Artful teaching, so-called reading wars, and the possibility of common ground

A few days ago I received in my inbox a comment by Sam Bommarino to a long ago (March 18, 2026… well, it seemed long ago) post on this Substack, “There might be hope for finding common ground and ending the reading wars… cont’d.”

Sam wrote:

This is the first of a series of posts I’m doing about the so-called reading wars. It traces the origins of what I have come to call the social media version of the Science of Reading and discusses the limits of that point of view. Would love to hear what you think about it. I also like to know what you think about the need to cross the bridge from decoding to comprehension. https://doctorsam7.blog/2026/07/30/artfully-teaching-the-science-of-reading-a-way-to-empower-teachers-to-help-kids-by-dr-sam-bommarito-2026/

It’s a thoughtful blog (and nicely illustrated!), and I’d encourage everyone to take a look. Sam says his aim is to “explain how learning about Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading gives me hope that finding common ground is a real possibility.”

I answered his comment with one of my own, but then I emailed him suggesting that I make a new post of his comment, including a link to his blog, and my reply in the hope of additional exchanges between us. I also hope we’ll have contributions by others now that his and my initial exchange is out of the comments dungeon.

So, if interested, please read Sam’s blog, then my comments here... and let ‘er rip.

My reply: Sign me up, but what about the research?

Sam, thanks for this comment and for the link. I fully subscribe to your agenda, which as I understand it, is to “encourage all sides to find out what the other side is really saying” in the “so-called reading wars”; call out “straw man” arguments, which are worse than unhelpful; focus on “the hope that common ground can be found if all sides listen to one another”; and that finding common ground is a real possibility if we centered on “Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading.” Did I get that right? Sign me up (and/or correct what I missed).

But I think there is an element missing. I hope you’ll take this as a constructive response, building on your agenda, not a challenge to it or to you.... although it WILL be a challenge, as I’ll try to explain.

The missing element is trying to get clear and some agreement--to the extent possible--on what we can reasonably claim from relevant empirical research. This in no way discounts the power or the value of personal experience or any of the factors you discuss. But I hope you’ll agree that empirical research, preferably published so that it has undergone at least some vetting and can be accessed (more or less) publicly, should play a role in these discussions. Would you agree? I’ll assume so, but pls correct me if I’m wrong.

So... there’s lots to say about research, what qualifies, what doesn’t, and we can go deep into the weeds on this. I’ll instead tell you some of the challenges I’ve run into when I try to take the tack of “let’s see what’s in the research and whether it can inform us.” I’m not going to name names bc there’s no point in making this personal. And I’ll assume/hope you’ll believe me that I am reporting these incidents accurately.

1. I’ve tried to get colleagues in the EL world to take a close look at an article by Linnea Ehri that reports an intervention with young ELs at risk for reading difficulties. The intervention, as you might imagine, is consistent with structured literacy/SOR etc was significantly and meaningfully effective in improving students’ early literacy skills compared to a control group. Neither this nor any single study is definitive, as you also well know, but this study deserves study and consideration. I can count on half of a hand the number of people who read and discussed it with me. One person objected to it bc the intervention was called “Reading Rescue,” which she found offensive and “deficit oriented.”

2. I tried getting the virulently anti-SOR exec director of a prominent CA bilingual education advocacy organization to discuss with me relevant research in order to find the common ground, including advocating for bilingual education. He declined to meet with me bc conference season was beginning and he was very busy. He also told me he was not interested in discussing my “right wing agenda,” sponsored by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and The Reading League.

3. A whole language professor made claims about an article on eye movements in reading that did not reflect what the article actually said. In fact his claim was contradicted in the article. Keith Rayner says in the paper we discussed that eyes don’t fixate on every letter. This person then claimed that decoding was not necessary, and maybe not even helpful as a reading strategy, bc readers don’t look at every letter in a word. He claimed that “We can only perceive that upon which we fixate.” This is nonsense, bc you see several letters to the left and right of where you fixate. There’s the fovea and the parafovea. Rayner says exactly this in the article. But this person was unmoved. Nope, he insisted, you don’t have to look at all the letters to read, you just “sample” and therefore semantics is the key to reading words. Not the letters.

4. Finally, this same person claimed there are neuroscientists who say you can’t draw the conclusions from fMRIs that Dehaene draws, bc fMRIs don’t provide relevant data for anything other than letters, sounds, and words out of context. In other words these methods can’t tell you anything about real reading, e.g., sentences. I’m pretty sure this is not true, but I asked What neuroscientist says that? A: Steven Schwartz. I said Schwartz is not a neuroscientist; he’s an MD neurologist with no evidence anywhere—and believe me I’ve looked—that he does research ... you know, those things that scientists do. Again undeterred, this person said he knew other neuroscientists say the same thing. I asked for names. He said he would provide them and even went on to say that if he couldn’t provide them he’d make a video saying he was wrong. Well guess what. He never did provide a single name. Not ever and after frequent bugging and reminders from me. And—surprise—no acknowledgement video.

To our field’s detriment, the confusion of teachers, and the shortchanging of students, there are other examples I could cite of research that is either misinterpreted (whether inadvertently or AD-vertently I can’t say), discounted, or ignored. None of this is to dump on others gratuitously, but it is to point out the challenges I’ve had (I don’t think I’m alone) trying to make progress in what I think is an important question here: What’s in the relevant research that we should pay attention to? And not selectively and only when it suits our predetermined positions. AND—let’s not forget this—getting to some common understanding of what we can conclude from research. This is a very very very tough nut to crack.

I’d love your thoughts on this. I’m willing--eager, in fact--to take other tacks to accomplish a goal you and I share.

As for “the need to cross the bridge from decoding to comprehension.” I believe the bridge is crossed at the point of word recognition, which people too often conflate with decoding. Decoding and word recognition are not the same thing; rather decoding is the on ramp to word recognition. The right way to approach a written word that is not recognized is, first, to use phoneme-grapheme knowledge to decode, or attempt to decode, it. Then use knowledge of the word (which you must have known already orally in order to recognize it) plus context, syntax, background knowledge to confirm or disconfirm the word’s identity. Being able to recognize more and more words automatically, or “instantly,” through the process of orthographic mapping + associating with meaning is essential for reading growth and comprehension.

Does this answer your question about crossing that bridge to comprehension?

Thanks again for your comment. I look forward to hearing back from you.

And from others as well.

Leave a comment