The Phonics Debate: Why Mandating Phonics for All Learners May Hinder Literacy Development

Phonics instruction has once again taken centre stage in education policy, with some advocating for its use as a mandated, universal solution to teaching reading. While phonics can indeed play a critical role in developing early literacy skills, mandating its use for all students overlooks the diverse needs of learners in today’s classrooms. For some students, phonics instruction may even prove detrimental to their language development and reading progression. Further complicating this issue is the use of made-up or “nonsense” words in phonics exercises, which can have negative consequences for language acquisition.

This article explores the limitations of universal phonics mandates, highlighting the potential harm to certain student groups and offering research-backed evidence that phonics is best used as a targeted intervention. Ultimately, we argue that teachers—who are best placed to assess the needs of their students—should be entrusted to decide how and when phonics instruction should be implemented.

Phonics: Effective for Some, Detrimental for Others

There is no denying the benefits of phonics for specific learners. The National Reading Panel (2000) found that systematic phonics instruction is highly effective for young students who struggle with phonemic awareness, particularly those at risk of reading difficulties such as dyslexia (Snowling & Hulme, 2012). In these cases, phonics helps children to develop crucial decoding skills that form the foundation of early reading success.

However, a growing body of research suggests that phonics can be less effective—and even counterproductive—for students who have already developed strong oral language and reading skills. According to Pressley (2006), students who come to school with a well-developed vocabulary and comprehension abilities tend to benefit more from engaging with meaningful, rich texts rather than repetitive phonics drills. For these learners, being subjected to phonics-based lessons can disengage them from the learning process, as it often feels disconnected from the more complex reading activities they are ready for.

English Language Learners (ELLs) are another group for whom a phonics-first approach can create challenges. While phonics may help them learn sound-symbol relationships, it often fails to address their broader language development needs. Research by August and Shanahan (2006) highlights the importance of combining phonics with activities that promote vocabulary building, oral language practice, and reading comprehension for ELL students. Without these additional supports, ELLs may struggle to understand the words they decode, leaving them frustrated and disengaged.

The Problem of Made-Up Words in Phonics Instruction

A particularly problematic element of some phonics programs is the use of made-up or “nonsense” words. These are often included in phonics assessments to test whether students can decode unfamiliar words. While this may seem like an effective way to isolate decoding skills, research shows that the practice can undermine language acquisition for many learners.

The use of nonsense words in phonics exercises creates an artificial context that lacks meaning, which can confuse students who rely on making connections between words and their existing vocabulary. According to Dombey (2010), the absence of meaning in these exercises can leave students disengaged, particularly those who learn best by understanding how language works in real-world contexts. For English Language Learners, the use of nonsense words can be especially detrimental. Ganschow and Sparks (2000) note that language acquisition for these learners is most effective when they are exposed to meaningful language experiences. When phonics instruction relies on non-existent words, it risks creating barriers to the very language development that ELL students need most.

Limiting Literacy Development Through Narrow Focus

Mandating phonics for all learners can also narrow the broader literacy curriculum, placing too much emphasis on one component of reading instruction at the expense of others. Research by Wyse and Styles (2007) suggests that classrooms where phonics dominates instruction see fewer opportunities for students to engage in meaningful reading and writing activities. This can lead to what’s known as the “Matthew Effect,” where students who are already strong readers excel further, while struggling readers fall behind due to an overly narrow focus on phonics (Stanovich, 1986).

Higher-performing readers, in particular, tend to disengage when phonics is overemphasised in the classroom. Studies by Pearson et al. (2010) demonstrate that these students benefit most from exposure to diverse, meaningful texts and opportunities for critical thinking, rather than being limited to decoding isolated sounds and words. By focusing too heavily on phonics, schools risk alienating students who are ready to move beyond basic decoding skills.

Trusting Teachers with the Right Tools

Phonics is undoubtedly a valuable tool for teaching reading, but its use should be flexible and responsive to the needs of individual students. A balanced approach to literacy instruction—one that integrates phonics with whole-language methods, comprehension strategies, and vocabulary development—has been shown to be most effective (Allington, 2005). This is especially true when teachers have the autonomy to decide when and how to implement phonics based on the needs of their students.

Mandating phonics for all learners undermines the professional judgment of teachers, who are best placed to assess where phonics instruction is appropriate and where it might not be. Research consistently shows that teachers who are given the flexibility to adapt their instruction to meet the diverse needs of their classrooms achieve better outcomes for all students (Wyse, 2020). Teachers need the freedom to use phonics as a targeted intervention, deploying it where it can make the most impact—rather than being forced to apply it universally.

Conclusion: Phonics as a Targeted Intervention

While phonics plays an important role in teaching early reading skills, it should not be viewed as a universal solution for all learners. The research makes it clear that phonics is best used as a targeted intervention for those who struggle with phonemic awareness, while more advanced readers and English Language Learners benefit from a broader literacy approach. Furthermore, the use of made-up words in phonics instruction can create unnecessary obstacles for language acquisition, particularly for students who thrive on meaningful, contextualised language learning.

Ultimately, the best person to determine whether a student should receive phonics instruction is the teacher. Educators are on the front lines of literacy development, and they possess the expertise and insight needed to tailor instruction to the unique needs of each student. By trusting teachers to use phonics as one tool in a larger literacy toolkit, we can ensure that all students receive the support they need to succeed.

References

• Allington, R. L. (2005). What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs. Pearson.
• August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Dombey, H. (2010). The Simple View of Reading: A Critique. Literacy, 44(3), 157-164.
• Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (2000). Reflections on the Role of Phonological Awareness in Reading Instruction for Students with Language Disabilities. The Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 385-393.
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
• Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other. Science, 328(5977), 459-463.
• Pressley, M. (2006). Reading Instruction That Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching. Guilford Press.
• Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). Interventions for Children’s Language and Literacy Difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(1), 27-34.
• Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
• Wyse, D., & Styles, M. (2007). Synthetic Phonics and the Teaching of Reading: The Debate Surrounding England’s ‘Rose Report’. Literacy, 41(1), 35-42.
• Wyse, D. (2020). The Case Against Phonics as the Best Route to Reading: Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction for All Learners. Cambridge Primary Review Trust.