The International Literacy Association has put out a new brief instruction.
鈥淓nglish is an alphabetic language. We have 26 letters. These letters, in various combinations, represent the 44 sounds in our language,鈥� the ILA brief released last week reads. 鈥淭eaching students the basic letter-sound combinations gives them access to sounding out approximately 84% of the words in English print.鈥�
It鈥檚 a strong statement from an influential, big-tent organization whose members, which include teachers, researchers, and parents, have traditionally held a wide range of views on reading approaches.
鈥淚t鈥檚 kind of a refreshing piece,鈥� said Timothy Shanahan, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago. 鈥淎 lot of people think ILA is an anti-phonics group, but it鈥檚 a large group.鈥�
The ILA鈥檚 word choices in this brief are important. Systematic phonics means that students are exposed to each sound-letter pattern in the English language in turn. Explicit means that those patterns are directly taught by teachers, not 鈥渄iscovered鈥� via indirect prompting or inquiry activities.
This may seem like common sense: Of course students need to be taught letters and sounds. But for any of you who have spent any time in the early-reading space, it gets right to the heart of the decades-old reading wars.
Almost all reading researchers agree that factors like motivation, access to a print-rich environment, and good books matter in a reading program. The reading wars are really a debate on a small鈥攂ut critical鈥攑iece: The relative importance of phonics, sometimes called 鈥渄ecoding.鈥�
The pro-phonics folks tend to view phonics as a bridge to meaning, reasoning that they鈥檙e a necessary step toward being able to read any word. Proponents of whole language or its successor 鈥渂alanced literacy,鈥� which is a common approach used in U.S. schools today, generally emphasize meaning first, mixing small-group reading of literature with lots of student choice of reading materials. Those approaches tend to subordinate phonics, emphasizing learning words through memorization, context clues, and pictures.
A number of research syntheses link explicit phonics instruction to improvements in early reading outcomes, though there is less clarity about the amount or type of phonics that matters.
This is why the ILA鈥檚 word choice 鈥渟ystematic and explicit鈥� matters so much. In balanced literacy, while there can be a phonics component, it鈥檚 often limited or incomplete, such as focusing on initial letter sounds (鈥渂鈥� as in baseball, bat, brick). But students may not get exposed to each of the sound-letter patterns in turn, or get enough practice to master them.
The distinction was one deeply explored by APM Reports鈥� Emily Hanford in , which has been credited for putting early reading back on the national policy agenda.
Phonics instruction is a topic that 鈥渞eally needed our voice,鈥� said Marcie Post, the executive director of the ILA, noting the growing interest in the subject from educators and the public alike.
The brief represents the association鈥檚 official position on the issue, said Post, though she noted that there are a range of opinions represented among ILA members. 鈥淲e have lots of educators who will support this paper, and I guarantee we will have others out there who will not support this stance,鈥� she said.
A Shift in Stance?
The organization鈥檚 prior history with respect to the reading wars is not clear cut. It was one of the first organizations to endorse the findings of the 2000 National Reading Panel report鈥攁 federally commissioned look at rigorous research on reading鈥攁nd helped distribute thousands of copies to its members.
That report cites phonics鈥攁longside phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension鈥攁s a key research-based element in any reading program. (The report itself has proved to be controversial, mainly among whole-language advocates who dispute a flawed summary document distributed with the report, or believe the panel should have incorporated more qualitative research.)
On the other hand, some of the ILA鈥檚 most well-known members, including past presidents, have tended to fall more into the whole-language camp. And some of its previous briefs and position statements are philosophically closer to balanced literacy. The organization has, for example, endorsed the practice of school-based independent reading. Researchers remain divided about whether, and under what conditions, teachers should use school-based free reading.
And in 2016, the organization鈥檚 statement on dyslexia, drew a rebuke from the International Dyslexia Organization. Dyslexia advocates have emerged as one of the strongest and most vocal supporters of systematic, explicit teaching of phonics. Fueled by the organizing tools of social media, they have also been successful over the past decade supporting .
But Post said that the organization has always endorsed systematic phonics instruction, and that this paper doesn鈥檛 represent a shift in the ILA鈥檚 stance.
鈥淲e鈥檙e talking about an integrated approach between the teaching of phonics and literature. There is a need for explicit instruction,鈥� but you can鈥檛 teach children meaning-making on a phonics curriculum alone, she said. She called for more teacher training, and said that ILA will be putting forth an 鈥渁ction plan鈥� within the next year, that will help teachers work with struggling readers. Phonics is a part of that equation, she said.
鈥淭he big problem, as we see it, is that teachers need to have a bevy of tools in the toolbox,鈥� said Post. She has seen teachers talking on social media, asking why they weren鈥檛 taught how to teach phonics in their preparation programs. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a really legitimate question,鈥� she said. 鈥淲hat ed program didn鈥檛 prepare you to teach this?鈥�
The new brief also endorses having students use 鈥渄ecodable texts,鈥� or stories featuring words that help students practice and reinforce the sound-letter patterns they鈥檝e recently learned. () But students must also be helped to read materials with a less tightly controlled vocabulary鈥攁nd those should be differentiated for each child鈥檚 level by well-trained teachers, the brief says.
To be sure, the brief also notes that phonics should not be done in an isolated way that neglects a focus on knowledge building or vocabulary. Nor does it endorse a particular type of phonics instruction鈥攐nly that it should be systematic and explicit.
(Phonics approaches can be further subdivided into 鈥渟ynthetic鈥� phonics, in which children sound out and blend word parts together, or 鈥渁nalytic鈥� phonics, which looks at sound patterns typically within word groups. Disagreement continues to rage among pro-phonics advocates about which of these is most effective.)
鈥淚 also think that we never need to lose sight of individualized instruction,鈥� said Diane Lapp, the chair of the ILA鈥檚 Literacy Research Panel, a professor of education at San Diego State University. Students who come into school not knowing the letters of the alphabet need a lot of phonics instruction, while students who already know how to read don鈥檛 need the same program, she noted.
Overcoming 鈥極bstacles鈥�
It may come as the kicker that the brief鈥檚 author, Wiley Blevins, isn鈥檛 a major figure in the reading wars. In fact, he hates engaging in such debates.
Instead, he said in an interview, he wants the new brief to help teachers who have struggled to teach phonics well.
Blevins, who has written a number of books on phonics and currently works as a consultant training teachers to improve their reading foundations teaching, points to sections in the brief that outline common pitfalls for teachers. On that list? Not enough review and repetition of skills so they 鈥渟tick,鈥� and not enough application of skills to real texts.
鈥淲hat I notice is that it takes four to six weeks for most of the students I work with to get to mastery [on each phonics skill], and it takes mastery to get the point where students can transfer them to all reading materials,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd if you aren鈥檛 giving children enough application, the skills start mentally dissolving. ... A lot of people have great phonics resources, but there is a lack of sufficient application to reading and writing, and without that the learning doesn鈥檛 stick; at last half of phonics should be applying the skills to authentic reading and writing.鈥�
