Prior to the mid 1800's, phonics was the primary method of reading instruction in the US. In the mid 1800's whole language gained traction and was the dominant approach until around 1950. In 1955 a book was published entitled, "Why Johnny Can't Read--and What You Can Do About It" by an author named Rudolf Flesch. This kicked off a period of time known as the "Reading Wars". 

In 1967 a book entitled, "Learning to Read:  The Great Debate", was published by Jeanne Chall. This book made the case for explict phonics instruction being better and more effective than the whole language instructional approach. The work by Chall and others became the foundation for the Science of Reading. 

Despite a strong base of research supporting phonics instructions as being superior to whole language instruction, whole language remained the dominant instructional approach until the 1990's. At this time a new approach called Balanced Literacy developed to try to address the continued poor reading scores under whole langauge. Balanced Literacy tried to incorporate both whole language and phonics to meet the needs of each individual student.

Balanced literacy was considered more of a philosophy of instruction with no clear standards. With its flexible approach, it worked for some students but not all. It was appealing to most teachers because of its flexibility, but results remained inconsistent. 

Research has continued and this growing body of research is often referred to as the Science of Reading. However, it incoporates a more structured and explicit approach to instruction compared to whole language or balanced literacy. The science of reading does recognize five major components: 1) phonemic awareness, 2) phonics, 3) fluency, 4) vocabulary, and 5) comprehension.

Reference (https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/the-science-of-reading-vs-balanced-literacy-the-history-of-the-reading-wars).

It seems like the science is supportive of the idea that reading instruction that is more structured and rooted in phonics instruction is superior to whole language or balanced literacy. Yet, the data noted in Truth # 1 remains concerning. There is no evidence that implementing approved curricula based upon the science of reading is meeting the needs of most students. 

Phonics instruction prior to the development of whole language and balanced literacy may not incorporate all of the nuances of curricula based upon the science of reading. But phonics-based instruction is not new. Whole language and balanced literacy developed in response to the longstanding failure of instruction based upon phonics. There has been a significant deployment of curricula based upon the science of reading yet scores have not significantly improved for most students using this curricula. 

This suggests there are other factors that need to be considered.

There are several additional elements of reading instruction that are not addressed well enough in most reading instruction or they are over-emphasized with no clear benefit to helping students achieve reading proficiency.

Non-content words

Non-content words represent a relatively small percentage of all words, yet are used extensively to create the structure of text. They often represent over 50% of words in a given text. They are also often referred to as function words. They stitch the content words into the proper grammatical structure. Examples of function words include in, the, to, there, was, do, under, and a. Function words include auxiliary verbs, prepositions, articles, conjunctions, and pronouns. 

Non-content words usually are difficult, if not impossible, to sound out.  So, they are often referred to as sight words. Because they have no content meaning, their importance is often minimized. They are often taught out of context through rote memorization, often with the use of flash cards. This usually does not teach the proper meaning which impedes comprehension. 

Teaching non-content words properly with a focus on meaning is critical to developing comprehension skills. Non-content words provide hidden clues on meaning and pronunciation. Consider the following example.  The farmer uses equipment to produce the produce.​ In the first case, the non-content word “to” signified what follows is a verb. In the second case, the non-content word “the” signified what follows is a noun. 

Sequencing

Visual sequence in nature is often not critical. If you see a deer and two fawns, it usually does not matter in what order they appear. You would still say I see a deer and two fawns, and the meaning would be clear. If you see a lion in nature, it would not matter if you see it from the left side or the right side. Mirror images of objects usually do not matter as you recognize the item either way. Left side vs. right side does not matter in most cases. What matters is that you recognize the lion no matter which way they are facing. 

However, in text order does matter. There is a difference between a "b" letter and "d" letter even thought they are mirror images. The difference must be learned. 
 
It is important to read from left to right and not jump around in the sentence when reading. It is also important to decode a word from left to right. In the following three words, they all have the same letters, but letter order creates a different word.   (now / won / own) 
 
Most students pick this concept up naturally, but many do not. It requires explicit instruction to address and must be systematically evaluated. Most traditional programs do not address this key element of reading adequately. ​

Sophistication of early-reading materials

• Most early vocabulary is usually limited to words that fit the phonics model of instruction.

• This limits the scope of stories and often creates nonsensical storylines that don't match the oral skills of students and the complexity of what they can handle with their oral language skills. 

• This confuses most students and unfortunately may bore them. 

• Oral vocabulary relies upon the name of the whole word. Early phonics instruction introduces a new concept of deconstructing the word into individual sounds that can lead to confusion. Students are taught words that can be sounded out but soon run into words that cannot be sounded out. They are then given confusing and complex rules to try to make it seem as if most words can be sounded out or they are told to just memorize the words. Some students can get through this confusion relatively easily while most do not. 

• This often leads to drilling word lists which are boring and don't lead to the richness of reading comprehension. 

Dyslexia

Dyslexia is a term that is often used to represent that a student has difficulty with reading properly. The word itself does not necessarily identify the underlying cause of the difficulty. Some students reverse letters or words, others do not but still have difficulty reading properly. 

Several studies have shown differences in brain development and neural network activation between good readers and struggling readers using fMRI scans. Some researchers claim that 20% or greater of students have dyslexia. According to some researchers, the symptoms of dyslexia are similar for students who have a true brain dysfunction and students who have experienced inadequate instruction. 

​We believe that most students who have difficulty with reading, and who may or may not be diagnosed as having dyslexia, can benefit from the proper training to ensure development of the full set of skills that empower reading success. Closing the Skill Gap can help most students.