For many years I have made a simple observation.
When we teach the sound of the letter b, many of us do not say /b/. We say "buh." When we teach the sound of the letter t, many of us do not say /t/. We say "tuh." Likewise, /k/ often becomes "kuh" or "cuh."
For more than a decade I have argued that a major, under-recognized cause of early reading failure is children being taught the wrong sounds of letters. When consonants are taught with an added “uh” (the schwa)—“buh,” “cuh,” “duh” instead of the pure /b/, /k/, /d/—blending becomes unnecessarily hard. Children try to say “cuh-ah-tuh” and struggle to hear the word cat. The confusion leads many of them to shut down. Once the pure sounds are taught and practiced, that particular source of confusion drops away and most children can begin to decode.
Millions of older students are being treated for comprehension problems when their real literacy difficulties remain unaddressed.
When literacy experts say, "Once a child learns to decode, the hard part of reading is far from over," they are partly right. Vocabulary matters. Background knowledge matters. Syntax matters. Comprehension certainly matters. But there is a problem hidden inside that statement. It assumes that children have actually learned to decode.
For many students, that assumption is false.
These are further thoughts on my previous post at LINK.
Paul Thomas asks whether “kids today can’t read” is a real crisis or, as Chris Ferguson suggests, a perennial gripe. His answer rests on two observations. Adults have always complained about the young. And nobody can point to a golden age when nearly all children left school able to read well.
Both can be granted. Neither answers the question that matters.
Why Fluent Readers Are Not the Mystery. The Real Mystery Is Why Some Curious Children Shut Down.
A few weeks ago, I posed what I thought was a simple question on Substack:
Does anyone know how a child learns to read?
The Questions Lyn Stone Never Answered
I recently read a post by Lyn Stone in which she expressed concern about Lucy Calkins appearing at a reading conference. Stone wrote that she is "interested in accountability before reconciliation" and suggested that before being welcomed, Calkins should publicly acknowledge where she was wrong, apologise for the damage caused, and explain what she is doing now to correct it.
On that principle, I have no disagreement.
More than six years ago, I wrote a post titled People Prefer to Believe a Myth. Instead of Examining the Evidence. Little has changed.
I posted a Substack note on Paul Thomas’s post and he referred me to another post of his.
I think Paul has finally framed the issue in a way that allows for a more productive discussion. Rather than arguing over whether there is a "reading crisis," he is asking deeper historical questions.
Here is my response:
I recently came across an article arguing that the Science of Reading belongs in Tier 1 instruction and should not be reserved for expensive private schools, tutors, and dyslexia specialists.
On that point, I completely agree.
Responding to Paul Thomas on Crisis, Faddism, and Educational Reform
I recently read a Substack article by Paul Thomas titled "The More Things Change ... : The Bi-Partisan Failure of Public Education (SC Edition)." It is a thought-provoking piece that challenges decades of educational reform in South Carolina and the United States.
Thomas argues that politicians and education marketers have created a perpetual cycle of crisis, reform, and disappointment. One generation is told that schools are failing. New standards are introduced. New training programmes are purchased. New materials are sold. A few years later, another crisis is declared, another reform is launched, and the cycle begins again.
A post of mine is still pending in Texas Dyslexia Teachers and Therapists.
This is what I wrote:
“A majority of kids classified as dyslexic are shut down kids. They disengage from learning to read due to confusion.”
The group says it was formed for dyslexia teachers and therapists to collaborate and share experiences and ideas. Anyone in that group could have asked me to explain the sentence, or to show the children I have taught. Instead, the post sits pending. The admin has not said what is wrong with it.
This morning at 3am, I read the following reply on my comment on Substack. It is comments like this that makes my day.
Stephane - The Story Coach
Thank you for sharing this with us. It’s a beautiful tale. I hope that all the parents and children who need this will find you <3
I argued that teaching letter sounds without extraneous “uh” sounds is essential. Yet, even schools using Jolly Phonics from day one still produce functional illiterates. Why? LINK
The deeper answer lies in prior knowledge — what children have already absorbed before formal instruction begins.
There is a brilliant Tamil proverb that describes a particularly absurd type of denial: "Hiding a whole pumpkin in a plate of rice" (ŕ®®ுŕ®´ு பூசணிக்காயை சோŕ®±்ŕ®±ில் மறைப்பது). It refers to the clumsy, impossible act of trying to obscure a massive, undeniable reality behind a tiny, flimsy cover.
Right now, a segment of prominent education academics is attempting to do exactly that.
For decades, the UK has mandated synthetic phonics as the foundation of reading instruction. Yet literacy outcomes remain stubbornly flat. That contradiction forces one of two conclusions: either phonics itself is flawed, or something is interfering with its effectiveness.
This post is prompted by my recent discussion with Dr. Karen Faulds. Her comments reflect a wider tendency to dismiss the role of early mis‑teaching, but they also highlight why this blind spot must be addressed.
