The question about phonics is not whether to teach phonics but rather what kind of phonics and how much phonics: Musings of a centrist by Dr. Sam Bommarito

The question about Phonics is not whether to teach phonics but rather what kind of phonics, how much phonics and whether to use direct or discovery teaching when teaching phonics. BTW, both sides (all sides) in the current debate about phonics seem to be getting the answer to that question wrong.

There’s always a danger to taking the middle ground in things. The fact is you run the risk of getting everyone mad. That’s a risk I’m willing to take as I talk about the issue of phonics. Here are my key points:

• What works with one kid doesn’t always work with another. I make that a prior assumption/observation based on 50-plus years of teaching experience. During that time, I’ve taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school.
• There is more than one way to teach phonics. I’ve written about that point many times. The ILA and PD Pearson have both taken that position LINK, LINK, LINK. There are MANY viable ways to teach phonics. Here are ideas from SOME of the teachers/researchers I’ve interviewed on that point LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK. In the coming weeks, I’ll be interviewing more folks about their programs and how they handle the issues of teaching decoding and comprehension. I try to include folks from both the Balanced Literacy and Science of Reading umbrellas in those interviews.
• Some students NEED a synthetic phonics approach. This is especially true for dyslexic students. The key place where folks working under the balanced literacy umbrella went off the tracks was their failure to ensure dyslexic students got the synthetic phonics they needed. In some instances, that involved giving them little or no phonics. In other cases, that involved giving them the wrong kind of phonics. The wrong kind of phonics for them is phonics taught using inquiry methods- analytic phonics being the best example of that kind of approach.
• Other students thrive on an analytic approach or a problem-solving approach. While some critics of analytic phonics have claimed that it doesn’t work, folks like Timothy Shanahan do see that approach as viable, provided it is done systematically LINK. A large body of research indicates that problem-solving models of teaching reading can and do work. The person who is best known for that body of research is Donna Scanlon LINK. By the way, she makes a strong, research-based case for including context as part of the word-solving process LINK. That is a giant no-no for many folks from the Science of Reading umbrella. Many of the folks under that umbrella have gone off the tracks by their assumption that most students with reading problems have dyslexia. They don’t LINK, LINK . They minimize the impact of things like SES and routinely accuse folks who bring up that point as “making excuses.”

Folks like Bruce Howett report that there have been at least four swings between code emphasis (synthetic) and meaning emphasis (analytic) approaches. We seem to be in the midst of another swing to the code emphasis side again. The same promises that were made the last go around are being made again. The promise is that this swing will be the one that solves all our reading problems. For an entertaining and informative video that counters those promises, please view George Hruby’s titled What the Phonics is the Science of Reading?

The sad fact is that the current swing to a mainly code-based approach is being powered by a misinformed, misguided public relations campaign that has been carried out in social media LINK. That is a topic all to itself. The main point I want to make again today is that it is time to try something we’ve never tried in the whole history of the reading wars. That is to adopt a centrist position, using ideas from all sides. Let the art of teaching reading guide us as we allow districts to select programs and practices that best fit their particular population. Let’s do what P.D. Pearson has suggested and adopt positions instead of taking sides. Let’s support Bruce Howett and Dr. Jan Wasowicz in their quest to find some common ground that we can all agree on LINK. Let’s take the steps we need to take in order to finally have a Reading Evolution LINK.

Dare to Dream!

IN THE COMING WEEKS: I’ll be interviewing Joy Allcock and Jeremy Spartz about their innovative approaches to teaching reading. I’ll also speak at several conferences, including LIT CON 2024, The WSRA Conference, The MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference and the Write to Learn Conference. Each of these conferences has a wide range of speakers with many worthwhile ideas to consider. I hope to see you at one or more of these conferences.