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.

 

“Phonics vs Semantics”

Andrew:

“There is no evidence that phonics is more important than semantics. Reading is understanding.”

 

My reply: Comprehension is the goal, but it cannot occur if words are misidentified. A child who says “ribbon” for bow has not read the word. Skilled readers use meaning and syntax after decoding, not instead of decoding.

 

“Humility”

Andrew:

“We should all have a bit more humility before telling teachers they’re supposedly doing it wrong. Maybe step into their classrooms and meet their students first.”

 

My reply: This is not about claiming superiority. It is about clarity at the foundation. I shared the case of Alanna Maurin, an accomplished teacher in Australia who corrected her son’s reading problem once she understood the issue. Documented here. LINK 

 

Sarcasm

Andrew:

“Got it: Buh‑ah‑tuh doesn’t equal bat. Good to know, the next time I’m trying to get the little critters outta my attic — or were you talking about baseball? or cricket?”

 

At this point, the discussion shifted from argument to sarcasm. That is where I chose to stop.

 

The Real Issue

This exchange shows how critics often deflect instead of addressing the core problem: wrong instruction. The solution is modest and specific:

 

Teach clean sounds — without added vowels.

 

Tell children early — that letters often have more than one sound.

 

Make high‑frequency words automatic — to free attention for comprehension.

 

Build words from syllables — so children see how print works.

 

Use context to confirm — not to substitute for decoding.

 

This is not snake oil. It is the result of years of one‑on‑one work with children, including those who could already read in Malay or Hanyu Pinyin but stalled in English until the extra sounds were removed.

 

I will leave Andrew’s sarcasm where it belongs. My focus remains on serious discussion: reducing illiteracy by teaching clean sounds, freeing attention for comprehension, and giving children the tools to succeed. Blanket rejection without engagement is not a serious argument.