Wow. Pretty sure I learned to read through phonics (also in California). I think the tricks of quickly skimming words and just inferring words from context are

Wow. Pretty sure I learned to read through phonics (also in California). I think the tricks of quickly skimming words and just inferring words from context are things that I do when I'm not deeply engaged in a text and just want to pick up the gist. I would never recommending learning to read that way. Maybe it's not as fun to teach? I got towards the end of the article though and just kinda speechless at this reaction from the guy who came up with this theory. The damage that this kind of arrogance has done is hard to measure... He brought up the example of a child who comes to the word "horse" and says "pony" instead. His argument is that a child will still understand the meaning of the story because horse and pony are the same concept. I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p/ /o/ /n/ /y/ says "pony"? And different letters say "horse"? He dismissed my question. And Goodman rejected the idea that you can make a distinction between skilled readers and unskilled readers; he doesn't like the value judgment that implies. He said dyslexia does not exist...