The Reading Debate Makes Me Crazy

This is what I believe about the teaching of reading:

1. For the students who have the most trouble learning, whether because they come from deprived environments or are just slow, a highly structured phonics curriculum works best.
2. Everyone else, including teachers and smart kids, hates highly structured phonics and finds it deadly boring. A majority of children learn to read easily no matter what method you use.

So the arguments being tossed around by both sides of the phonics vs. "whole language" debate are, in fact, all simultaneously true. Structured phonics generates the highest overall reading scores and helps the largest number of children learn to read – this is the basis of the "Mississippi miracle" and all other such gains. BUT it also drives high teacher turnover and may be one of the factors that leads many smart children to hate school and find it an utter bore.

The obvious solution, to me, is to stop forcing all students to take the same curriculum. Then you could rotate the assignments among the teachers so none of them have to teach phonics every year for decades. Is that really so hard? Apparently it is. 

There is also one other tried, tested, and proven way to help slow learners master reading, which is personal attention from an adult who cares. This is how I taught my eldest son (a severe ADHD case) to read. But this is very expensive and not really an option for most school systems.

The way people involved in this debate shout past each other is a marvel to behold.