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.
That account is right about the last step of word reading. Flexibility is real. The risk lies in how we frame it. Children often appear to lack “set for variability” when, in fact, they were never taught the second sound they are now asked to invent.
The Confusion Instruction Can Prevent
Set for variability is a repair after a first pass at the code. It is not a substitute for clear teaching. If children are told that letters have only one sound, or if high‑frequency irregular words are left to chance, they will stumble. That stumble is then recast as a missing “flexibility skill.”
English is quasi‑regular. Shanahan is not wrong about that. Bow is a fair example: the letters support more than one pronunciation, and meaning decides which one belongs in the sentence. But the child who already knows both sounds of ow, and who can test which one makes a real word here, is being flexible. The child who only ever learned one sound is being asked to problem‑solve a gap we created.
The problem is not that readers must sometimes adjust. The problem is teaching that makes the first decode unnecessarily far from any word the child knows.
A Foundation That Shrinks the Repair
In TeachYour Child to Read, I emphasize three practices that belong before the repair step:
High‑frequency words taught to automaticity: The most common words carry a large share of running text, and many are irregular. Teaching a modest, high‑utility set—minutes a day, not a competing method—removes repeated collisions with exceptions so attention can stay on meaning. This is not whole‑word instruction. It is clearing the path so phonics can do its job.
Explicit teaching of multiple vowel sounds: Children should not discover a in apple, ace, arc, agree, always, only after they fail. Teaching the main alternatives early is flexibility by design—not flexibility as salvage.
Context as confirmation: Syntax and semantics should test whether the attempted word is real and fits. They should not replace looking through the letters. That is the line between set for variability and three‑cueing. Kulich’s sequence is sound if it stays in that order: apply phonics, notice the mismatch, reconsider with sentence structure and meaning.
Why Targeted Teaching Still Works
Short interventions that teach missing correspondences and high‑frequency words often move children quickly. That is what we should expect if the bottleneck was incomplete knowledge of the code, not a missing temperament called “flexibility.” Flexibility grows when the child has more legal pronunciations available and a spoken vocabulary that can recognize a near miss.
Functional illiteracy has remained high through successive swings of method. The durable error is not that English has exceptions. It is that exceptions are either denied—“one letter, one sound”—or romanticised as a reason to lean on context first. Both leave the child to invent the system.
A Better Framing
Set for variability is not the starting point of instruction. It is the last inch of a first decode: try the most common pattern, try another taught pattern, check the sentence. When children are given multiple vowel sounds, a small bank of automatic words, and guided confirmation from context, they become flexible readers. They do not need a separate curriculum in “variability” to compensate for teaching that pretended English was simpler than it is.
Kulich is right that strong readers problem‑solve when the first attempt is wrong. Shanahan is right that reading is more than a single phonics pass, and that a steady diet of perfectly regular text can mislead. The danger in celebrating set for variability is different: it can normalize confusion as the method.
We should not train children to repair decoding we never taught clearly. Reading is a skill built on a code that is mostly patterned, a short list of high‑utility exceptions and practice. Flexibility follows that teaching. It should not become the story we tell when the teaching was incomplete.
Dr. Lynne Kulich
• 2nd Best‑Selling Author | National Literacy Keynote Speaker | Evidence‑Based Literacy Practices
Yesterday, I shared a post inspired by Tim Shanahan's recent article on decodable texts. One idea that generated a lot of reflection for me was the importance of helping readers develop set for variability.
Set for variability is the ability to adjust a pronunciation when the first decoding attempt doesn't make sense.
Think about a child who decodes a word accurately according to a phonics pattern, but the pronunciation doesn't fit the sentence. Skilled readers don't stop there. They use syntax and semantics to reevaluate their attempt and arrive at a word that makes sense in context.
This is one reason reading is much more than applying phonics rules.
Readers must learn to:
✅ Apply phonics knowledge
✅ Recognize when a pronunciation doesn't fit
✅ Use sentence structure and meaning to reconsider their attempt
✅ Flexibly adjust until the word makes sense
As Shanahan points out, English is not perfectly consistent. Readers need opportunities to encounter both patterns and exceptions. Overly predictable reading experiences can sometimes obscure the reality that proficient reading requires flexibility and choice.
When I think back to my own first-grade experience struggling to decode bow, I realize the challenge wasn't simply knowing a phonics rule. Ultimately, successful reading depends on coordinating multiple sources of information.
Strong readers don't just decode.
🤔 They problem solve.
🤔 They cross-check.
🤔 They think.
And they remain flexible when their first attempt isn't quite right.
That flexibility may be one of the most important reading skills we develop in our students.
What are your favorite examples of set for variability in action? Connect with me at literacyleadersproject.com
No comments:
Post a Comment