By Dr. Sam Bommarito

The reading wars have become more inflamed in the past few weeks. With recent podcasts and other posts, the social media branch of the Science of Reading has doubled down on its pronouncements that Balanced Literacy is at the root of today’s reading problems. The suggestion has been made that major publishers like Heineman are in it for the money, and they are selling products they know are inferior. That makes for a great public relations campaign. It makes for terrible science. Please consider the following:

• It is not settled science.

Researchers talking to the Washington Post say that it is not settled science LINK, P.L. Thomas says it is not settled science LINK. Most importantly, The Executive Summary of the Reading Research Quarterly says we are not there yet to establish a Science of Reading. LINK. Given all that,  common sense says the claim by Moats and her followers that it is settled and that they represent the one and only SOR is not justified.

• There are problems with the social media version of SOR

Moats’ approach makes almost exclusive use of synthetic phonics. Analytic phonics is ignored or viewed as an inferior approach. There is considerable evidence that programs based on Moat’s approach don’t work for all kids. The Hechinger Report found OG isn’t a magic bullet LINK. A full decade of using synthetic phonics in England has had equivocal results LINK. Reports from Australia indicate that some children don’t progress even after years of synthetic phonics LINK. The research backing up claims of SOR success often uses weak standards LINK. Common sense dictates that we have other things ready when SOR fails to do the job for selected groups of children.  

• Through podcasts and other social media posts, critics of Balanced Literacy have carried out vicious attacks claiming BL has failed. Their attacks totally misrepresent what BL is about. Their data “proving” BL doesn’t work doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. Too often, the attacks are based on complete misrepresentations of the actual facts LINK. Also, despite research around the long-term negative impact of retention,  LINK, LINK, LINK, they laude the success of literacy programs like the one in Florida, which include retention as part of the program.

What is Balanced Literacy? Consider this excerpt from the 5^th edition of Michael Pressley’s upcoming book.

“.. The cover of this book states that the topic is balanced reading instruction, a term that has recently become associated with meaning emphasis or whole-language approaches to teaching reading. I urge readers not to make that assumption, as this book does not fully support meaning-emphasis (whole language) or skills-emphasis instruction (phonics); it rather pulls the research for the many components required of reading and presents the most effective instructional approaches based on reading research…” (bolding is mine)

For a complete view of BL and what is really done in BL,  readers are also invited to read Fisher & Fry’s book about Balanced Literacy LINK.  

The story currently being told on social media claims that districts have been buying programs that don’t work for decades. Common sense dictates that even the most gullible folks would never keep buying things that don’t work over that length of time. There is plenty of data showing that BL works for many students LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK.

• To some degree, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

We’ll begin with the thought that both BL and the constellation of practices encouraged by SOR help some but not all. My dissertation focused on the last round of the reading wars. One of my committee members had an important insight into those wars. He said, “Sam, the reading wars have never really been about phonics vs. no phonics. They have always been about my phonics (analytic) vs. your phonics (synthetic). During the ensuing years (2000-present), many districts adopted programs that favored analytic phonics (meaning emphasis) approaches and deemphasized synthetic phonics (code emphasis)—doing things that way WAS NOT a complete failure. Kids were getting phonics. Analytic phonics did work for many of them. But it did not meet the needs of all the children.

I am critical of both “sides.” We have tried (or we are trying) both ways of teaching phonics and found both helped some but not others. We are at a crossroads. If we go to either extreme (mainly meaning emphasis)  or the other (mainly code emphasis), some children will not be helped. Common sense dictates that we must find a way to provide both approaches to phonics and give each child the kind of phonics instruction that is most likely to help. That is a topic for a future blog.

• There is more to comprehension than providing background LINK. Teaching comprehension strategies requires the use of the time-consuming gradual release model. Yet some SOR advocates call for reducing the amount of time that we spend teaching comprehension strategies. Duke’s work around the Active Reading Model and the Sciences of Reading is compelling LINK, LINK. It makes more sense than the “provide background knowledge & all will be well” approach.

• The weaponization of research. Some folks use the SOR label in order to sell a particular program. See what Jorden Page says in this blog entry LINK. Also, consider Rachel Gabriel’s thoughts on this topic LINK.

.

Finding common ground and common practices.

I’ve often explained my centrist point of view LINK and my concept of a Reading Evolution LINK. They are rooted in P.D. Pearson’s concept of “The Radical Middle” LINK. I want to take special note of something Pearson said in that paper:

“In educational research, more generally, I find the debate about qualitative versus quantitative research about as compelling as the new phonics versus whole language debate. I cannot imagine why any field of inquiry would want to limit itself to a single set of tools and practices. Even though I find both debates interesting and professionally useful, I fear the ultimate outcome of both, if they continue unbridled by saner heads, will be victory for one side or another. That, in my view, would be a disastrous outcome, either for reading pedagogy or educational research…”

The common sense solution of cutting through the Gordian Knot around the issue of how to best teach reading is to use the best ideas from all sides.  

Doing that is the key to identifying common ground. Districts must create a curriculum first, find materials and programs to fit it and implement it. The key to making that implementation happen is informed, empowered teachers working within that curriculum. Districts must be allowed to create a curriculum that fits their particular children the best. They should not be forced to buy expensive programs that may or may not fit their needs, especially since research-based alternatives are available. LINK.

So as I first said four years ago- it’s time to walk the centrist path and create a Reading Evolution. Dare to dream!

Dr. Bommarito has a 51-year career in education, teaching every grade from K through graduate school. He has served as chair of both the St. Louis and the Missouri ILA affiliates. He’s made numerous presentations at ILA (formally IRA) conferences, including national conferences. In spring 2022, he was a featured speaker at the LitCon conference. the main speaker at Albany New York’s ILA conference. Most of his career was spent working in Title 1 buildings as a reading specialist and/or staff developer. He has a weekly blog about literacy https://doctorsam7.blog/

By Patty McGee

Grammar.  The word alone harkens deep emotions in many of us. We all have a grammar story to tell.  My grammar story has diagramming sentences as its main character. Raise your hand if you loved this exercise.  I know I sure did!  I was stellar at horizontal lines holding the subject and predicate, tagging below on diagonal lines the other parts of speech, the adjective below the subject, the adverb below the predicate, and on down the page with more and more sophisticated usage.  

The problem was I had no idea how to transfer that know-how into my actual writing in order to inject it with power, purpose, and craft.  My personal experience is indicative of the central core of failed grammar instruction: grammar learning is oftentimes siloed so far away from writing that the leap is just too much for students to make. I offer you five instructional moves to ensure grammar and writing instruction stay up close and personal. 

Move #1: Expand the Definition of Grammar

In many cases, grammar is perceived in a prescriptive approach, which includes a set of rules to follow that we learn through identifying parts of speech and sentence types. Instead,  let’s redefine grammar in a transformational manner as a set of tools that a writer uses to mold, construct, and shape their writing. I liken grammar to the artist’s paintbrush or the whittler’s blade. The more we know how to use grammar, the more we are able to sculpt our writing to amplify our voice.

Move #2:  Teach Grammar in Units of Study

When we give students time to explore a set of related grammar concepts over an extended period of time, we build grammar know-how while creating ample opportunities to use this in their writing.  Here are a few tips for creating a grammar unit:

1. Remember that a true study gives learners the chance to question, hypothesize, seek answers, experiment, memorize, seek feedback, and reflect. Create 5-10 minute pockets of time, three to five times per week to study grammar.  Mix up the time to include a variety of these experiences.
2. Go deep with a focus area. For example, spend an entire unit on a sentence study exploring, playing with, and using simple, compound, and complex sentences (I suggest always starting a series of grammar units with a foundational unit on sentences).  
3. In each unit, follow the research on the three phases of learning which includes surface learning, deep learning, and transfer (Hattie 2008).  In phase one, surface learning, study the grammatical concept in mentor texts.  Notice how writers use, let’s say, different sentence structures.  Then study those sentence structures across time.  Practice using those sentence structures with partners.  In the last part of the unit, set up time to transfer these new skills into writing.  Be sure to revisit these new skills in writing across many text types across the year.

Move #3:  Prioritize Usage

The ultimate goal of grammar instruction is for students to use grammar effectively in their writing.  Take, for example, this piece from a primary student.  I have labeled the way this student used grammar.

Without knowing this student, I am confident that she was probably not saying to herself, “Let me begin this piece using a sentence with correct subject/verb agreement in the simple past tense.”  She did, however, do just that!  With a focus on usage, students are more likely to incorporate what they are learning into their writing.

Move #4:  Teach Grammar Strategically

When students are taught how to strategically use grammar, they are more likely to eventually master those concepts.  When teaching strategically, create an anchor chart that includes a step-by-step on how to use the grammar concept in writing. Model in your own writing so learners can envision what each step looks like.  It may look like this chart:

Move #5:  Build in time to play

Playful grammar?  Yes, please!  One way to play with grammar is to use Grammar Word Cards.  These cards are a collection of different parts of speech, endings, and punctuation. Here’s how to use them:

1. After printing out the cards, laminate so they will last for a long time.  Then cut the words out. Put in a baggie or envelope.
2. Create partnerships or trios of students.  Ensure there are enough bags of words for each partnership or trio.  So if there are 20 students in your class, be sure to have about 10-word bags.
3. Challenge students to use the Grammar Word Cards in different ways.  You might say:
   1. Build a compound sentence
   2. Build a compound sentence with words in alphabetical order
   3. Build a simple sentence that is more than ten words long
   4. Build a few simple sentences.  Combine them into a compound sentence.  Try to make them into a complex sentence.

Tip!  In lieu of correcting students if their attempts are off-base, challenge students to find and correct the error.  For example, if there is a comma missing in a compound sentence say, “That is almost a compound sentence. There’s one more thing you need.” Encourage students to problem solve.

These five simple yet powerful instructional moves will have a huge impact on how students use grammar as their artistic tool to mold, construct, and shape their writing. 

Go teach grammar brilliantly!

Learn more about Patty McGee- Click here!

   By: Travis Crowder

I watched as he finished his book, then stared at the cover.

            After several moments, he glanced around the room and caught my eyes. We need to talk, his expression said. So, I maneuvered my way through the tangled mass of readers to check in with him.

            Last school year marked my seventh year in 7^th grade. At the year’s end, I was asked to move back to 8^th grade, practically looping with many of the kids I had taught and returning to the grade level where I started my career. I knew this reader because I had watched him advance from formulaic to complex narrative structures the year before, finding his way into books with multiple narrators and novels written in verse. Last week, he had already finished his first book, and this was his second. Now, he needed to talk.

“Hey, John, what did you think of the book?” I asked.

His response was laced with emotion and reflective thinking. He told me about characters, motivations, and why he loved the book. At the end of our conversation, he admitted, “I would not have been ready for this book last year. Now, I’m more interested in nonfiction. I want to read more like this.” So we looked at his to-read list and other books in the classroom library related to the one he had just finished. He found one and settled into it during the last precious moments of independent reading.

Earlier in my teaching life, I leaned toward teacher-centric approaches to teaching reading. I viewed my role in a traditional way: students read books, poems, informational texts, and short stories and answered the questions I generated. I graded their answers, went over them in class, then introduced another text that I massacred with more questions. When I started reading professional texts, the ideas I found in them challenged how I thought about reading and thinking about texts alongside students. Response—the thoughts, reactions, feelings, wonderings and noticings readers have about texts—seemed to be the more humane option. I have never regretted altering my approach.

I tend to believe that standardization has caused us—students and educators—to forget that we are sentient beings and capable of expressing feelings about the things we read. Part of pushing back against this paradigm involves me asking students how they feel about texts. And why. Naturally, we establish ways to interrogate those feelings, but response remains an important part of textual analysis. I’ve found that it leads readers to deeper thinking and connection.

             But not everyone agrees.

While there is literature to support response (Probst, 2014; Roessing, 2007; Rosenblatt, 1995; Vijayarahoo & Samuels, 2013), response can get pushed aside in favor of more “academic” pursuits, sometimes in the form of multiple-choice tests, “right” answers, and teacher-centered discourse. And I get it—especially when teachers feel pressure to “teach to the test.”

But it does not have to be this way.

And for administrators reading this, I encourage you to consider what students and teachers are missing when response is not validated in the classroom. Response goes beyond “I enjoyed it” or “It was interesting.” It comes from the heart AND the mind. When readers respond, they lean in to their thoughts, feelings, questions, and concerns. After we discuss critical lenses, students not only question the texts (what’s missing—voices, ideas, perspectives—and why?) (German, 2021; Moje, 1999; Slattery, 2013) but also reflect on their reactions and feelings. What might have caused me to react this way? What does this tell me about myself as a reader? What questions do I have? What is my reading life missing? What texts would help fill my reading gaps and answer the questions I have? Response carries students further. It is a necessary component of our instructional practice.

            John used response to think more deeply about his book. After discussing what he liked and how the book made him feel, I nudged him further. What is something you noticed? He mentioned how the book’s structure, written in a multigenre format, and how that structure engaged him as a reader and helped him understand the characters even more.

“How?,” I asked.

“Because I could see them from different perspectives.”

“Can you show me an example?,” I asked.

He turned through pages, showing me several instances of solid characterization and character development.

“Why do you think the author did this?,” I asked.

“I’m not sure,” he replied.

So I invited him to spend several minutes in his notebook and share with me a bit later. If we don’t understand the main character, we don’t understand the story, he wrote. Seeing different perspectives helps me understand why the character did what he did. But with all of these different friendships and relationships with people, why would he make the decision he did? His response led to analysis (Probst, 2014). And while I could invite him to think further, his final inquiry demonstrates that he is still wrestling with an analysis. He picked up another book with multigenre elements and multiple narrators for his next read. As he reads this new one, new insights will form that will open new possibilities for response (and analysis) regarding this current book and his last one. I can’t wait to hear his thinking.

I continue to advocate for response because, again and again, I watch students’ ideas evolve when they have opportunities to write or speak to their ideas and feelings. They respond their way into intersections of inquiry and many times realize the text holds more than they first realized. Beautiful thinking emerges, and instead of focusing on my questions, they are focusing on theirs.

Given time to respond to the texts, I am confident that students will lean toward analysis, citing evidence to support their thinking. I am also confident that provocative, relevant texts can generate plenty of conversation between and among students, prompting them to dig beneath the surface, consider their relation to the text, change their minds about ideas, and ask questions. Response is that powerful.

Louise Rosenblatt (1995) stated that part of the work of the literature teacher is helping students understand what literature means and does for them. Response guides students to this discovery. And it’s just good practice. Without response, I wonder what John would have noticed. I believe that time to talk about his reactions and to write about his wonderings strengthened his understanding. He started with what the text meant to him, then responded his way to analysis.

I look forward to another year of thinking and learning alongside students. As we continue to read, I will nudge them to pay attention to their reactions and feelings. Here’s to another year of reading and honoring the beauty of response.

I look forward to what you and your students will notice, wonder, and learn.

References

Probst, R. (2014). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in secondary school (2^nd ed.).

Heinemann.

German, L. (2021). Textured teaching: A framework for culturally sustaining practice.

Heinemann.

Slattery, P. (2013). Curriculum development in the Postmodern Era: Teaching and learning in an

age of accountability (3^rd ed.). Routledge.

Moje, E. (1999). From expression to dialogue: A study of social action literacy projects in an

urban school setting. The Urban Review, 31(3), 305-330.

Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration (5^th ed.). Modern Language Association.

Vijayarajoo, A. R. & Samuel, M. (2013). Reader-response pedagogy and changes in student

stances in literary texts. The English Teacher, 42(3), 174-186.

Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D.

In my previous blog posting for The Robb Review, I focused on what should be the real goal of phonics instruction – to get kids to the point where they don’t have to use phonics much in their reading.  We want students to be so proficient and efficient at word recognition that minimal attention is given to word decoding and maximum attention can be directed toward comprehension.   Staying with this theme of reading instruction goals, I’d like to focus on reading fluency and state right off the bat that the goal of fluency instruction should not be to make kids read fast.    It has been this incessant focus on increasing reading speed, I think, that has unfortunately given reading fluency a bad rep.

What is Reading Fluency?

Fluency has been called the neglected goal of the reading program (and it is) (Allington, 1983); it has also been called the bridge from word recognition to comprehension.     I like that bridge metaphor a lot. Fluency is the critical link to making meaning while reading. There are two components to fluency. The first is automaticity in word recognition – the ability to recognize words so effortlessly that most of a reader’s attention can be devoted to comprehension.   Automaticity is the part of the bridge that links to word recognition.

The other part of the fluency bridge is called prosody or reading with expression.  This is the link to comprehension. When a reader reads with appropriate expression that reflects the meaning of the text, she is striving to comprehend that text.  This is the part of fluency that is often neglected in instruction; yet it is critical for comprehension to occur, even when reading silently.

How Should We Teach Fluency?

As with anything we want to become fluent at (e.g., speaking, driving, golf, cooking), fluency is developed through practice.   In reading, we have several forms of practice that can and should be employed. These forms of practice include wide reading, assisted reading where a reader reads while simultaneously hearing a fluent reading of the same text by a partner or recording, and repeated reading where a reader reads a text several times until she achieves fluency on that text (Rasinski, 2010).    In all these forms of practice the goal should be reading for meaning, and if reading orally, to read with appropriate expression that conveys meaning to anyone who may be listening.

How Does Reading Speed Fit into the Fluency Equation?

Reading speed (words read correctly per minute) is an indicator of word recognition automaticity and is often called the oral reading fluency (ORF) score.   The more automatic or effortless you are in recognizing words in text, the faster your reading becomes, AND the more attention you can devote to comprehending the text as opposed to analyzing the words in the text.    Reading speed is an indicator or consequence of the fluency component of automaticity, BUT it is not fluency. Our reading speed increases as our fluency improves, not the other way around. I often say that I want our children to become fast readers just the way I am and all of you reading this blog are reasonably fast readers;  but I want them to become fast the same way we all became fast readers – through lots and lots of authentic practice in reading.

So go ahead and use DIBELS and AimsWeb ORF scores, or Hasbrouck and Tindal’s norms (Words Correct per Minute) cautiously and sparingly as indicators of students’ growth in automaticity, but please, please, please do not let children think that you are trying to get them to read faster.   The increase in reading speed (as well as improvements in reading with expression) will happen with authentic reading practice, not with overt instruction or implied emphasis on reading fast.

Fluency is More than Automaticity

A few years ago, I came across recordings of arguably two of the most fluently read speeches in American  history – Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” and John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address “Ask Not What Your Country…”     I subjected the oral readings of both of these speeches to an ORF (reading speed) assessment. In both cases, Dr. King and President Kennedy’s readings of their speeches may have landed them in a remedial reading class based on their very low ORF scores.     I am sure they were both automatic in their word recognition, and they could have read those speeches quickly. But doing so would have taken away from the meaning they were trying to convey. Because they were automatic in their recognition of the words in their speeches they were able to devote their attention to making and elaborating on the meaning they wished to share orally. They raised and lowered their voices, had dramatic pauses, changed volume and tone in order to more effectively to deliver their intended meanings to their audiences.   What truly made those speeches fluent was not the speed, but the expression (prosody) that they embedded in their readings.

For fluency instruction to truly work we need to see the goal of fluency as expressive oral (and silent) reading that reflects the meaning of the text.    When we make expressive and meaningful reading of texts the true goal of fluency (and avoid putting emphasis on fast reading) we will see significant improvements in reading comprehension (as well as reading speed).

You can find resources on teaching accurate and automatic word recognition and expressive prosodic reading (i.e. fluency) at Tim’s own website – www.timrasinski.com

Please see also my new book on reading fluency (written with Melissa Cheesman Smith) – The Megabook of Fluency, published by Scholastic.

References

Allington, R.L. (1983).  Fluency: The neglected reading goal.  The Reading Teacher, 36, 556-561.

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006) Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.

Rasinski, T. V. (2010).  The fluent reader:  Oral and silent reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd edition).  New York: Scholastic.