Disputing recent attempts to reject the evidence in favour of systematic phonics instruction

Two recent articles from authors in Britain have attempted to show that the evidence favour of systematic phonics initial literacy instruction is weak; here, their arguments are disputed. Bowers (‘Reconsidering more effective than alternative methods reading instruction’, Educational Psychology Review, 32, 2020) attempts there little or no research other commonly used methods. Detailed inspection shows his analysis appears flawed. Wyse and Bradbury (‘Reading wars reconciliation’, Review Education, 10, 2022) offer four strands which, they suggest, undermine case for teaching. However, themselves admit cannot draw conclusions two those strands; survey teachers primary schools England unrepresentative therefore unreliable; previous reviews adopts such unnecessarily restrictive criteria its be accepted. Context implications Rationale this study Evidence using as part teaching has grown steadily decades, shown by Brooks (2022). specialists field disputed whether on effectiveness reliable. Why matters If were proved inadequate, much official policy on, widespread practice in, would cast doubt. This article analyses critiques British (Bowers, 2020; & Bradbury, 2022), demonstrate fail unreliable. Implications Given this, current state knowledge seems robust, key implication should remain an essential element within repertoire. Furthermore, institutions teacher education ensure intending early years trained provide soundly based evidence.