Phonics. Whole Language. Balanced Literacy. Here we go again . . . What is the best way to teach a child to read? The Reading Wars are decades old, and the pendulum is still swinging back and forth. Should teachers focus on phonics? Should they immerse their students in authentic texts? Should there be a little bit of both?
How a child learns to read is debatable. Have you ever seen or read the book Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading? After having to read many parts of it for my PhD program, I remember saying to my professor, “Can we EVER know EXACTLY how one learns to read?”
Well, the Wars are back – or did they ever go away? Recently I read an article that blasted Lucy Calkins as well as Fountas and Pinnell for their lack of emphasis on explicit phonics instruction. The author of the article made some valid points about the importance of explicit phonics instruction, but I felt she had unfairly critiqued Calkins and Fountas and Pinnell. First, she stated that Calkins’ curriculum emphasized using picture clues or skipping the word entirely when one encounters an unfamiliar word. She said that these two “strategies” do not help a student figure out an unfamiliar word. Secondly, she went after leveled books stating that a student should not be pigeon-holed into a level and not be allowed to go on to harder texts until he or she has mastered the level.
I do not disagree with the importance of explicit phonics instruction. It does not hurt any student to have this type of instruction. But is explicit phonics instruction the BEST way to teach a student how to read, and should we dismiss other ways that may be helpful? I remember being taught phonics rules such as this: “When ‘c’ comes directly before the letters ‘e’, ‘i’ or ‘y’ we use the /s/ sound. In other cases we use a /k/ sound.” That’s great except when you have the word “ocean”or “muscle.” Depending on whose research you read, there can be up to 50% of our English words that do not follow any phonics rule, so how should we teach the other 50%? Would immersing students in authentic texts help? What about looking at picture clues or skipping the word and using the context clues to figure out a word? Do we just throw those out because they are “guessing” strategies that may not be the best or considered scientific?
I will write briefly on leveled texts. It is my understanding that leveled texts are to be used in GUIDED READING – not every time a student reads. We want our students to be learning how to read with a text that is at their instructional level. We want our students to feel successful with a text so that they will take a risk and push themselves to read harder texts. The author of the article made it sound as if once a student was assigned a level, they could not read anything else – hmmmm . . . that sounds like the very popular Accelerated Reader program. Now that is a totally different topic that I could really give my opinion on, but I digress from the purpose of this writing. I do not think Fountas and Pinnell ever suggested this pigeon-hole method of reading.
So back to these current day Reading Wars. I tell my preservice teachers that reading curriculum should not be a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching reading. Some of their students will need an emphasis on phonics instruction. Others may need to be immersed in authentic texts. Others may need a mixture of both. How will you know what your students need? Be involved in their reading. Where are they struggling? How best can you help them in the reading skills they are lacking? If you are depending on the reading curriculum to give you what is needed for every student, you will be one frustrated reading teacher. Let the curriculum be the guide, and DO NOT forget that every student needs what is best for him or her. Where the pendulum swings should be seen as individualistic as each student’s needs are for learning how to read.