and have taught every grade from Kindergarten to Graduate school. I currently work as an education consultant and write a weekly blog about literacy. One important thing I have learned all this time is that what works with one child doesn’t always work with another. One size fits all solutions have never faired well. Yet recent articles and podcasts by the Times seem to support the notion that the social media version of Science of Reading has found such a solution and that folks like Lucy Calkins have done more harm than good. That makes for great public relations, especially for companies selling the alleged silver bullets. However, it is based on very bad science. It is bad science because it is incomplete science. It is bad science because it fails to consider all the research.

First, many top researchers have challenged the notion that it’s all settled science and that a silver bullet is ready for use. These researchers include P.D. Pearson, George G. Hruby, Rachel Gabriel, P.L. Thomas and Amanda Goodwin. Goodwin is the current co-editor of the prestigious Reading Research Quarterly. In a recent interview, she said

“But their RRQ article, Donna Scanlon, and Kimberly Anderson review 25 years of rigorous experimental studies in which kids were given systematic phonics instruction and also taught to use context cues to help them when they struggle to sound out words. And they found that kids tend to become more successful readers when they get both kinds of instruction, compared to those who get phonics alone. In short, they found that more resources are better. It’s self-defeating to insist on an either-or choice between phonics and context cueing, as though these practices were at war with each other. It’s much more helpful to treat them as complementary.”

By the way, one of the cornerstones of the social media version of SOR is to ban the use of context clues. That is part of their proposed ban on MSV. Please note that Goodman is not saying to abandon systematic phonics. She is saying that kids need both systematic phonics and the problem-solving approach Scanlon and Anderson use.

Second is SOR’s notion that everything that has come before in literacy instruction has failed to work and must be replaced. Balanced literacy doesn’t work. Folks like Lucy Calkins are vilified. Some SOR advocates claim she and others like her are hurting kids. But look at all the research before buying into that. Tim Pressley just published the 5^th edition of the book explaining and defending balanced literacy. That book contains much research-based evidence showing that Balanced Literacy can work and that it includes systematic phonics. Lucy has been incorrectly identified as the inventor of Balanced Literacy. The claim is made that Balanced Literacy teachers don’t teach phonics. It was actually the late Michael Pressley who invented the term Balanced Literacy. His son, Tim Pressley, just published the 5^th edition of the book about Balanced Literacy. There is plenty of evidence in that book that claims of failure are simply not true. The SOR folks are taking on a strawman version of Balanced Literacy rather than trying to deal with the real thing.   In addition, regarding successful teaching using workshop, the ink isn’t dry on research showing that workshop works before the attacks on the data start. The attacks discount and discredit studies using criteria for success that are much more stringent than those being used to judge the research supporting their stance.

Third, the research supporting their stance is equivocal. LTRS training is not even close to a cure-all, yet the research demonstrating that is ignored. For years, England has used synthetic phonics- the SOR fleet’s flagship-. Yet a recent landmark study found it is not working. P.D. Pearson, one of the top literacy researchers of all time, has said all the SOR folks have really demonstrated is the ability to improve performance on word list tests. When it comes to improving comprehension, they have simply been unable to demonstrate that. Comprehension is the Achilles heel of the social media SOR movement.

Fourth- the claims of success made by these SOR advocatesin places like Florida and Mississippi have also been challenged. In a recent blog post-Diane, Ravitch explained how the NAEP scores are arbitrarily manipulated to uphold failure claims. Both she and P.L. Thomas have carried out work that shows the “miracle gains” in 3^rd-grade reading scores disappear in later grades. These gains are partly due to the retention of 3^rd graders, which temporarily boosts scores by removing them from the testing pool and giving them a second chance to take the test. Doing so actually hurts those students. The research shows they are more likely to drop out of high school. It also shows that kids who are not retained do just as well as the ones who are. Add to that the facts that it costs extra money to keep those kids in the system for one more year and that children of color are more likely to be retained. Given problems with the practice of using retention to raise scores, one must conclude it is a practice that should be ended. One more thing- Ravitch also points out that other improvements made in Mississippi, e.g., more funding, and smaller class sizes, may have played a significant role in raising the scores. Current reporting is silent on that point, giving credit only to using SOR.

In conclusion, why are we letting public relations spin doctors shape literacy policy while ignoring what major researchers have to say? For several years now, I have championed taking a centrist position. That means using the best of ALL sides. My position is rooted in P.D. Pearson’s idea of the “Radical Middle,” a position which he continues to develop. This is not a call to keep the old ways. It is, instead, a call to do something we’ve never done in the history of reading. Instead of listening to the folks on the extremes (phonics vs. no phonics), let’s adopt a middle-ground approach. Let’s use ALL the research, not just the research that sells particular phonics programs. Perhaps we can learn a lesson from recent events where taking a centrist position avoided a national calamity in the financial world. I’m calling on the Times and other media to report the whole story, not just the story the social media spin doctors want told. Let’s hear from folks like Pearson, Ravitch, Gabriel, P.L. Thomas, and others. Let’s take what they have to say more seriously. Perhaps then we can finally use ideas from all sides to stop pendulum swings in literacy discussions. Perhaps we can learn from one another. Dare to Dream.

Dr. Sam Bommarito

Reading Teacher

National Reading Consultant

The guy in the middle taking flak from all sides.

---

Dr. Sam Bommarito began his teaching career in 1970. During his career, he has taught every grade K-graduate school. His educational roles have included being a Title I reading teacher, Title I staff developer, Reading Recovery Teacher, and University professor. He is currently a national reading consultant and has presented at numerous local, state, and national reading conventions. Dr. Sam tweets about educational issues daily (@doctorsam7) and blogs weekly about reading (DoctorSam7.blog).

---