Agree. But the issue is more complex than stated here.
A large number of children, probably a considerable majority, will learn to read with ease regardless of what method is used. I personally don’t remember how I learned, since I cannot remember not knowing how to read. Mom took a picture of me when I’d just turned 3 absorbed in a “real” book. So the method used in schools was just irrelevant to me. The other second graders were reading Dick and Jane. I was reading Lord of the Rings.
The problem is that there is a considerable subset of children that can learn to read well if given appropriate instruction via phonics, as people have learned to read for thousands of years, but not if forced to learn via “modern” methods.
But, as the article says, phonics isn’t modern, or sexy, or innovative, or something. So large numbers of children must be sacrificed so these evil idiots can pat each other on the back.
I’m not totally sure how I learned to read myself. My parents said when I was little I used to “read” the children’s books they read to me and they just figured I had memorized them - until one day I read one of my cousin’s comic books. I was about four at the time.
What I do know is that I was about the only one in my kindergarten class who already knew how to read.
I have three sons like you, and three sons who had to be taught to read with phonics at age 5-6. The instant-readers don't miss out on learning to read in public school, but they miss out on everything they could have learned with their ability, because they're held back to the level of the "other" kids in their grade, who didn't learn to read because they weren't taught.
So far, three daughters have had to be taught to read. The 4th isn't 2 yet, so I don't know how she'll turn out.