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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Andrew’s recent post, “A Diagnostic on the Science of Reading”, claims that bad policies stem from “believing the wrong sorts of things.” He lists a series of supposed misconceptions — but many of his assertions are themselves contrary to classroom reality and the lived experience of struggling readers. Let me highlight where Andrew’s points collapse under scrutiny. (Scroll down to read Andrew's post on Substack)
Zack Barnes, PhD posted the following on Facebook today, 16 September 2026.
Dyslexia is real. There’s no denying that. However, there is a small group of literacy professors who think dyslexia is a myth. The article below is from way back in 2019. At the time, I released audio from a prominent literacy professor making outrageous claims about dyslexia and a newly passed dyslexia law in Tennessee.
Richard Allington is a huge name in literacy. Think about how many teachers and professors he trained to think that dyslexia wasn’t real. Around the same time I went to a national literacy conference where I heard professors talk about how dyslexia was a myth.
It. Was. Wild.
I was taught in my PhD program that there were people like this, but it was mind blowing to see it in happening in front of my eyes.
It’s people like that who have kept the field of literacy from moving forward. We can have debates about specific teaching practices, but you can’t have collaborate conversations with someone who does not believe in learning disabilities.
Dyslexia is real, and we need to identify students and provide intensive intervention.
Dyslexia exists. What is inflated is the scale.
Changing the narrative must include the shut-down child who cannot read
If you are in crisis, or worried about someone else, get help now. In the US and Canada, call or text 988. In the UK, Samaritans is 116 123. In Malaysia, Befrienders is 03-7627 2929. International help:LINK
September is Suicide Awareness Month. This year’s theme is “Changing the Narrative”: start the conversation instead of wrapping suicide in shame.
Dr Naomi Fisher recently reminded us that schools were not designed with child development in mind. Chris Benson added that the rush into formal education is largely an English-speaking phenomenon, noting that his own children thrived in a system where formal schooling began later.
I asked Chris a direct question: What do you suggest we do to reduce the percentage of children leaving schools as functional illiterates? His reply was that this is a societal issue, not one schools alone can fix. ‘Do you have a response?’ he asked.
Yesterday, I posted classroom examples of the difference between set for variability and three-cueing. The point was simple: context should confirm decoding, not replace it.
A thoughtful comment from Helene Alalouf, an educational consultant who coaches elementary teachers, asked the question many teachers still hold:
But respectfully, are they learning the meaning of words and building knowledge as well without context?
In literacy discussions, two ideas often get blurred: set for variability and three‑cueing. Both involve context, but they are not the same.
Set for variability describes what happens when a child decodes a word, realizes the pronunciation doesn’t fit, and then adjusts using syntax and meaning. Context confirms decoding.
Three‑cueing encourages children to guess words from pictures or sentence meaning without first decoding. Context replaces decoding.
Dr. Lynne Kulich, drawing on Timothy Shanahan’s recent writing on decodable texts, describes set for variability as the ability to adjust a pronunciation when the first decoding attempt does not make sense. A child applies a phonics pattern, notices the word does not fit the sentence, and tries again using syntax and meaning. Shanahan’s point is that English is not perfectly consistent, and overly predictable texts can obscure the flexibility skilled readers actually use.
Scroll below to see the LinkedIn post by Dr. Lynne Kulich.
I read the following on LinkedIn this morning.
Let this be our collective call to action - to reduce tech in classrooms and have classroom instruction center on texts. (Molly Ness, PhD)
Alarming new data shows U.S. students continue to fall behind their peers in reading as the country's achievement gap widens, according to results from the latest globally recognized international exam.
As usual the US and the UK will continue barking up the wrong tree.
it has a "shut-off device" that rejects new ideas
once a primary belief or ideology gets in.
Between 4–7 September 2026, I had a series of exchanges on LinkedIn with Dr. Karen Faulds, an educational consultant and assessor in the UK. I am preserving the discussion here for posterity because it illustrates a recurring problem: when entrenched practices are defended despite stagnant outcomes.
