Welcome to the Science of Reading Blog

 

The Science of Reading Proves the Core Role Phonics Plays in Beginning Reading

The book Why Johnny Can’t Read: And What You Can Do About It is a 1955 book-length exposé on American reading education by Rudolf Flesch. It was an immediate bestseller for 37 weeks and became an educational cause célèbre. In his book, the author concluded that the whole-word (look-say) method was ineffective because it lacked phonics training. In addition, Flesch was critical of the simple stories and limited text and vocabulary in the Dick and Jane style readers that taught students to read through word memorization. Flesch also believed that the look-say method did not properly prepare students to read more complex materials in the upper grade levels.

The book created a great uproar regarding the way reading was being taught at that time. Flesch advocated a return to teaching phonics. There was great opposition to his ideas. The other method of teaching reading was called the sight method. Thus began what came to be known as The Great Reading Wars.

The Great Reading Wars are a series of debates that have been ongoing for decades over how children best learn to read. The main controversy is between two methods: phonics and whole-language. Phonics is a method that teaches children to decode words by sounding out the letters and blending them together. Whole-language is a method that teaches children to recognize words by their shapes and meanings, and to use context clues to guess unfamiliar words.

The origins of this conflict can be traced back to the 18th century, when a German educator named Friederich Gedike proposed that reading instruction should go from whole words to their parts, i.e. the letters. Since then, the debate between whole-to-part and part-to-whole advocates has been a recurring feature of reading education.

In the 1950s, the debate was re-ignited by the book Why Johnny Can’t Read, which criticized the American education system for failing to teach phonics. Flesch argued that the whole-word or look-say method was ineffective because it lacked phonics training and did not prepare students for more complex texts. He also blamed the simple and boring stories in the Dick and Jane readers that taught students to read by word memorization.

His comment’s sparked a backlash from the proponents of the whole-word method, who defended their method as more natural and meaningful than phonics. They also claimed that phonics was too rigid and boring, and that it could hinder children’s creativity and comprehension.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the debate continued with new research and theories on reading development. One influential figure was Jeanne Chall, who published a book called Learning to Read: The Great Debate in 1967. She reviewed hundreds of studies and concluded that phonics was more effective than whole-word in teaching children to read, especially in the early grades. She also renamed the two approaches as code-based and meaning-based, respectively.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the debate evolved into new variants, such as literature-based vs skills-based, implicit vs explicit, holistic vs fragmented, and top-down vs bottom-up. The term whole-language also emerged as a variant of meaning-based, first in Canada and then in the USA. Whole-language was more than a method; it was a philosophy of reading that emphasized children’s natural learning abilities, their interests and choices, their social interactions, and their exposure to authentic texts.

Whole-language gained popularity among many teachers and researchers, who saw it as a progressive and child-centered alternative to phonics. However, it also faced criticism from phonics advocates, who accused it of being unscientific, ideological, and ineffective. They argued that whole-language ignored the importance of explicit instruction in sound-letter relationships, and that it left many children behind, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with learning difficulties.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the debate became more politicized and polarized, as various states adopted policies and standards that favored one method over another. In California, for example, a major reform was initiated in 1996 to replace whole-language with phonics as the official state curriculum. This reform was influenced by a report called “Why Johnny Can’t Read: The California Disaster” by Marion Joseph, who blamed whole-language for the low reading scores of California students.

The reform also coincided with the establishment of the National Reading Panel (NRP) in 1999, which was commissioned by Congress to review the scientific evidence on effective reading instruction. The NRP issued a report in 2000 that endorsed phonics as one of the five essential components of reading instruction, along with phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The NRP report was used as the basis for the Reading First program, which was part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Reading First provided federal funding for schools that adopted phonics-based reading programs.

The NRP report and Reading First were hailed by phonics supporters as a victory for science over ideology. However, they were also challenged by whole-language supporters as biased, flawed, and narrow. They claimed that Reading First imposed a one-size-fits-all model of reading instruction that ignored children’s diversity and agency.

In recent years, the debate has resurfaced with new evidence and arguments from both sides. Some of the factors that have contributed to the renewed interest in the reading wars are:

• The rise of social media and podcasts, which have amplified the voices of journalists, researchers, advocates, and parents who are concerned about reading instruction and outcomes. One influential example is Emily Hanford of APM Reports, who has produced several stories and podcasts since 2018 that criticize the lack of phonics instruction in many schools and call for more attention to the science of reading.
• The persistence of low reading scores among American students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, racial minorities, English learners, and students with disabilities. According to the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 35% of fourth graders and 34% of eighth graders scored at or above proficient in reading. The achievement gaps between different groups of students have also remained large or widened over time.
• The emergence of new research and theories on reading development and instruction, such as brain imaging studies that show how phonics activates different areas of the brain than whole-language, cognitive science studies that show how working memory and background knowledge affect reading comprehension, and linguistic studies that show how English spelling is more predictable than often assumed.

The debate is far from over. The conflict between phonics and whole-language approaches to reading instruction has been a long-standing and complex issue that has influenced many aspects of reading education literally for centuries. To some degree the Great Reading Wars continue; however, the science of reading has irrefutably established once-and-for-all of the vital, essential role that phonics plays as the core instructional strand for the acquisition of beginning reading skills. 

The We All Can Read Program was first published in 1990 as a book. Since then our core book has gone through five separate editions. Since the first edition, each subsequent edition has been the result of improvements based on research and feedback from its previous editions. In 2007 the online edition of We All Can Read was first published. Our online edition continues to evolve and improve to this day as well.

Our program from the outset was firmly in the camp of teaching explicit, systematic phonics, a position that has proven to be academically and scientifically sound. In addition our goal has always been to provide the best phonics curriculum, particularly for older students and adults, in a cost-effective manner. Teaching someone to read does not have to require an advanced degree for teachers or parents and an investment of thousands or even tens-of-thousands of dollars. The name of our program says it all: with the right tools We All Can Read! Our program’s aim has always been and continues to be to provide the best tools for parents and teachers who want to help their children, and for adults who want to help themselves to become successful readers.