Navigating 1942 Is Not the Same as Testing the Sounds

 

A reply to Paul Thomas on the reading “crisis,” the cracks, and the ten-minute check left unanswered since 2020.

Here is my comment on Paul Thomas’s Substack post - https://paulthomas701128.substack.com/p/the-kids-today-cant-read-problem

 

You are right that “kids today can’t read” is an old complaint, and Gray in 1942 is a fair exhibit. You are also right that the United States did not collapse because some children left school weak readers. Dominance is a poor measure of whether a preventable failure was allowed to stand.

Teach Your Child to Read Luqman Michel

 

For more than 15 years, I have worked with children who struggled to learn to read. Many of them had already been labelled "dyslexic." Yet in case after case, I found children who were bright, curious and eager to learn, but who had become confused by the way reading had been taught.

This observation led me to write Teach your Child to Read. 

The Human Egg and the Reading Wars

 

One of my favourite observations from Charlie Munger is his comparison of the human mind to a human egg. Once a sperm enters an ovum, a membrane forms around it to prevent other sperm from getting in.

Munger suggested that something similar happens in our minds. Once an idea takes hold, we often become resistant to alternatives. Instead of objectively examining new evidence, we begin defending what we already believe.

Phonics plus 220 words is not look-say

 

‘The attitudes of some teachers who continue to battle against any change, desiring full autonomy to choose the assessment and instruction with which they are comfortable, is beyond aggravating.’ (Kylie Hoey)

The above coming from Kylie Hoey is ironic.

I remember a discussion in April this year, where she insisted that High Frequency Words should not be rote-memorised. I have taught over 80 dyslexic children who learn to rote-memorise the Dolch words with ease. LINK LINK 

She reminds me of the Tamil fable of the prince who caught a three legged rabbit and declared that all rabbits are three legged. 

The Real Question Is Not Phonics vs Whole Language

 

The Question We Should Be Asking About Reading

I recently joined a lengthy Facebook discussion about reading instruction. Before long, the conversation followed a familiar path. Some argued that phonics is essential. Others argued that whole-word or visual approaches can work. The discussion drifted into the National Reading Panel, No Child Left Behind, teacher training, reading scores, legislation, history, dyslexia, and even what people did before the Phoenicians.

After a while, I stopped reading. Not because the topic was unimportant. Quite the opposite. I stopped because the discussion was no longer about the question that interests me most.

Did the Child Lack Self-Regulation... or Lose Hope?

 

I recently read an excellent article on Substack arguing that self-regulation may be one of the strongest predictors of later success.

The evidence is impressive. Children who can manage their attention, emotions, and behaviour tend to do better not only in school but later in life as well. The discussion that followed was equally interesting. Teachers, parents, paraprofessionals, and executive-function coaches all shared their experiences. A recurring theme emerged: children thrive when adults help them gradually develop the ability to regulate themselves.

Do We Read Words as Shapes? A Closer Look

Someone on Substack argues that we read by word shapes. He posted the above image to prove his point. 

 

No, I don't think this supports Whole Language, whole-word or word shape reading at all.

In fact, the famous paragraph is often misunderstood.

The Mirage of “Research-Based” Reading Instruction

Dr. Sam Bommarito’s latest post argues that districts should “seek research‑based methods that best fit their population” and that teachers should be free to apply the art of teaching within those frameworks. 

It sounds reassuring, but the reality is troubling: despite decades of “research‑based” phonics programmes, the percentage of children leaving school as functional illiterates has remained stubbornly flat. If research were truly guiding us toward effective solutions, shouldn’t those numbers have shifted by now?

The Great Misunderstanding About Memorisation

 

 

One of the most surprising things I've discovered during recent discussions on Substack is how much confusion still exists about memorization in reading.

 

When I say that children should memorize high-frequency words, many people assume I mean visual memorization. Some still imagine that skilled readers recognize words by their shape, as though the brain stores a photograph of each word and retrieves it when needed.

Decoding, Meaning, and How the Brain Learns to Read

 

A recent Facebook exchange captured a familiar debate. Robert Zenhausern argued that “decoding comes after meaning” and that phonics interferes with speed reading. Maria Kay countered with the Simple View of Reading: Decoding + Comprehension = Reading. The discussion raises a deeper question: does meaning precede decoding, or does decoding unlock meaning?

Dyslexia Awareness Month: Awareness or Repetition?

 

October is once again branded as Dyslexia Awareness Month. Predictably, the same slogans resurface: “1 in 5 process written information differently,” “It’s not about intelligence,” “It comes with unique strengths.” These lines have been recycled for decades by vested interests, and yet the rate of functional illiteracy remains stubbornly flat.

Degrees Without Answers

                                                                      

Why credential talk keeps children illiterate while real questions go unanswered.

For more than a decade, I have asked direct questions about why intelligent children fail to read in English while succeeding in languages like Malay and Pinyin. Again and again, the responses I receive from educators and academics are evasive. They speak of expertise, developmental science, or research-based practice — but they rarely, if ever, confront the substance of the questions.

Silence in the Face of 3.7 Million Views

The Paradox of Reach Without Amplification

My blog has been read more than 3.7 million times. Last month alone, nearly half a million readers visited, and thousands continue to read daily. Yet despite this reach, not a single teacher, researcher, or literacy advocate has shared my posts on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Substack. The silence is deafening.

Wrapping Up the Exchange with Andrew Evans

 

Over several replies, Andrew Evans dismissed my comments rather than engaging with the substance. Here are the key points.

 

“Snake Oil”

Andrew:

“There are no products, no scripts, no algorithms, no panaceas, no silver bullets that will get almost all kids to read — and you’re selling snake oil.”

 

My reply: I am not selling panaceas. I am pointing to one preventable source of confusion: teaching letter sounds with added “uh” sounds. “Buh‑ah‑tuh” does not equal bat. Children notice the mismatch, disengage, and are mislabeled as dyslexic.

Why Argue Without Reading?

                                                 

 

Twice now, Andrew Evans has replied to my comments on Substack with sweeping dismissals. First, he said there are “no products, no scripts, no algorithms, no panaceas, no silver bullets” that will get almost all kids to read — and accused me of selling snake oil. Then, when I laid out a diagnostic of the Science of Reading’s wrong assumptions, he insisted there is “no evidence that phonics is more important than semantics” and that “reading is understanding.”