Joy Allcock, a well-known literacy expert from New Zealand, explains her Code-Ed program: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito
For some time, I’ve been searching for researchers and teachers who have developed successful programs in literacy instruction. The gold standard for such programs is that the program gives sufficient weight to both the decoding and the comprehension parts of teaching reading. They must be carried out in a way that decoding and comprehension strategies taught are internalized. They must also be engaging. My search has expanded to a worldwide quest. I found a promising program in New Zealand. Its creator, Joy Allcock, hopes to expand it into the United States as well. In my opinion her program includes both worthwhile decoding and comprehension instruction. To help you understand how I reached that conclusion be sure to look at free downloads of two graphic organizers: Growing Readers and Writers – Children need to know… and, Growing Readers and Writers- Teachers need to teach… Those are available on her website, which will be featured later in this blog post. Let’s now learn a little more about Joy and her work.
BIOGRAPHY
Here is a link to the YouTube interview: https://youtu.be/un-f2KfKhY4
Go to the Code Ed home page for free download of two graphic organizers Growing Readers and Writers – Children need to know… and, Growing Readers and Writers- Teachers need to teach... Also, 3/4 of the way down is the free downloadable research by Prof James Chapman from Massey University. LINK to the homepage.
The Articles page https://www.code-ed.co.nz/articles
Key Foundations https://www.code-ed.co.nz/resources/key_foundations
Final Thoughts About This Interview. As Joy talked about the problems she observed in classrooms (5:52 in the interview), one of those problems was that children were trying to sound out words one letter at a time. That approach marks the very earliest stage of a synthetic phonics program, yet too often, as Joy observed, some educators use that approach in later stages, where it is usually ineffective. Remember that I advocate for teachers to know about all the different forms of phonics and to use that knowledge to scaffold children into internalizing strategies that fit the child LINK. When I teach about how to decode words, I point out that after the very earliest stages of teaching using synthetic phonics, one must shift to teaching about chunks. Joy’s program does that in a way that helps students learn the letter-sound relations. As part of learning how words work, students need to learn how to spell chunks like “at,” “an,” “ing,” “ar,” etc and to utilize that information in the decoding process. In addition, she teaches comprehension, and her graphic chart clearly shows she understands the complexities of the reading process. That’s why I’ve added her to the list of programs for teachers and administrators to consider as they search for programs that best fit their children. For the youngest children, she turns the instruction into play (18:51 in the video). That is critical. In my last blog, I said there are MANY viable ways to teach decoding and comprehension. Here are ideas from SOME of the teachers/researchers I’ve interviewed on best practices in reading LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK. I remain steadfast in my belief that decisions about adopting programs/practices belong to local school districts. Mandating specific programs to the exclusion of all others is problematic at best.
In upcoming blogs, I’ll continue to explore what other teachers say about the best ways to teach reading. Most importantly, I’ll explore Bruce Howlett’s and Jan Wasowicz’s attempts to find common ground. Instead of looking at what we disagree on, Bruce and Jan focus on what we can agree on: LINK, LINK. No one will benefit if the current situation “devolves” into another pendulum swing. Let’s use the new year to find common ground by exploring both the art and science of reading instruction, using research-based ideas from all sides. Doing that may create a time when there are no sides.
In addition, I’ll be busy over the next few weeks presenting my ideas at various 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. I hope many of you consider the centrist call to use common sense to seek common ground as we continue exploring the best way to teach reading and writing. In the meantime-
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.
This post is concerning because it appears to promote a vague and non-specific approach to reading instruction while dismissing the urgency of adopting evidence-based methods. Here’s why it raises red flags:
1. The Push for “Balance” Over Science
Dr. Bommarito frames the debate over reading instruction as though it is primarily a matter of opinion, suggesting that we should “find common ground” rather than decisively move toward proven, research-backed methods. However, this is not a matter of ideology or opinion—the Science of Reading (SoR) has clearly established the need for explicit, systematic phonics instruction, especially for struggling readers.
His comment that “there are MANY viable ways to teach decoding and comprehension” fails to acknowledge that some methods are demonstrably ineffective. Balanced Literacy, Whole Language, and various mixed-method approaches have repeatedly been shown to leave many children behind, particularly those with dyslexia or other reading challenges. The fact that some students succeed despite these programs does not mean they are optimal or effective for all students.
2. Questionable Praise for Code-Ed
Joy Allcock’s Code-Ed program may contain elements of phonics, but there is little high-quality, peer-reviewed research confirming its effectiveness in improving literacy outcomes compared to structured phonics-based programs. The blog vaguely states that it balances “decoding and comprehension,” but without rigorous evidence, such claims are meaningless.
Additionally, the concern about students “sounding out words letter by letter” being a problem is misleading. Letter-by-letter decoding is an essential early step in phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. The transition to chunking and recognizing morphemes naturally follows after students develop proficiency in letter-sound relationships. The real issue is whether a program builds this sequence explicitly and systematically, not whether some teachers “do it wrong.”
3. The Attempt to “Both-Sides” the Reading Debate
The call to avoid another “pendulum swing” in literacy instruction is a misrepresentation of the actual issue. The problem is not that there are “two sides” that need to compromise—the problem is that one side (Whole Language/Balanced Literacy) has repeatedly failed, while the other (Science of Reading) is based on decades of cognitive science and rigorous research.
The idea that we should continue considering non-SoR-aligned programs indefinitely is reckless. The education system has already wasted decades on ineffective methods, harming generations of struggling readers. The notion that mandating research-based instruction is “problematic” is absurd—we don’t tell doctors to use any treatment they feel works; we require evidence-based practices. The same should apply to reading instruction.
Conclusion
This blog post and the promotion of Code-Ed seem to reflect a desperate attempt to justify unproven literacy approaches under the guise of moderation. The science on reading is clear: explicit, systematic phonics instruction is essential for teaching children to read. There is no need to “balance” science with disproven approaches.
The rejection of Reading Recovery by New Zealand (the country that created it) should serve as a wake-up call that feel-good literacy methods with weak evidence must be abandoned. We do not need more delays in moving toward research-based reading instruction—we need action.
SOR practice like the ones ypu seem to advocate have been in place for several years now. So all should be well. Yet when NY adopted SOR scores went down not up. Those kind of drops are not unique to NY. The most recent NAEP scores show a DROP in scores. Hmmmmm. Things are getting worse not better. No one is talking about balance over science. My premise is we should be making decesions based on ALL the research and data. One impoortant piece of that research is that NAEP scores have been FLAT for years. The claim that BL caused the lowering of scores is not supported. SOR decades of research includes that of Siedenberg, whose recent writings indicate that while early instruction needs to be focused on decoding/direct instruction, that there needs to be a take off point where the BL was is a term created by Pressley not the Goodmans, the creater of WL. BYT BOTH the Pressley’s have provided considerable RESEARCH to support their views. So the writer has gotten the two “sides” completely wrong. Pressley created the term BL in order to overcome the problem of the lack of phonics instruction in the programs of the day. I have to wonder aloud in the writer has ever studied the works of the two Pressleys. BTW my position has been NOT TO TAKE SIDES. Rather we should be looking at all the evidence. If the writer wants strong evidence of the value of teaching selected comprehension strategies they need to go no further than Nell Dukes website and her many publications on that topic. I’ll note that none other than Tim Shanahan indicated that Willingham’s claims that all we need to reduce the amount of time spent on teaching comprehension strategies was on VERY shakey ground. On the one hand we do need to include building background knowledge and vocabulary (BTW that has been a widely held view of reading instructors for decades). But that doesn’t mean we need to leave out reading strategies. My point has been US/THEM approaches produce pendulum swings. Ignoring the decades of research showing RR works is simply one example of the narrow blinders that some SOR advocates use when looking at the research. By contrast- I’ve interviewed a number of folks about teaching phonics (not just Joy), including EBLI’s speech to print version of phonics. If making folks aware of different approaches including the approaches championed by SOR folks. I also make folks aware of practices of folks like Rasinski. His repeated reading methods have shown greated effect sizes that those of structure literacy. Doesn’t it make sense to draw from BOTH!!!! A careful examination of the charges of “weak evidence” will demonstrate that the crities are leaving out major studies. I stand by the blog posts contention that we look at ALL the research before making decesions about best practices.