Many thanks for your post, Andy. This is a complicated debate, nevertheless, systematic phonics clearly has a very important role to play in the teaching of reading.
Interestingly, according to Prof. Pamela Snow , three national inquiries into the teaching of reading, in the US , the UK , and Australia have all “recommended an explicit focus on systematic phonics instruction as the starting point for novice readers - alongside development of all of the other skills essential for successful reading.”
Here are a few more readings on different facets of this issue:
Buckingham, J. (2020) Systematic phonics instruction belongs in
evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers, The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 37:2, 105-113,
Buckingham, J., Wheldall, R., & Wheldall, K. (2019). Systematic and explicit phonics instruction: A scientific evidence-based approach to teaching the alphabetic principle. In R. Cox, S. Feez, & L. Beveridge (Eds.), The alphabetic principle and beyond: Surveying the landscape (pp. 49–67). Primary English Teaching Association Australia.
Christensen, C.A., & Bowey J.A. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime,
grapheme–phoneme correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to
teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327–349.
Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of
reading failure. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 338–358.
Johnston, R., McGeown, S., & Watson, J. (2011). Long-term effects of synthetic
versus analytic phonics teaching on the reading and spelling ability
of 10-year-old boys and girls. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 25, 1365–1384.
Joseph, B. (2019). Overcoming the odds: A study of Australia’s top performing
disadvantaged schools [Research Report 39]. The Centre for Independent
Studies.
Louden, B. (2015). High performing schools: What do they have in common?
Western Australia Department of Education.
Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. & Nation, K. (2009). Orthographic facilitation in oral vocabulary acquisition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1948–1966.
Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading final report. UK. Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5551/2/report.pdf
Rosenthal, J. & Ehri, L. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 175–191.
Rowe, K. (2005). Teaching reading: National inquiry into the teaching of literacy. Department of Education, Science and Training, Australian Council of Educational Research. Retrieved from: https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5/
Professor Andy Johnson writes in his most recent book, “Johnson, A. (2026). Making sense of the science of reading: Context matters, Guilford Publishing.,” professor Andy Johnson repeatedly says, “It’s not the ‘what’ of phonics instruction that’s at issue; it’s the ‘how’ and the ‘how much’ of phonics instruction.
Wow. La Trobe University gave Emily Hanford a doctorate for producing advertising disguised as investigative reporting, and anecdotes dressed up as science? Someone must be trying very hard to capture Australia for the overemphasizing phonics camp.
Instruction that does not allow time to practice phonics instruction in the context of authentic text.
NRP on Balanced Literacy Instruction
• Programs that focus too much on the teaching of letter-sounds relations and not enough on putting them to use are unlikely to be very effective. Students need to apply their skills in daily reading and writing activities.
• Program that focus too much on phonics with little time spent practicing reading (books) are likely to be ineffective.
• “Systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program” (p. 2-97).
• “Phonics should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor the significance attached” (p. 2-97).
Lots of straw men here. Phonics is required to teach kids how to read. The other activities are what kids are able to do when they can actually read and I have seen no phonics proponents denying any of this.
When you try to teach a few 9th graders who have been inundated with phonics instruction, who hate reading and lack confidence in their ability to do it, who don't understand that reading is meaning making and not just sounding out, you might start grasping what "overemphasizing" means.
It's why I studied reading interventions and moved to the elementary school.
Lots of issues here but a few straw men too. Once kids can recognise the sounds, thoughtful teachers will try to foster a love of reading through fun texts. Phonics instruction and reading for pleasure are not mutually exclusive- that's just a straw man.
Wyse, D., & Bradbury, A. (2022). Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers' practices for teaching phonics and reading. Review of Education, 10, e3314. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3314
I recently saw a lecture by D. Wyse. He gave a rather unsatisfactory answer to the question if why reading literacy rates increased a few years after the Rose report in the UK recommended phonics. Interesting correlation…
I'm not sure what "rather unsatisfactory" means here. But do you know what mostly correlates with standardized test scores? Socioeconomic status. So much so that you can predict the results.
"Rather unsatisfactory" means that it was ironic that he could not see the correlation between the Rose report recommending phonics for reading being implemented and the subsequent improvement in reading literacy rates. Denying low SES kids phonics instruction is entrenching inequality and baking in low literacy rates.
Many thanks for your post, Andy. This is a complicated debate, nevertheless, systematic phonics clearly has a very important role to play in the teaching of reading.
Interestingly, according to Prof. Pamela Snow , three national inquiries into the teaching of reading, in the US , the UK , and Australia have all “recommended an explicit focus on systematic phonics instruction as the starting point for novice readers - alongside development of all of the other skills essential for successful reading.”
Here are a few more readings on different facets of this issue:
Buckingham, J. (2020) Systematic phonics instruction belongs in
evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers, The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 37:2, 105-113,
https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2020.12
Buckingham, J., Wheldall, R., & Wheldall, K. (2019). Systematic and explicit phonics instruction: A scientific evidence-based approach to teaching the alphabetic principle. In R. Cox, S. Feez, & L. Beveridge (Eds.), The alphabetic principle and beyond: Surveying the landscape (pp. 49–67). Primary English Teaching Association Australia.
Christensen, C.A., & Bowey J.A. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime,
grapheme–phoneme correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to
teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327–349.
Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
Hatcher, P.J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M.J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training
combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of
reading failure. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 338–358.
Johnston, R., McGeown, S., & Watson, J. (2011). Long-term effects of synthetic
versus analytic phonics teaching on the reading and spelling ability
of 10-year-old boys and girls. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 25, 1365–1384.
Joseph, B. (2019). Overcoming the odds: A study of Australia’s top performing
disadvantaged schools [Research Report 39]. The Centre for Independent
Studies.
Louden, B. (2015). High performing schools: What do they have in common?
Western Australia Department of Education.
Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. & Nation, K. (2009). Orthographic facilitation in oral vocabulary acquisition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1948–1966.
Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading final report. UK. Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5551/2/report.pdf
Rosenthal, J. & Ehri, L. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 175–191.
Rowe, K. (2005). Teaching reading: National inquiry into the teaching of literacy. Department of Education, Science and Training, Australian Council of Educational Research. Retrieved from: https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5/
Snow, P. (2018). Who sank the (reading) boat? A sad tale of academic misrepresentation of the role of decodable texts for beginning readers. Retrieved from: www.pamelasnow.blogspot.com/2018/11/who-sank-reading-boat-sad-tale-of.html (accessed 1 November 2018).
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2026). Whole language lives on: The illusion of balanced reading instruction. https://www.ldonline.org/ld-topics/teaching-instruction/whole-language-lives-illusion-balanced-reading-instruction
UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills
(OFSTED). (2010). Reading by six: How the best schools do it. UK Office
for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., Gascoine, L., & Higgins, S. (2018). Phonics:
Reading policy and the evidence of effectiveness from a systematic ‘tertiary’
review. Research Papers in Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02671522.2017.1420816
Wheldall, K., Snow, P. & Graham, L. (2016). Explainer: What does the term ‘synthetic phonics’ really mean? Nomanis, 2, 26–27.
More reading:
https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-on-literacy/which-best-analytic-or-synthetic-phonics
https://www.getreadingright.com.au/analytic-phonics-vs-synthetic-phonics/
Emily Hanford receives an honorary doctorate:
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2025/release/podcaster-receives-universitys-highest-honour
Greetings James,
Professor Andy Johnson writes in his most recent book, “Johnson, A. (2026). Making sense of the science of reading: Context matters, Guilford Publishing.,” professor Andy Johnson repeatedly says, “It’s not the ‘what’ of phonics instruction that’s at issue; it’s the ‘how’ and the ‘how much’ of phonics instruction.
Wow. La Trobe University gave Emily Hanford a doctorate for producing advertising disguised as investigative reporting, and anecdotes dressed up as science? Someone must be trying very hard to capture Australia for the overemphasizing phonics camp.
I am not sure what overemphasising means here?
Instruction that does not allow time to practice phonics instruction in the context of authentic text.
NRP on Balanced Literacy Instruction
• Programs that focus too much on the teaching of letter-sounds relations and not enough on putting them to use are unlikely to be very effective. Students need to apply their skills in daily reading and writing activities.
• Program that focus too much on phonics with little time spent practicing reading (books) are likely to be ineffective.
• “Systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program” (p. 2-97).
• “Phonics should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor the significance attached” (p. 2-97).
Lots of straw men here. Phonics is required to teach kids how to read. The other activities are what kids are able to do when they can actually read and I have seen no phonics proponents denying any of this.
When you try to teach a few 9th graders who have been inundated with phonics instruction, who hate reading and lack confidence in their ability to do it, who don't understand that reading is meaning making and not just sounding out, you might start grasping what "overemphasizing" means.
It's why I studied reading interventions and moved to the elementary school.
The old "reading for meaning " chestnut is another straw man. Kids get that they're reading for meaning and so do teachers.
Seems to me like you haven't read with many 9th graders who've been labeled "struggling readers."
Lots of issues here but a few straw men too. Once kids can recognise the sounds, thoughtful teachers will try to foster a love of reading through fun texts. Phonics instruction and reading for pleasure are not mutually exclusive- that's just a straw man.
Speaking of straw men, who said that phonics instruction and reading for pleasure were mutually exclusive?
Wyse, D., & Bradbury, A. (2022). Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers' practices for teaching phonics and reading. Review of Education, 10, e3314. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3314
I recently saw a lecture by D. Wyse. He gave a rather unsatisfactory answer to the question if why reading literacy rates increased a few years after the Rose report in the UK recommended phonics. Interesting correlation…
I'm not sure what "rather unsatisfactory" means here. But do you know what mostly correlates with standardized test scores? Socioeconomic status. So much so that you can predict the results.
"Rather unsatisfactory" means that it was ironic that he could not see the correlation between the Rose report recommending phonics for reading being implemented and the subsequent improvement in reading literacy rates. Denying low SES kids phonics instruction is entrenching inequality and baking in low literacy rates.