Every week, I’m in elementary classrooms watching young readers at work — the approximations, wobbly decoding, and the proud “I can read this!” moments. There’s real power in phonics instruction. It gives kids access to print and the confidence to unlock a system that once looked mysterious. The research backs it too: systematic phonics improves word reading and spelling outcomes (National Reading Panel, 2000). But the last few years, I’ve also seen what happens when reading instruction becomes politicized and how explicit, systematic phonics instruction becomes the whole story. When we treat reading as a simple decoding skill rather than a problem solving activity that requires testing and confirming textual decisions- what it means to read and be a reader gets lost.

In classrooms where “good reading” is mostly measured by accurate decoding, kids internalize that message. They start to see reading as saying words correctly, not as making meaning, imagining, or questioning. Research on reader identity (Hall, 2016; Johnston, 2004) reminds us that children construct identities from the literate worlds we offer them. If their early literacy world is made of drills and decodable sentences, their identity as a meaning-maker may never take root. So if we only teach phonics, we need to ask: What do my instructional choices tell students reading is for?

When phonics dominates, writing often gets narrowed to spelling accuracy. I’ve watched students — even third and fourth graders — hesitate to write because they’re worried about getting the letters and sounds “right.” That anxiety can eclipse curiosity. Children who struggle with phonics begin to see themselves as “bad writers,” even when their oral comprehension and sophisticated storytelling brims with imagination. Research on writerly identity (Cremin & Lockwood, 2021) shows that authentic writing experiences — journaling, storytelling, shared authorship — build voice and agency in ways phonics drills cannot.

Phonics centers the mechanics of English print, but many of our students bring multiple languages and dialects to the classroom. When instruction doesn’t validate those linguistic repertoires, students may feel their home languages are “wrong.” Culturally responsive literacy practices (Paris & Alim, 2017) show that students engage more deeply when their literacies outside school are acknowledged as assets. And without explicit comprehension or metacognitive strategy work, decoding can become hollow — reading without reflection or connection.

Some Questions for Us to Consider

1. How do your students describe themselves as readers and writers?

2. When phonics time ends, what messages about meaning and purpose take its place?

3. How do classroom texts connect to students’ languages, cultures, and identities?

4. Where in your schedule do curiosity, conversation, and creative writing live?

5. How do you help students notice their thinking — not just their decoding?