Systematic phonics instruction belongs in evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... F7352B1D12
The danger in Bowers’ article is its potential to undermine hard-won gains in evidence-based reading instruction. It is one thing to say that researchers should consider investigating as yet unproven alternative methods, but it is irresponsible to make the same recommendation for practitioners.Teachers and educational psychologists working with schools and in private practice with children learning to read should continue to use the methods with the strongest available evidence base, and right now that is undeniably systematic phonics.
It is notable that detractors from the promotion of systematic phonics are often those who have an approach or paper of their own.
Sadly, instead of introducing their paper for information and to raise public awareness and possible interest, there seems to be a tendency to undermine systematic synthetic phonics - often quite vociferously.