Phonics is important, but if that’s all you’re teaching, you limit students’ ability to recognize words and create meaning with print. And that is the end goal – to create meaning, not to fill out phonics worksheets, or pass end-of-unit tests, or sound out words in isolation

I was having a discussion with a fellow online who insisted that early reading instruction should consist primarily of direct instruction of phonics. His argument was that unlike learning to use oral language, learning to use written language is not a natural process for humans. “We’re not wired to learn these skills” he insisted. “Reading is a uniquely human invention,” he said. According to him, children, starting around age 5 or 6, need lots of direct instruction of letter-sound relationships in order to learn “the code”. When they learn the code, then they can read (or decode).

This is a commonly held idea that seems to make good sense to many. But we want reading instruction to be based on good science, not good sense. So, let’s do a bit of unpack-o-rating:

If you threw a rock into the middle of a pond but that rock was not a rock, can you still be said to have thrown a rock? Likewise, can a standard be said to be a standard if it is not standardized?

We know that science is a good thing, and using science in reading instruction is a good thing. But what exactly is meant by the “science of reading”? What exactly is the Science of Reading? Is it a noun? Is it a verb? Or has it become an adjective or perhaps a metaphor used to indicate something else?