I have no reason to question your claim regarding the studies; I have empirical (that is, experiential) and anecdotal reason to question the validity of those studies.
No one learns foreign languages by studying the equivalent of phonics. They learn foreign languages by using said languages in the classroom environment.
It has been my observation that learning “sight-words” gave my daughter a two year, minimum, jump on accessing literature over what I had learning phonics.
No, my daughter does not read as proficiently as I did at the same age, but she enjoys the act of reading, and reads vastly more useful content than I did until several years older.
She May not be able to correctly spell various complex words, but she can recognize them. More importantly, she knows what they mean.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have to admit she attends a Barney Project charter school sponsored by Hillsdale College.
What a blessing.
Which state?
I recently read that they have a Leander TX school/location (outside of Austin), but not sure if there are any other locations, in Texas.
We support Hillsdale and I will look in to this program, specifically.
“No one learns foreign languages by studying the equivanlent of phonics.”
That is just not true. Indeed, when I studied French 55 years ago was when I was first exposed to the systematic use of phonics, including the learning of the phonic alphabet and symbols. Moreover, you then go on to contradict yourself by saying that one “learn(s) foreign languages by using said languages in the classroom...” Seems to me, that means speaking the language, and listening to it being spoken, n’est pas? If that is not phonics, what is it?
I was taught to read in school by the Sight-word method (”Look-See” it was called then), but I learned to read at my parents’ knees, as they read out loud to me while I followed the letters and words on the pages in front of me. Due to my formal (lack of) education, I am to this day a poor speller, and have difficulty pronouncing words I have not seen before. But I started to learn to read phonetically when I studied Latin in High School, and French in college. I was further trained in phonics when I was training to be a tutor (my speciality was Math, but all of us who worked for the tutoring service had to teach English, and other subjects as well).
The theory is that different persons have different learning modes. Visual learners, who think in images, can learn to read very well and quickly by the Sight-word method; I did. Auditory learners, who think in the spoken word, do not learn to read well by Sight-word, nor do other modes of learners. Sometimes the disconnect is so great that the education establishment labels the students ‘dyslexics’, when it is the teaching method that is lacking, not the students.
Yes, I know there is conflicting testimony and confusing claims back and forth for the last 90 years.
One constant through all the stuff I’ve read is that most phonics experts state that 99% of children will learn to read in four or five months. By Christmas of the first year, basically. This is a huge accomplishment. Meanwhile, the sight-word experts have most of their students semi-literate into middle school.
If I had young children, I would not bet against this constant refrain, which is summed up in this short video called “Reading Is Easy.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JV0tPGn-Ws&t=5s
As for the actual studies, going back to 1900, my best estimation of the results is that the record is about 34 to 1 (phonics versus sight-words). In “Why Johnny Can’t Read” (1955), Flesch starts his research by getting all the studies before 1950. There were about a dozen and all declared phonics the victor. As far as I can tell, phonetic language has to be taught phonetically. The only reason America got into Whole Word is because it doesn’t work and that’s what our Progressives wanted.