A recent pro-phonics advocate asked if I could refrain from saying that phonics will leave struggling students failing in reading.  No, I will not stop warning educators and policymakers that switching from “whole language” to phonics, even systematic phonics, is a mistake.  First, I completely and totally agree that phonics is better than whole language.  Almost anything is better than whole language.  Whole language is the worst teaching method that we’ve ever created, but switching back to phonics is not the answer.

First, we do need to get rid of whole language now and forever more.  Sceintific research has completely proven that whole language education is a failure, (Chessman et al., 2009; de Graaf et al., 2009; Foorman et al., 2015; Foorman, Breier, and Fletcher, 2003; Kuppen et al., 2011; Lyon, 1998; Oakhill and Cain, 2012; Rayner et al., 2001; Torgesen et al., 2001) and numerous neuroimaging studies (Keller & Just, 2009, Meyler, Keller, Cherkassky, Gabrieli, & Just, 2008; Yoncheva, Wise, & McCandliss, 2015).

Second, we need to remember that phonics is not a new teaching method.  Phonics has been around since 1690.  The reason that whole language enthusiasts were able to embed the whole language concept into literacy education was that phonics was leaving many students still failing in reading.  Let’s look at some examples—then and now. 

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with a person who is nearing retirement.  This is a very successful person.  While discussing retirement plans, my husband offered to loan a book that he had found particularly helpful.  This very successful, skilled and intelligent man said, “I can’t read; I can only read very-easy-to-read books.”  He then went on to explain that he had been in a pullout program at school from third grade to ninth grade that taught phonics.  Obviously, it failed.

A 15-year-old student was brought to my reading clinic because the school had said, “she could never learn to read.”  In middle school, she was given coloring book pages and shuffled off to the corner of the classroom.  The school was using “balanced literacy” in the classroom, and the student had received one-on-one tutoring in systematic phonics from early elementary school to middle school.  Again obviously, phonics failed.  I taught the student to read in 3 ½ years using vowel clustering.
·        
A very smart third grader came to my reading clinic.  The student could not even read at the beginning kindergarten level.  The student’s parents were college educated and had even paid for private systematic phonics tutoring.  Balanced literacy from the classroom, pull-out small group phonics instruction during school, and even private one-on-one systematic phonics instruction failed to teach this student how to read.  Again, using vowel clustering, I taught the student to read in one year.

These are just three examples; I have many others, but I selected these three examples because they tell how phonics failed across an approximately 60-year period.  Two of the methods used “systematic phonics.”  These are real people, and we owe these people and thousands more a teaching method that will not fail them.  Systematic phonics is not that method. 

Before we go further, let’s define phonics.  The word “phonics” is used to describe many different teaching methods.  First, I turn to a noted expert, Richard Nordquist, Ph. D.  Nordquist defines phonics as:  “A method of teaching reading based on the sounds of letters, groups of letters, and syllables is known as phonics.”  Linnea C. Ehri (2003) adds to this definition by specifically defining systematic phonics: 

“What is Systematic Phonics Instruction? Phonics is a method of instruction that teaches students correspondences between graphemes in written language and phonemes in spoken language and how to use these correspondences to read and spell words. Phonics instruction is systematic when all the major grapheme-phoneme correspondences are taught and they are covered in a clearly defined sequence. This includes short and long vowels as well as vowel and consonant digraphs such as oi, ea, sh, th. Also it may include blends of letter-sounds that form larger subunits in words such as onsets and rimes.…
 
It is important that we all work from a common definition.  I chose a definition from Ehri because she is a systematic phonics advocate.  From examples of failure under phonics, to definition, to scientific research and findings from evidence-based research, let’s see what scientific research tells us.  Let’s look at what the experts say:

• Jeanne Sternlicht Chall (1967), an advocate for systematic phonics, visited over 300 classrooms.  While she concluded that systematic phonics was superior to “look say” whole language in 90% of the classrooms, she also clearly stated and warned that a purely phonics approach would leave many students failing.
• Linnea C. Ehri studied 66 phonics vs. whole language groups and again found systematic phonics to be superior to whole language but also found that systematic phonics “did not help low achieving readers that included students with cognitive limitations” (Ehri 2001).
• As the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel, 2000)  clearly stated,  “…systematic phonics approaches are significantly more effective than non-phonics [whole language]…. However, phonics instruction failed to exert a significant impact on the reading performance of low-achieving readers in 2nd through 6th grades….” (p. 94).  Phonics simply does not work for many students. 
• In 2013, Tunmer and associates also clearly stated from their research that Reading Recovery (frequently used to teach struggling students from the classroom) was also not effective with failing, struggling students.  As they stated, “Students with phonological difficulties did poorly [in Reading Recovery].”  https://www.ldaustralia.org/BULLETIN_NOV13-RR.pdf
• As Dr. Sally Shaywitz (see Shaywitz, Overcoming Dyslexia, 2003) explains, “Children do not learn to read by memorizing a word list.  Most children, especially those who struggle in reading, do not learn to read by memorizing phonics rules” (p. 78).  Some will say, “but she talks about systematic phonics in her book.”  Yes, she does, but she also clearly states that systematic phonics will not meet the needs of all struggling students.  Struggling, at-risk students who are failing need more. 
• Sebastian Suggate (2016) compared 71 phonemic and phonics intervention groups and found that “… phonemic awareness interventions showed good maintenance of effect…. phonics and fluency interventions … tended not to.”

In the past and in the present, many experts, even those who recommend systematic phonics, clearly state from their research that they are finding problems with systematic phonics.  I am not denying that phonics is better than whole language, but if we go back to phonics, even systematic phonics, we will sentence many struggling students to failure in reading.  I will never accept adopting a program that we know will leave many students failing in reading.  I adamantly believe that every student can learn to read.  The problem is that we simply refuse to teach them.  Even though the scientific research clearly points to a method that works for all students, education refuses to adopt a teaching method that teaches all students, even those who struggle.  Systematic phonics is not the method that we need.  It leaves too many students failing in reading.

I use vowel clustering, and it has worked for me.  I just talked with two parents yesterday; they asked, “Do you really think he can learn to read?  We’ve tried everything.”  I smiled and said yes, “With vowel clustering, I can teach him to read, and with your permission, I will.”

​Emily Hanford’s October 26 New York Times column claims that scientific research recommends using phonics-based teaching methods in reading education. She is correct that scientific reading research shows that whole language teaching methods are ineffective, but she is incorrect that scientific research supports explicit, systematic phonics instruction. What the research supports is teaching children to decode or break words down into letter sounds and then encode or put those sounds back together and pronounce or read the word.  The question remaining is:  What is the best way to teach children this letter-sound relationship?
 
One of the leading reading scientists, Dr. Sally Shaywitz, a member of the 2000 National Reading Panel, explains in Overcoming Dyslexia that, “Children do not learn to read by memorizing a word list.  Most children, especially those who struggle in reading, do not learn to read by memorizing phonics rules” (p. 78).
 
Whole language, in all of its many forms, “balanced literacy,” Reading Recovery, and all “look say” approaches has been proven to be ineffective or as Louisa Moates, a scientist that Hanford mentions, says:  “…it's harmful. So it's not just an argument about philosophy.”  Whole language, which is indeed ineffective, is why the 2017 Nation’s Report Card found that 63% of 4th grade students were unable to read at grade level.
 
Yet, to return to phonics ignores the knowledge that scientists have discovered about how we learn to read.  Phonics is not new; it has been around since 1690.  The National Reading Panel agrees that “systematic phonics approaches are significantly more effective than non-phonics [whole language].” They still found that “phonics instruction failed to exert a significant impact on the reading performance of low-achieving readers in 2nd through 6th grades” (p. 94). 

As David A. Kilpatrick explains in Equipped for Reading Success, neuroimaging research shows that phonics does not teach letter-sound relationships in the same way that the brain processes them.  Phonics focuses on the letters; the brain focuses on sounds. Shaywitz explains: “Today scientists can actually watch the brain as it works to read; scientists can actually track the printed word as it is perceived as a visual icon and then transformed into the sounds (phonemes) of language and simultaneously interpreted from the meaning that is stored within the brain” (pp. 59-68).
 
David Moreau’s study in Educational Psychology Review showed that the brain focuses on letter sounds.  There are 26 letters in the alphabet and 40 different letter sounds (phonemes).  Two hundred fifty letter combinations or spellings make these sounds.  For example, the letter a uses seven different letter sounds but 22 different letter combinations to make those sounds.  Phonics focuses on learning rules to predict these letter sounds.  Phonemic awareness focuses on learning letter-sound relationships without rules.  Sebastian P. Suggate’s 2016 study in the Journal of Reading Disabilities compared 71 phonemic awareness and phonics intervention groups. He showed that phonemic awareness had more long-term staying power than phonics, especially if the phonemic awareness training used letter-sound training. 
 
Kilpatrick explains that the brain does not recognize and store words through visual memory—seeing the same word over and over or “look-say.”  Instead, the brain creates an oral filing system.  The brain does not file words by letter.  Neither whole language or phonics works with the brain’s oral filing system.  Students who cannot memorize whole language word lists cannot memorize phonics rules, especially rules for irregular letter sounds. If we go back to a phonics approach, we will leave many students failing in reading when we have the scientific knowledge to teach every student to read.  Struggling students need educators to move forward, to read and understand what scientists are saying, and to use new scientific methods to help struggling students learn to read. 
Phonics instruction usually starts by teaching the short vowel sounds for a, e, i, o, and u.  Then, teaching the long vowel sounds for vowels by adding silent e, as with cake, tree, ice, tone, use.  Yet, this causes an immediate problem.  Seven different letter combinations can make the long a vowel sound:  ea, ai, ay, ei, ey, eigh, and silent e—break, sail, pay, rein, they, eight, take.  Of course, the letter a can also make the long a vowel sound standing alone, as with “apron.”  When we teach students the long a sound using only silent e, then later introduce irregular vowel sounds, struggling students become confused.  
 
Scientific research shows us how to teach children to read, but schools are not using those methods. 

Someone asked me a few days ago why I feel so negative toward the movement to switch reading instruction from whole language to phonics.  My reason:  switching from whole language to phonics would mean we were switching from one failing teaching method (whole language) to another failing teaching method (phonics).  I have explained throughout several blog posts why whole language is a failed teaching method [see 11-2-18, 9-28-18, 8-26-18, 8-18-18, 8-4-18].  I have shared the research.  I have shared the research of experts who clearly state that whole language is a failure always has been and always will be. 
 
I have also presented several experts and abundant research to show why phonics will not work.  Phonics is also a failed teaching method.  Research proves it.  My question is:  Why should we switch from one failed teaching method to another failed teaching method when they have both proven to be wrong?  As Dr. Sally Shaywitz (see Shaywitz, Overcoming Dyslexia, 2003) explains, “Children do not learn to read by memorizing a word list.  Most children, especially those who struggle in reading, do not learn to read by memorizing phonics rules.” (p. 78) We have the knowledge, the research, and the ability to teach every single child across the nation to read, so why do we cling to failed teaching methods and force students to continue to fail in reading? 

It has been circulating throughout education that phonemic awareness is only about oral sounds.  As a teacher said, “I was told that phonemic awareness is just teaching the children oral sounds.”  Wrong.  To teach phonemic awareness means that you are teaching students to break words down into letter sounds (decoding).  Then, the student learns to put those letter sounds back together and pronounce or read the word (encoding).  Phonemic awareness is a two-step process that does not involve memorizing word lists or rules; it is not the same as teaching phonics.  When we teach phonemic awareness, we need to teach students phonemes (letter sounds) using letters instead of just oral sounds (Shaywitz, Overcoming Dyslexia, 2003). 
 
“Teaching students to manipulate phonemes with letters yields larger effects than teaching students without letters, …. PA [phonemic awareness] training is more effective when children are taught to use letters to manipulate phonemes. This is because knowledge of letters is essential for transfer to reading and spelling” (National Reading Panel, 2000).
 
Phonemic awareness enables students to hear and recognize letter sounds, to match letter-sound relationships, and to decode and encode phonemes.  A phoneme is the smallest unit of sound that can be identified. 

Neuroimaging research shows that intensive training in phonemes (letter sounds) changes the “brain and the way it functions.” This change through phonemic awareness training allows even struggling at-risk students to make significant improvement in reading (Meyler, Keller, Cherkassky, Gabrieli, & Just, 2008).
 
The word cat is a common example for teaching phonemic awareness.  Neuroimaging research shows that it is much better to teach students to sound out the word cat (one letter sound at a time) than to teach students to memorize or simply recognize the word cat (Yoncheva, Wise, & McCandliss, 2015).  The word cat has three distinct phonemes or sounds.  Students need to break words into letter sounds, even with simple one-syllable words like cat. It is better to teach students to sound out each letter sound, one letter at a time, even for multisyllabic or compound words.  There are no rules to learn when learning phonemic awareness, and students are never asked to guess at a word or to memorize a word list.  Students are taught to break all words down into individual letter sounds (decode) and then put those letter sounds back together and read or pronounce the word (encode). 

“In order to read, a child must ‘enter the language system;’ this means that the child must activate and use the brain circuits that are already in place for oral language…. tens of thousands of neurons carrying the phonological messages necessary for language… Connect to form the resonating networks that make skilled reading possible….” (pp. 59-68) (Shaywitz, Overcoming Dyslexia, 2003)
​
After studying over 100,000 programs, the National Reading Panel (2000) concluded that lack of phonemic awareness was a major cause of reading failure.  The NICHD identified lack of phonemic awareness as the primary cause of reading failure (Lyon, 1998). Several of the field’s leading researchers have declared that it is absolutely necessary to teach phonemic awareness if we are to correct reading failure (Chessman et al., 2009; de Graaf et al., 2009; Foorman et al., 2015; Foorman, Breier, and Fletcher, 2003; Kuppen et al., 2011; Lyon, 1998; Oakhill and Cain, 2012; Rayner et al., 2001; Torgesen et al., 2001) and numerous neuroimaging studies (Keller & Just, 2009, Meyler, Keller, Cherkassky, Gabrieli, & Just, 2008; Yoncheva, Wise, & McCandliss, 2015) have each shown that teaching phonemic awareness is the way to correct reading failure.