We can’t give teachers mandates for teaching decoding and comprehension that exceed the instructional time available in the classroom: Part 3 of the Common Sense Series by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Time on Task

Instructional time is a finite commodity. It is often said that you should not rob Peter to pay Paul. Yet many districts are routinely doing that, especially at the elementary level. I’ve talked to teachers carrying out mandated phonics programs who find there is little to no time left for things like teaching comprehension if they carry out the phonics instruction program the district has mandated. Compounding the problem of some districts over-teaching phonics is that research does not give a clear answer to the very important question of how much time is the right amount of time for teaching various phonics components. Consider this recent research paper from the Scientific Studies of Reading journal: A Meta-Analysis on the Optimal Cumulative Dosage of Early Phonemic Awareness Instruction. Here is an excerpt from an Educational Weekly article by Sarah Schwartz reporting about this paper:

Schwartz goes on to say that there is no magic number.

In addition, the comprehension activities that accompany many code-based kits/programs do not always follow what research around best practices in reading comprehension calls for.   Capin et al., in their 2024 study Reading Comprehension Instruction: Evaluating Our Progress Since Durkin’s Seminal Study, said the following:

“Integrated analyses revealed that reading comprehension instruction infrequently aligned with research-based practices. Findings revealed that, on average, 23% of instructional time during reading/language arts instruction was dedicated to reading comprehension. Like Durkin’s study (1978–1979), the results indicated that teachers spent much of this time engaging in initiation-response-evaluation conversation patterns rather than engaging students in extensive discussion of text or teaching knowledge or practices (e.g., text structure, reading comprehension strategies) that support reading comprehension.”

In a nutshell, the above excerpt is saying that simply asking and answering questions about what is read is not enough for the comprehension component of instruction. You must also engage in extensive discussion or teach concepts such as text structure or reading comprehension strategies. I’ve written about that before LINK, LINK and will talk more about this in future entries for this series.

So, where does this leave the classroom teacher in terms of what she should teach and when she should teach it? In my opinion, it leaves her between a rock and a hard place. When states mandate programs without considering how much instructional time will be needed to carry them out, they leave the teacher with the choice of using up most of their instructional time on phonics, leaving them little or no time for comprehension. When states mandate programs that only check comprehension (Ask and answer questions) instead of teaching comprehension (reading comprehension strategies, etc.), they leave the teachers with a blueprint for failure. When the kids are given higher-level comprehension questions, they often lack the necessary tools to answer them. Teaching children to use those tools should be a critical part of every literacy program.  To add insult to injury, when the mandated programs fail, the blame falls on the teacher rather than on the inadequate programs that many of them are being asked to carry out.

Let’s look at some commonsense answers to this situation:

Common sense suggests that the phonics programs picked must have demonstrated success with students like those being served and demonstrated the ability to achieve that success within the typical time allotments used for phonics instruction.

Common sense dictates that program success in comprehension should demonstrate that the program has been successful in teaching students to use the tools they need to comprehend.  The program needs to have demonstrated success with students similar to those being served by each district. They must also demonstrate the ability to achieve that success within the typical time allotments used for literacy instruction. Let’s end this era where many of the most experienced teachers are leaving the field out of frustration, partly because of the way ill-conceived mandates are being carried out. LINK.

I began writing this blog 5 years ago because of complaints from teachers who were forced to give up many things that were working, dispose of them and then replace them with magic kits, many of which simply didn’t work. Wouldn’t it have made much more sense to have them keep what was working and tweak what wasn’t? I remain steadfast in my belief that the real solution to our reading problems does not lie in adopting either phonics-based or meaning-based approaches. It lies instead in allowing districts to use things from both approaches and put together a system of instruction that fits their particular population.

Dare to Dream

Dr. Sam (The guy in the middle, taking flak from both sides!)

Copyright 2025 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 part three of a blog series entitled: Let’s Stop the Nonsense and Start Using Common Sense to Guide Our Reading Practices.