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)
1. Reading is sounding out words
Andrew dismisses decoding as central. Yet my work with over 80 children shows the opposite: when taught the correct sounds of letters — without added schwa distortions — and informed early that letters often represent more than one sound, children succeed. The failure lies not in decoding, but in teachers mis-teaching decoding.
2. Nobody teaches guessing
Andrew insists “nobody anywhere teaches children to guess at words.” This is demonstrably false. Balanced literacy and three-cueing explicitly encourage guessing from pictures or context. I have documented countless cases where children were told to “look at the picture” or “think what makes sense.” Goodman’s “psycholinguistic guessing game” was not just theory — it became practice, and it failed.
3. All children learn the same way
Andrew claims the Science of Reading assumes uniformity. In reality, SoR emphasizes systematic phonics precisely because children need clarity, not confusion. But Andrew’s dismissal of Dolch word memorization ignores the fact that non-content words (60% of print) must be mastered through rote learning. Pretending all children will intuit these words through context is a recipe for failure.
4. Standardized tests as diagnosis
Andrew argues diagnosis is limited to standardized tests. My free assessments show otherwise: children’s struggles are revealed in one-on-one sessions, where confusion — not disability — is the root cause. Standardized tests miss this nuance.
5. Synthetic phonics as primary
Andrew mocks synthetic phonics. Yet without explicit phonics instruction, children are left adrift. The shift from Whole Word to phonics has not reduced illiteracy because phonics is often taught incorrectly — wrong sounds, neglect of multiple-letter sounds, and no Dolch word memorization. The problem is not phonics itself, but its poor execution.
6. Massive literacy crisis
Andrew denies a crisis. But functional illiteracy rates remain stubbornly high. Parents seek help outside schools because children are confused by wrong teaching. If there were no crisis, why the persistent demand for intervention?
The Core Challenge to Andrew
Andrew’s remediation plan begins with Goodman’s 1967 paper, urging us to “read for understanding.” But Goodman’s theory — that reading is a guessing game — is precisely what led to decades of failure. To claim “nobody teaches guessing” is to deny the lived classroom reality. To dismiss phonics scope and sequence is to ignore the need for systematic clarity. To deny a literacy crisis is to turn away from the evidence of functional illiteracy all around us.
My Position
Reading difficulties are caused by instructional confusion, not innate deficits.
Wrong teaching — distorted sounds, neglect of multiple-letter sounds, failure to teach Dolch words, reliance on guessing — creates the illusion of disability.
The solution is explicit phonics taught correctly, alongside rote memorization of high-frequency words.
Until educators confront these realities, functional illiteracy will persist — no matter how many times Goodman’s paper is reread or how much money is spent on programs “with fidelity.”
Andrew's post on Substack:
A Diagnostic on the Science of Reading
A good diagnostic of any kind determines the cause of the problem and identifies what can be done to fix it. I recently did a diagnostic assessment on the Science of Reading to determine the cause of their many bad policies related to reading instruction. It turns out that these bad policies are caused by believing the wrong sorts of things.
The Wrong Sorts of Things
These are the wrong sorts of things believed by the Science of Reading:
Reading is sounding out words (decoding).
A reading disability is a sounding-out-words problem.
Reading problems are diagnosed by identifying the words students can’t sound out.
Only standardized tests can diagnose reading difficulties.
If you know what students can’t sound out, you can fix their sounding-out-word problems.
All children learn to read the same way.
All struggling readers are the same.
All struggling readers have inadequate sounding-out-word skills.
There is a predetermined order in which phonics skills must be taught.
Systematic phonics instruction means teaching a specific set of grapheme-phoneme connections in a predetermined order (scope and sequence).
There is strong research evidence for a standardized scope and sequence of reading skills.
Beginning reading instruction should consist primarily of synthetic phonics using direct and explicit phonics.
There is a single best way to teach reading.
Meaning-based strategies used for word identification impede students’ ability to decode.
Better scores on decoding tests show that a decoding intervention is working.
If a school purchases the right reading program, and if teachers follow it with “fidelity”, most reading problems will go away.
Teachers should not be empowered to make decisions about their students.
Consultants, profiteers, and publishing companies will give you an answer that’s not tainted by profit.
Teacher preparation programs are failing to prepare teachers to teach reading.
It’s possible to create a master reading teacher in three semesters of undergraduate education.
There is a massive literacy crisis.
Remediation Plan
Below is a remediation plan based on the diagnostic:
1. Read Ken Goodman’s 1967 paper, “Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game’. Don’t read about it. Don’t just look at the title. Don’t pull isolated sentences out of context. Don’t just sound out the words. Read for understanding. Stop along the way to check for understanding. Reread passages that seem to be confusing. Identify the specific things with which you disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment