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?
Children aren’t broken. Our teaching methods are. Discover why decoding is often innate — and how confusion poisons the path to literacy.
Sections:
Most children who read do so by figuring it out — even when phonics is taught incorrectly.
Decoding ≠ comprehension. Let’s stop conflating the two.
Harvard research shows reading relies on smooth neural pathways.
Wrong phonics = stoplights. Correct input = free flow.
Many “dyslexic” children are victims of confusion, not disorder.
Early exposure to wrong sounds (TV, kindergarten) blocks natural decoding.
My first student learned to read without phonics — just Peter and Jane books.
I’ve seen children “unlock” reading overnight when confusion is removed.
Call to Action: Let’s stop blaming children. Let’s start fixing instruction.
Read the full post below
For years, I’ve argued that many children possess an innate ability to decode written language — an ability that’s often overlooked, dismissed, or actively suppressed by flawed teaching methods. This claim has sparked heated debates, especially on Twitter, where educators like Pamela Snow have blocked me rather than engage with the evidence. But the truth remains: many children figure out how to read despite — not because of — formal instruction.
🚸 Decoding vs. Comprehension: Let’s Be Precise
When I say “reading,” I’m talking about decoding — the ability to recognize and sound out words. Comprehension is a separate skill, and I leave that to experts in that field. The confusion between these two has led to widespread misunderstanding about what it means to “learn to read.”
'Great work requires being stubborn about your goals but flexible about your methods. The best people I know stick relentlessly to what they want to achieve, but quickly adapt how they'll achieve it when they see a better way. Most people do the opposite - they cling to their methods even when better options appear.'
I recently posted an article quoting Siegfried Engelmann's statement that there is a procedure for teaching reading that can reach virtually 100% of children. Savannah, a teacher, responded with her own experience:
The Madwoman in the Classroom, @heymrsbond, took offense with the following on my blog post:
Luqman Michel
The Madwoman in the Classroom @heymrsbond
'Secondary English teachers don’t teach students how to read.
We aren’t taught how to teach students how to read.' But her Twitter profile
says she is a Literacy educator • teacher-scholar. Read more HERE.
The Madwoman in the Classroom @heymrsbond
Just because I don’t teach children decoding and phonics doesn’t mean I’m not a literacy teacher. Attacking my work for your promotion and engagement is weird.
Here is a tweet by Dr. Sam Bommarito that I disagree with. I have said this several times and I say it again, I have the highest respect for Dr. Sam and his blog posts but I believe he sometimes gets carried away and says things he ought not to. Here is one such tweet this morning, 30.7.2023.
Dr. Sam Bommarito @DoctorSam7
There is more to reading than just decoding (reading with your eyes). Students need to learn to read with their eyes, ears, mind and heart. That results in READING with comprehension and fluency. Phonics first can result in creating word callers instead of readers.
On 2.10.21 I had a zoom meeting with a twitter/ email friend from the US.
He was agreeable with most of the things I said but said that my definition of decoding/reading was wrong. He said that decoding included comprehension.
