Editing Phonics (section)

==Practices by country or region==

The following are examples of how phonics is used in some countries:

=== Australia ===

On 30 November 2004 [[Brendan Nelson]], Minister for Education, Science and Training, established a National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in [[Australia]]. The Inquiry examined the way reading is taught in schools, as well as the effectiveness of teacher education courses in preparing teachers for reading instruction. In the resulting report in 2005, ''Teaching Reading'', the first two recommendations make clear the committee's conviction about the need to base the teaching of reading on evidence and the importance of teaching systematic, explicit phonics within an integrated approach.<ref name="Learning to read in Australia"/><ref>{{cite journal|url=https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5/|title=Rowe, K., & National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (Australia). (2005)|journal=Teaching and Learning and Leadership|date=December 2005|last1=Rowe|first1=Ken}}</ref>

The executive summary states, "The evidence is clear ... that direct systematic instruction in phonics during the early years of schooling is an essential foundation for teaching children to read. Findings from the research evidence indicate that all students learn best when teachers adopt an integrated approach to reading that explicitly teaches phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary knowledge and comprehension." The Inquiry Committee also states that the apparent dichotomy between phonics and the whole-Language approach to teaching "is false". However, it goes on to say "It was clear, however, that [[Systematic Phonics|systematic phonics]] instruction is critical if children are to be taught to read well, whether or not they experience reading difficulties."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/executive_summary.pdf |title=Executive Summary |work=Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110422080804/http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/executive_summary.pdf |archive-date=2011-04-22 }}</ref>

In the executive summary it goes on to say the following:

"Overall we conclude that the [[synthetic phonics]] approach, as part of the reading curriculum, is more effective than the analytic phonics approach, even when it is supplemented with phonemic awareness training. It also led boys to reading words significantly better than girls, and there was a trend towards better spelling and reading comprehension. There is evidence that synthetic phonics is best taught at the beginning of Primary 1, as even by the end of the second year at school the children in the early synthetic phonics programme had better spelling ability, and the girls had significantly better reading ability."

As of October 5, 2018, The State Government of Victoria, Australia, publishes a website containing a comprehensive Literacy Teaching Toolkit including Effective Reading Instruction, Phonics, and Sample Phonics Lessons.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/readingviewing/Pages/litfocusphonics.aspx#link15|title=Foundation phonics scope, Victoria, AU}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/readingviewing/Pages/phonicslessons.aspx|title=Sample phonics lessons, The State Government of Victoria}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/readingviewing/Pages/litfocusphonics.aspx#link15|title=Foundation skills, The State Government of Victoria, AU}}</ref> It contains elements of synthetic phonics, analytical phonics, and analogy phonics.

In 2016 Australia ranked 21st in the [[PIRLS]] reading achievement for students in their [[Fourth grade|fourth year of school]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS reading achievement 2016}}</ref>

===Canada===

In [[Canada]], public education is the responsibility of the Provincial and Territorial governments. As in other countries there has been much debate on the value of phonics in teaching reading in English; however, phonemic awareness and phonics appears to be receiving some attention. The curriculum of all of the Canadian provinces include some of the following: phonics, phonological awareness, segmenting and blending, decoding, phonemic awareness, graphophonic cues, and letter-sound relationships.{{refn|Sources:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/english-language-arts/1/core|title=BC English Language Arts 1}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://education.alberta.ca/literacy-and-numeracy/about-literacy-and-numeracy/everyone/support-documents/|title=Alberta Department of Education, curriculum}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://education.alberta.ca/media/160360/ela-pos-k-9.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://education.alberta.ca/media/160360/ela-pos-k-9.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title= Alberta ELA curriculum K-9}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum-BB5f208b6da4613/index.jsp|title=Saskatchewan Department of Education}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/ela/docs/outcomes/index.html|title=Manitoba Department of Education}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/ela/docs/litlearn3.html|title=Language Cueing Systems, Department of Education, Manitoba}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language.html|title=Ontario Department of Education}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/PFEQ/educprg2001-051.pdf|title=Quebec Department of Education}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/education/k12/content/anglophone_sector/curriculum_anglophone.html|title=New Brunswick Department of Education|date=30 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/education-early-learning-and-culture/language-arts-curriculum|title=Prince Edward Island Department of Education|date=18 April 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ednet.ns.ca/files/curriculum/AYRP-3-RAR.pdf|title=Nova Scotia Department of Education}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.nl.ca/education/k12/curriculum/guides/english/|title=Nova Scotia ELA curriculum P-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/curriculum/guides/index.html|title=ELA, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education|access-date=2018-04-30|archive-date=2018-04-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180430115327/http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/curriculum/guides/index.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>}} In addition, [[#Systematic phonics|systematic phonics]] and [[synthetic phonics]] receive attention in some publications.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://bccpac.bc.ca/upload/2016/05/reading_breaking_through_barriers.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://bccpac.bc.ca/upload/2016/05/reading_breaking_through_barriers.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Reading: Breaking Through the Barriers, A Discussion Guide, Catherine Abraham and Joyce Gram, BC, Canada, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.oafccd.com/documents/educationforall.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.oafccd.com/documents/educationforall.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live  |title=Early Reading Strategy – The Report of the Expert Panel on early Reading in Ontario, 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/ww_Supporting_Learning_Through_Play.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/ww_Supporting_Learning_Through_Play.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Supporting Early Literacy Learning Through Play, By Dr. Jeffrey Wood, Laurentian University, April 2017}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Early_Language.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Early_Language.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Supporting Early Language and Literacy, What works? Research into practice, Dr. Janette Pelletier OISE, University of Toronto, October 2011}}</ref>

However, some of the practices of [[whole language]] are evident, such as:
* British Columbia – "consistently using three cueing systems, meaning, structure, and visual" and "using illustrations and prior knowledge to predict meaning",<ref>{{cite web|url=https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/english-language-arts/1/core#;|title=B.C. English Language Arts 1|access-date=2021-03-13}}</ref>
* Alberta – "using cues such as pictures, context, phonics, grammatical awareness and background knowledge" and "use a variety of strategies, such as making predictions, rereading and reading on",<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.msa.bm/all-resources/21-grade-2-curriculum-overview/file|title=Alberta grade 2 curriculum overview, ELA, Education Alberta|date=2006}}</ref>
* Saskatchewan – "using the cueing systems to construct meaning from the text",<ref>{{cite journal|title=Saskatchewan, English Language Arts 2 Curricula|journal= Saskatchewan Ministry of Education|date=2010|isbn=9781926841076}}</ref>
* Manitoba – "use syntactic, semantic, and graphophonic cues to construct and confirm meaning in context",<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/ela/docs/outcomes/grade2.doc|title=Manitoba English Language Arts, Grade 2|access-date=2021-03-13}}</ref>
* Ontario – "predict the meaning of and solve unfamiliar words using different types of cues, including: semantic (meaning) cues, syntactic (language structure) cues, and graphophonic (phonological and graphic) cues,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language18currb.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language18currb.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8|page=40|date=2006}}</ref>
* Quebec – "use of pictures and other graphic representations to interpret texts",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/PFEQ/educprg2001-051.pdf|title=Quebec ELA|page=77|access-date=2021-03-13}}</ref>
* Nova Scotia – "cueing systems (context, meaning, structure and visual)";<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ednet.ns.ca/files/curriculum/AYRP-3-RAR.pdf|title=P3 Literacy Learning, Nova Scotia Department of Education and Early Childhood Development|date=2020|page=17}}</ref> "predict on the basis of what makes sense, what sounds right, and what the print suggests";<ref>{{cite web|url=https://curriculum.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/documents/curriculum-files/English%20Language%20Arts%20guide%201%20%282019%29.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://curriculum.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/documents/curriculum-files/English%20Language%20Arts%20guide%201%20%282019%29.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Nova Scotia English Language Arts Guide, grade 1|date=2019}}</ref> "balanced literacy program" and "search for and use meaning and structure and/or visual information (MSV)",<ref>{{cite web|url=https://curriculum.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/documents/resource-files/Reading%20Continuum%20P-6_9.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://curriculum.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/documents/resource-files/Reading%20Continuum%20P-6_9.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Nova Scotia, Using the Developmental Reading Continuum P-6 in a Balanced Literacy Program|page=3|date=2019}}</ref> and
* Newfoundland and Labrador – "use and integrate, with support, the various cueing systems (pragmatic, semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.nl.ca/education/files/k12_curriculum_guides_english_primary_ela_1_curriculum_guide_june_2017.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.gov.nl.ca/education/files/k12_curriculum_guides_english_primary_ela_1_curriculum_guide_june_2017.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Newfoundland and Labrador, Curriculum Guide 2017, ELA 1|page=20|date=2017}}</ref>

Consequentially, with the exception of those indicated below, there appears to be no evidence of a comprehensive or systematic practice of phonics in most of Canada's public schools.

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Canada ranked 23rd in the [[PIRLS]] reading achievement for students in their fourth year of school.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS reading achievement 2016}}</ref>

In 2018, Canada ranked 6th out of 78 countries in the [[PISA]] reading scores for 15-year-old students.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm|title=PISA 2018 Results|date=2019-12-03|website=OECD|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191203141933/https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm|archive-date=2019-12-03|access-date=2019-12-03}}</ref> However, critics say PISA is fundamentally flawed, and in 2014 more than 100 academics from around the world called for a moratorium on PISA.<ref name="Zhao, Y. 245–266">{{cite journal|author=Zhao, Y.|title=Two decades of havoc: A synthesis of criticism against PISA|journal=J Educ Change |doi=10.1007/s10833-019-09367-x|date=January 22, 2020|volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=245–266 |s2cid=213889847 }}</ref><ref name="washingtonpost.com">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/12/03/expert-how-pisa-created-an-illusion-education-quality-marketed-it-world|title=Expert: How PISA created an illusion of education quality and marketed it to the world, The Washington Post|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=December 3, 2019}}</ref><ref name="theguardian.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/06/oecd-pisa-tests-damaging-education-academics|title=OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide - academics, The Guardian|website=[[TheGuardian.com]] |date=May 6, 2014}}</ref>

In 2021, the province of New Brunswick introduced a new English Language Arts curriculum that includes phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/education/k12/content/anglophone_sector/curriculum_anglophone.html|title=Curriculum Development (Anglophone Sector), New Brunswick|date=2021}}</ref> Notably, the teaching of alphabetic skills based on the [[Reading#Science of reading|science of reading]] has replaced the use of various cueing systems and a variety of strategies to construct meaning from text.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/curric/English/reading-and-viewing-k-2-gco.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/curric/English/reading-and-viewing-k-2-gco.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=GCO Amendment Rationale, NB curriculum}}</ref>

On January 27, 2022, the [[Ontario Human Rights Commission]] (OHRC) released a report on its public inquiry into the right to read.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-to-read-inquiry-report|title=Right to Read inquiry report|date=January 27, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://educhatter.wordpress.com/2022/03/18/right-to-read-whats-standing-in-the-way-of-fixing-early-reading/|title=Right to read, what's standing in the way of fixing early reading|date=March 18, 2022}}</ref> It followed the unanimous decision of the [[Supreme Court of Canada]], on November 9, 2012, recognizing that learning to read is not a privilege, but a basic and essential human right.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do|title=Moore v. British Columbia (Education)|date=November 9, 2012}},</ref>

The OHRC's report deals with all students, not just those with learning disabilities.<ref name="ohrc.on.ca"/> The inquiry found that Ontario is not fulfilling its obligations to meet students' right to read. Specifically, foundational word-reading skills are not effectively targeted in Ontario's education system. With science-based approaches to reading instruction, early screening, and intervention, we should see only about 5% of students reading below grade level. However, in 2018–2019, 26% of all Ontario Grade 3 students and 53% of Grade 3 students with special education needs (students who have an Individual Education Plan), were not meeting the provincial EQAO standard. The results improved only slightly for Grade 6 students, where 19% of all students and 47% of students with special education needs did not meet the provincial standard.

The Ontario curriculum encourages the use of the [[Reading#Three cueing system (Searchlights model)|three-cueing system]] and [[balanced literacy]], which are ineffective because they teach children to "guess" the meaning of a word rather than sound it out. What is required is a) [[Evidence-based education|evidence-based curriculum and instruction]] (including explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics), b) evidence-based screening assessments, c) evidence-based reading interventions, d) accommodations that are not used as a substitute for teaching students to read, and e) professional assessments (yet, not required for interventions or accommodations).

[[Ministry of Education (Ontario)|The Minister of Education for Ontario]] responded to this report by saying the government is taking immediate action to improve student literacy and making longer-term reforms to modernize the way reading is taught and assessed in schools, with a focus on phonics. Their plan includes "revising the elementary Language curriculum and the Grade 9 English course with scientific, evidence-based approaches that emphasize direct, explicit and [[#Teaching reading with phonics|systematic instruction]] and removing references to unscientific discovery and inquiry-based learning, including the three-cueing system, by 2023."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Right%20to%20Read%20Min%20of%20Ed%20%20Response%20ENG.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Right%20to%20Read%20Min%20of%20Ed%20%20Response%20ENG.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=The Ministry of Education thanks the Ontario Human Rights Commission for its Right to Read Inquiry report|date=March 11, 2022}}</ref> In January 2024, the province unveiled a back-to-basics kindergarten curriculum. It will provide evidence-based clear and direct instruction in literacy, including understanding sound-letter relationships, developing phonics knowledge, and using specific vocabulary.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1004097/ontario-unveils-a-back-to-basics-kindergarten-curriculum|title=Ontario unveils a back-to-basics kindergarten curriculum|date=January 23, 2024}}</ref>

===Finland===

Before the beginning of school, usually at the age of 7, most children in [[Finland]] participate in one year of preprimary education. Most children already learn to read before they start school.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/when-should-reading-instruction-begin|title=When should reading instruction begin, Shanahan on literacy, 2019-10-26}}</ref>

Since letters in [[Finnish language|Finnish]] words almost always represent the same sounds (and almost all sounds are represented by only one letter), most words are orthographically transparent making them comparatively easy to read.

At the primary level, reading and writing difficulties are the second most common reason (after speech disorders) for part-time special education. The most commonly used standardized reading test is the Comprehensive School Reading Test, covering linguistic awareness, "decoding", and reading comprehension.
In the case of minor reading difficulties, the classroom teacher may give remedial instruction to students, whereas a special education teacher will help with more severe or more persistent reading difficulties. If these support measures are inadequate, students may receive enhanced support or be transferred to full-time special education, depending on individual teaching and learning plans.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/countries/finland/students-with-reading-difficulties/|title=Students with reading difficulties|date=2016}}</ref>

In [[Fourth grade|the fourth year of school]], the basic teaching techniques consist of ample practice of "sound-letter correspondence"; breaking down speech into words, syllables, and sounds; word recognition; and spelling at the sound and sentence level; daily reading and writing; and comprehension strategies.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/countries/finland/languagereading-curriculum-in-the-fourth-grade/ |title= PIRLS 2016, Language/Reading Curriculum in the Fourth Grade, Finland}}</ref>

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Finland ranked 5th in reading achievement for students in their fourth year of school according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/ |title=Distribution of Reading Achievement, exhibit 1.1, PIRLS 2016}}</ref>

=== France ===

There has been a strong debate in [[France]] on the teaching of phonics ("méthode syllabique") versus whole language ("méthode globale"). After the 1990s, supporters of the latter started defending a so-called "mixed method" (also known as [[balanced literacy]]) in which approaches from both methods are used. France is home to some of the most influential researchers in psycho-pedagogy, cognitive sciences and neurosciences, such as [[Stanislas Dehaene]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25GI3-kiLdo&feature=youtu.be |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/25GI3-kiLdo| archive-date=2021-12-11 |url-status=live|title=Youtube, How the Brain Learns to Read – Prof. Stanislas Dehaene, October 25, 2013|website=[[YouTube]]|date=25 October 2013 }}{{cbignore}}</ref> and [[:fr:Michel Fayol|Michel Fayol]], who support phonics.

More recently, with the appointment of the academic [[Jean-Michel Blanquer]] as minister of education, the ministry created a science educational council<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2018-03-24|title=Conseil scientifique de l'Éducation nationale|url=https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conseil_scientifique_de_l%27%C3%89ducation_nationale&oldid=146747364|journal=Wikipédia|language=fr}}</ref> chaired by Dehaene.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.education.gouv.fr/le-conseil-scientifique-de-l-education-nationale-au-service-de-la-communaute-educative-309492|title=Le conseil scientifique de l'éducation nationale, au service de la communauté éducative, education.gouv.fr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reseau-canope.fr/conseil-scientifique-de-leducation-nationale.html|title=Le Conseil scientifique de l'éducation nationale}}</ref> This council openly supported phonics. In April 2018, the minister issued a set of four guiding documents<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid129644/4-priorites-pour-renforcer-la-maitrise-des-fondamentaux.html|title=4 priorités pour renforcer la maîtrise des fondamentaux|last=nationale|first=Ministère de l'Éducation|work=Ministère de l'Éducation nationale|access-date=2018-05-06|language=fr-FR}}</ref> for early teaching of reading and mathematics and a booklet<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid129644/4-priorites-pour-renforcer-la-maitrise-des-fondamentaux.html#Pour_enseigner_la_lecture_et_l_ecriture_au_CP_telechargez_le_guide|title=4 priorités pour renforcer la maîtrise des fondamentaux|last=nationale|first=Ministère de l'Éducation|work=Ministère de l'Éducation nationale|access-date=2018-05-06|language=fr-FR}}</ref> detailing phonics recommendations. Teachers unions and a few educationalists were very critical of his stances,<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2013/12/31/apprentissage-de-la-lecture-depassons-l-opposition-archaique-entre-methode-syllabique-et-methode-globale_4341366_3232.html|title=Apprentissage de la lecture : opposer méthode syllabique et méthode globale est archaïque|website=Le Monde.fr|date=31 December 2013|language=fr|access-date=2018-05-06}}</ref> and classified his perspective as "traditionalist", trying to bring the debate to the political sphere. But Blanquer has openly declared that the so-called mixed approach is no serious choice.<ref>[http://www.lemonde.fr/education/article/2018/04/26/l-education-nationale-publie-quatre-circulaires-de-recommandations-pour-les-enseignants_5290908_1473685.html#bpvwbEylxc6AB5e7.99 « Entre quelque chose qui ne marche pas – la méthode globale – et quelque chose qui fonctionne – la syllabique – il ne peut y avoir de “compromis” mixte. Ce sujet ne relève pas de l’opinion, mais de faits démontrés par la recherche. C’est très clair. »]</ref>

In 2016, France is slightly above average in Reading Achievement for students in their fourth year of school according to the ''Progress in International Reading Literacy Study'' (PIRLS).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=Distribution of Reading Achievement, exhibit 1.1, PIRLS 2016}}</ref>

===Hungary===

The official language and the language of instruction in the Republic of [[Hungary]] is the [[Hungarian language]]. However, in 2010 4.6% of minority students (Croatians, Germans, Romanians, Serbians, Slovaks, and Slovenes) attended minority operated mother tongue, bilingual, or language teaching schools or kindergartens.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/countries/hungary|title=PIRLS 2016 ENCYCLOPEDIA}}</ref>

Crèche (nursery school) in Hungary is a "welfare institution" catering for children aged 20 weeks to 3 years and providing professional day care and development. In addition, kindergarten education and care is free and compulsory for children aged 3–6. Socially disadvantaged children are given priority in enrolment. Pre-school programmes focus on developing children's emergent literacy skills through play rather than systematic training in phonics or teaching the alphabet.

According to the [[PIRLS]] Encyclopedia, the Ministry of Education does not explicitly recommend one particular reading method over another, however all the accredited textbook series use the "sounding-analyzing method". The ''European Literacy Policy Network'' (ELINET) 2016<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eli-net.eu|title=European literacy policy network (ELINET)}}</ref> reports that Hungarian children in grades one and two receive explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics "as the route to decode words". In grades three and four they continue to apply their knowledge of phonics, however the emphasis shifts to the more meaning-focused technical aspects of reading and writing (i.e., vocabulary, types of texts, reading strategies, spelling, punctuation and grammar).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eli-net.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/Hungary_Long_Report.pdf|title=Literacy in Hungary, European literacy policy network 2016|access-date=2020-09-26|archive-date=2020-12-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230000630/http://www.eli-net.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/Hungary_Long_Report.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Hungary achieved the 13th highest score in reading literacy for students in their fourth year of school according to the [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]] (PIRLS).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS reading achievement 2016}}</ref> 19% of their students performed at or below the low benchmark on overall reading, just above the EU average of 20%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eli-net.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/Hungary_Long_Report.pdf|title=Literacy in Hungary, European literacy policy network 2016|access-date=2020-09-26|archive-date=2020-12-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230000630/http://www.eli-net.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/Hungary_Long_Report.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Ireland ===

The school curriculum in [[Ireland]] focuses on ensuring children are literate in both the [[English language]] and the [[Irish language]]. In 2011, the [[Department of Education (Ireland)]] developed a national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.education.ie/en/publications/education-reports/pub_ed_interim_review_literacy_numeracy_2011_2020.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.education.ie/en/publications/education-reports/pub_ed_interim_review_literacy_numeracy_2011_2020.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title= Literacy and Numeracy Strategy (2011–2020): Interim Review 2011–2016; New Targets 2017–2020|date=14 August 2019 }}</ref>
The 2014 teachers' Professional Development guide<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.pdst.ie/sites/default/files/15.%20The%20Reading%20Process%20(1).pdf |title=PDST, The Reading Process, A Guide to the Teaching and Learning of Reading, Dublin, 2014}}</ref> covers the seven areas of attitude and motivation, fluency, comprehension, word identification, vocabulary, phonological awareness, phonics, and assessment. It recommends that phonics be taught in a systematic and structured way and is preceded by training in phonological awareness.

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Ireland achieved the 4th highest score in Reading Literacy for students in their fourth year of school according to the [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]] (PIRLS).<ref>{{cite web|url= http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/wp-content/uploads/structure/PIRLS/3.-achievement-in-purposes-and-comprehension-processes/3_1_achievement-in-reading-purposes.pdf|title= Exhibit 3.1: Achievement in Reading Purposes, PIRLS 2016}}</ref>

The [[Programme for International Student Assessment]] (PISA) for 2018 showed Ireland's 15-year-old students were significantly above average in reading, science and mathematics.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.oecd.org/pisa/|title= PISA is the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment, 2018}}</ref>

The 2019 Primary Language Curriculum specifies that reading outcomes must include phonics, [[phonological awareness]], and [[phonemic awareness]].<ref>{{cite web|url= https://curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/2a6e5f79-6f29-4d68-b850-379510805656/PLC-Document_English.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/2a6e5f79-6f29-4d68-b850-379510805656/PLC-Document_English.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title= The Primary Language Curriculum, Department of Education and Skills, 2019}}</ref>

===Latin America and the Caribbean===

According to the 2019 [[Campbell Collaboration|Campbell Systematic Reviews]] approximately 250 million children across the world are not acquiring basic reading and math skills, even though about 50% of them have spent at least 4 years in school (UNESCO 2014).<ref>{{cite journal|title=What works to improve early grade literacy (EGL) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)? A systematic review and meta-analysis, 30 December 2019, doi.org 10.1002/cl2.1067, Wiley Online Library, 2019|journal=Campbell Systematic Reviews|date=March 2020|volume=16|issue=1|doi=10.1002/cl2.1067|s2cid=213769174|last1=Stone|first1=Rebecca|pages=e1067 |pmid=37131971 |pmc=8356313 |doi-access=free}}</ref> And, more than 60% of third‐grade students in [[Latin America and the Caribbean]] (LAC) have only achieved basic reading skills, in part because of the lack of evidence‐based training, preparation and support for teachers.

The review summarizes the findings of 107 studies of early grade literacy interventions (EGL) in LAC. They conclude that teacher training, nutrition, and technology‐in‐education programs on average do not show positive effects on EGL outcomes in the LAC region. However, some factors have the potential for positive impacts; including combining teacher training with coaching, targeting school feeding and other nutrition programs to low‐income countries with high rates of stunting and wasting, and combining technology‐in‐education programs with ''a strong focus on pedagogical practices''.

They also suggest that "the quantitative nonintervention studies indicate that phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension are associated with reading ability", and that the poor reading levels of children "may be the consequence of not providing them with adequate instructions on meta-phonological strategies and explicit and systematic phonics". However, the available studies are unable to provide conclusive evidence on the effects of teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension on reading ability, suggesting a need for even more high-quality research.

The ''Progress in International Reading Literacy Study'' ([[PIRLS]] 2016) describes the special reading initiatives in [[Trinidad and Tobago]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/countries/trinidad-tobago/special-reading-initiatives/|title=PIRLS 2016, Special Reading Initiatives, Trinidad & Tobago}}</ref> In 2013, the National Commission for [[UNESCO]] launched the ''Leading for Literacy'' project to develop the literacy skills of grade 1 and 2 students. The project facilitates the training of primary school teachers in the use of a synthetic phonics program.

From 2013 to 2015, the Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of Education appointed seven reading specialist to help primary and secondary school teachers improve their literacy instruction. From February 2014 to January 2016, literacy coaches were hired in selected primary schools to assist teachers of Infant 1 (kindergarten), Infant 2 (Grade 1), and Standard 1 (Grade 2) with pedagogy and content of early literacy instruction. Primary schools have been provided with literacy resources for instruction, including phonemic awareness, word recognition, vocabulary manipulatives, phonics and comprehension.

===New Zealand===

As of 2018, the Ministry of Education in [[New Zealand]] has online information to help teachers to support their students in years 1–3 in relation to sounds, letters, and words. It has specific suggestions in the areas of oral language, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonemes and phonics. There are also examples and recommended books concerning phonics instruction, hearing sounds in spoken words, syllables, phoneme blending, onset and rime, and sounds and letters (initial, ending and medial). In its introduction it states that phonics instruction "is not an end in itself" and it is ''not'' necessary to teach students "every combination of letters and sounds".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://literacyonline.tki.org.nz/content/download/40858/455998/file/Sound+Sense+–+Supporting+reading+and+writing+in+years+1–3.pdf|title=Sound Sense, Ministry of Education, New Zealand, 2018}}</ref>

On June 14, 2024, the Minister of Education announced the most significant changes to the national curriculum since 2007. The changes are designed to be evidence-based and grounded in the science of learning. Their website includes many resources to help teachers teach phonics, such as phonics checks – guidance for schools, assessment materials, 29 phonics Cards, video guides, and Phonics Plus Supporting Games.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/new-zealand-curriculum-online/new-zealand-curriculum/current-new-zealand-curriculum/5637144666.c|title=New Zealand National curriculum|year=2024}}</ref><ref> {{cite web|url=https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/search?q=phonics|title=New Zealand curriculum, resources, phonics|year=2024}}</ref>

New Zealand's score (523) in the 2016 [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study|PIRLS]] report on the reading achievement of students in their fourth year of school was above the average of 500 and below other English speaking countries such as Canada (543), United States (549), England (559), Northern Ireland (565) and Ireland (567).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS student reading achievement, 2016}}</ref>

=== Norway ===
Norwegian is Norway's main language and English is taught beginning in grade one.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/countries/norway/|title=PIRLS 2016}}</ref> Children enter first grade in August of the year they turn age 6. The majority of students are enrolled in public (government-owned) schools as opposed to private schools.

In the Norwegian curriculum, basic skills include "decoding and comprehension of simple texts" (i.e. phonics). At the end of grade two students are expected to demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between "speech sound and letter".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.udir.no/contentassets/fd2d6bfbf2364e1c98b73e030119bd38/framework_for_basic_skills.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.udir.no/contentassets/fd2d6bfbf2364e1c98b73e030119bd38/framework_for_basic_skills.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, framework for basic skills}}</ref>

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Norway achieved the 8th highest score in Reading Literacy for students in their fourth year of school according to the [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]] (PIRLS),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS reading achievement 2016}}</ref> and 20th out of 78 for 15-year-olds in [[PISA]] 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_POL.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_POL.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=PISA Norway 2018}}</ref>

=== Poland ===

The national curriculum of [[Poland]] considers reading to be the main goal of primary education, defining it as the technical skill of "decoding graphemes into phonemes and understanding, using, and processing written texts" (i.e. phonics).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/countries/poland/languagereading-curriculum-in-the-fourth-grade/|title=PIRLS 4th grade reading curriculum}}</ref> Instruction often consists of telling students how things should be done instead of letting them experiment for themselves and experience the results. According to researchers, teachers seldom use the internet and other digital technologies during reading instruction. Polish schools do not have trained reading specialists, however speech and educational therapists are available to assist students with special needs or learning disabilities. In 1998 a national campaign was introduced to encourage parents to read aloud to their children for 20 minutes every day.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allofpolandreadstokids.org/all-of-poland-reads-to-kids#|title=All of Poland reads to kids}}</ref>

In 2014, 10.6% of 15-year-olds had underachievement in reading, lower than the EU average of 17.8%.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/tools/docs/2015/monitor15-vol-2_en.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/tools/docs/2015/monitor15-vol-2_en.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=European Commission Education and Training Monitor 2015}}</ref> Beginning in 2014, a program to provide free schoolbooks was introduced gradually across Poland. Students' socioeconomic background was a matter of concern in 2015, and six year-olds commenced compulsory schooling in that year.

According to the 2000 International Student Assessment ([[PISA]]) 15‑year‑old Polish students read significantly below the OECD average. However, with a renewed emphasis on reading, by 2018 Poland made the most progress in reading since 1994 and Poles ages 16 to 19 exceeded their European peers in reading (10th out of 72 countries in PISA).

Poland ranked 6th in the 2016 [[PIRLS]] 4th grade reading achievement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS student achievement 2016}}</ref>

=== Portugal ===

During the late 1990s the whole language approach gained popularity in [[Portugal]], but in a non-explicit form. Emphasis was placed on meaning, reading for pleasure, and developing a critical approach to the texts. Explicit phonemic awareness and explicit training for reading fluency were considered outdated by some teachers' organizations.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.app.pt/|title=Associação de Professores de Português: APP}}</ref>

Poor results in international comparisons led parents and schools to react to this approach and to insist on [[direct instruction]] methods. Later, during minister [[Nuno Crato]]'s tenure (2011–2015), who is known to be a vocal critic of constructivist approaches and a supporter of cognitive psychology findings, new standards ("metas") were put in place.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.dge.mec.pt/portugues|title=Metas e Programas de Português}}</ref> The ministry convened a team led by a well-known specialist in reading, José Morais.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://apprendrealire.eklablog.com/jose-morais-neurosciences-cognitives-a107656892|title=José Morais}}</ref> This team introduced an explicit phonics teaching approach, putting emphasis on decoding and reading fluency.

Later, international evaluations [[TIMSS]] and [[PISA]] showed a sharp improvement in the areas of math, reading and science from 2006 to 2015. Portuguese students results raised to above [[OECD]] and IEA<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.iea.nl|title=International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement}}</ref> averages, attaining the best results ever for Portugal. The PISA reading results moved from 472 to 498, above the United States at 497. However, by 2018 Portugal had dropped slightly to 492 and the United States had increased to 505. Some analysts explain these advances by the educational measures Portugal put in place: a more demanding curricula, the emphasis on direct teaching, standardized testing, less ability streaming, and explicit fluency training in reading and mathematics.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/international/21711247-reforming-education-slow-and-hard-eminently-possible-what-world-can-learn|title=Reforming education slow and hard, eminently possible, The Economist. 2016-12-10. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2020-04-30.|newspaper=[[The Economist]]}}</ref>

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Portugal achieved the 30th highest score in Reading Literacy for students in their fourth year of school according to the [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]] (PIRLS).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS reading achievement 2016}}</ref>

=== Russian Federation ===

According to a 1998 report in ''[[The Baltimore Sun]]'', there is some debate in the Russian Federation about phonics vs. whole language, however Olga Viktorovna Pronina, an author and teacher in Moscow, allegedly said that today, most teachers in Russia would tell you they use phonics.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-03-04-1998063127-story.html|title=Russia has phonics debate, Baltimore Sun, 1998-03-04|date=4 March 1998 }}</ref>

The 2016 international [[PISA]] study states that the method widely used now to teach reading in the Russian Federation was developed by the famous psychologist [[Elkonin boxes|Daniil Elkonin]] in the 1960s. It says, "students learn to define the sequence of sounds in a word and characterize each sound ... acquiring the knowledge of the phonetic system at an early stage" and "become better familiarized with the skills of reading".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/wp-content/uploads/encyclopedia-pirls/downloadcenter/3.%20Country%20Chapters/Russian%20Federation.pdf|title=PIRLS 2016 Russian Federation, Language and Literacy|date=2016|page=3}}</ref>

In 1959, a journal report adds more details about how phonics is used. It says other
observers report that the Russian system in beginning reading is "strictly phonetic". However, there are no separate phonics lessons, drill periods, drill books, exercises or "gadgets" as you might see in typical American schools. Instead, each new letter-sound is introduced at once in meaningful words the children can pronounce as soon as they know the sound of the new letter. There are no "blending" of the sounds, or "crutches" such as equating the sound of /s/ with a snake. Instead, "all learning is by eye and ear in tandem", and the association is formed solely between the printed symbol and its sound. And finally, each lesson makes use of exercises to confirm comprehension.<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Reading Teacher
|volume=13|number=2|date=1959|pages=134–143|publisher=International Literacy Association}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20197238|title=The Reading Teacher, Vol. 13, No. 2, Research in Reading|date=1959|pages=141–143|publisher=International Literacy Association|jstor=20197238}}</ref>

Amongst 50 countries, the Russian Federation achieved the highest score (581) in ''Reading Literacy'' for students in their fourth year of school according to the 2016 [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]] (PIRLS).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/wp-content/uploads/structure/PIRLS/3.-achievement-in-purposes-and-comprehension-processes/3_1_achievement-in-reading-purposes.pdf|title=Exhibit 3.1: Achievement in Reading Purposes, 2016 PIRLS Encyclopedia}}</ref>

===Singapore===

[[Singapore]] has a diverse language environment with four official languages including English which is the language of education and administration. [[Bilingualism]] is the "cornerstone" of the education system where students learn both English and their own mother tongue language in school.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/countries/singapore/reading-instruction-in-the-primary-grades/|title=Singapore reading instruction, primary grades, PIRLS 2016}}</ref> 99% of children attend preschool education (as early as 18 months of age) although it is not compulsory in Singapore.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/countries/singapore/overview-of-education-system/|title=Overview of educucation system in Singapore, PIRLS 2016}}</ref>

The 2001 English Language Syllabus of Singapore advocated "a balance between decoding and meaning-based instruction ... phonics and whole language". However, a review in 2006 advocated for a "systematic" approach. The subsequent syllabus, in 2010, had no mention of whole language and recommended a balanced, interactive and comprehensive reading programme. It refers to ''Learning to Read: The Great Debate'' by [[Jeanne Chall]] (1967) and the [[National Reading Panel]] (2000) both of which supported systematic phonics; and the [[International Literacy Association]] (2005) that supported balanced instruction saying phonics is "necessary but insufficient".

The syllabus for 2010 advocates for a balance between "systematic and explicit instruction" and "a rich language environment". It called for increased instruction in oral language skills together with phonemic awareness and the key decoding elements of synthetic phonics, analytic phonics and analogy phonics. Specifically, it advocated for instruction in phonic's areas such as word families and rimes (e.g., '''jump'''s and '''jump'''ed; b'''ite''' and k'''ite'''), segmenting and blending (e.g., {{IPAc-en|k}}, {{IPAc-en|æ}}, {{IPAc-en|t}}= cat), vowels, consonants and syllables. And finally, it called for instruction in word study, grammar, vocabulary, writing and comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/english-language-and-literature/files/english-primary-secondary-express-normal-academic.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/english-language-and-literature/files/english-primary-secondary-express-normal-academic.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=2010 English language syllabus, Minister of Education, Singapore}}</ref>

Singapore received the second highest reading score (576) after the Russian Federation (581) in the 2016 [[PIRLS]] report on grade four students.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS 2016 student achievement}}</ref>

===Sweden===

Since the 1860s it was "taken for granted" that phonics is a major part of reading instruction in the first school years in [[Sweden]]. However, in the 1990s the [[National Agency for Education (Sweden)]] encouraged teachers to try other methods, including [[whole language]].

Sweden's performance in the international fourth grade reading assessments ([[PIRLS]]) dropped by 19 points from 2001 (561) to 2011 (542) and recovered by 13 points in 2016 (555), still lower than the 2001 results.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/trends-in-reading-achievement/|title=PIRLS Trends}}</ref>

Some suggest that the lower scores are related to the increase in immigration.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/immigrant-children-in-sweden-blamed-for-countrys-poor-test-scores-a6934111.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220526/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/immigrant-children-in-sweden-blamed-for-countrys-poor-test-scores-a6934111.html |archive-date=2022-05-26 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Immigrant children in Sweden blamed for country's poor test scores, Independent, 2016-03-16|website=[[Independent.co.uk]]|date=16 March 2016}}</ref>

In 2016 the European Literacy Policy Network (ELINET)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eli-net.eu|title=European Literacy Policy Network (ELINET)}}</ref> published a report on literacy in Sweden saying there is an "urgent need" to address decreases in performance as measured by PIRLS and [[PISA]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.elinet.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/Sweden_Long_Report.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.elinet.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/Sweden_Long_Report.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=LITERACY IN SWEDEN, 2016}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
====England & Wales====

There has been a resurgence of interest in [[synthetic phonics]] in recent years, particularly in [[England]]. As of 2013, all (local-authority-maintained) primary schools in England have a statutory requirement to teach synthetic phonics in years one and two. In addition, any pupil who is struggling to decode words properly by year three must "urgently" receive help through a "rigorous and systematic phonics programme".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-primary-curriculum|title=National curriculum in England primary|date=6 May 2015 }}</ref>

Prior to that, synthetic phonics was promoted by a cross-party group of Parliamentarians, particularly [[Nick Gibb]] MP. A report by the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] [[Education and Skills Committee]] called for a review of the phonics content in the [[National Curriculum (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)|National Curriculum]]. Subsequently, the [[Department for Education and Skills (United Kingdom)|Department for Education and Skills]] announced a review into early years reading, headed by Sir Jim Rose, former Director of Inspection for [[Ofsted]] (responsible for the education standards in the UK).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted|title=Ofsted|date=12 September 2023 }}</ref> The review, entitled [[Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Report 2006)]], addresses the question of why children's reading and writing (especially for boys) have not been meeting expectations. Paragraph 3.25 of the Final Report states "This suggests that it is far more often the nature of the teaching than the nature of the child which determines success or failure in learning the 'basic' skills of reading and writing." It goes on to say it is not suggesting teachers are unable or unwilling to develop the required expertise, only that there has been systematic confusion and conflicting views about phonics. It also makes it clear that, when it comes to the wider knowledge and skills required for reading and writing, phonics work is "necessary but not sufficient".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/0201-2006PDF-EN-01.pdf|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100512233640/http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/0201-2006PDF-EN-01.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2010-05-12|title=Independent review of the teaching of early reading, 2006, p 4|access-date=2020-05-25}}</ref> It concludes by suggesting the challenge will be resolved as research continues to support systematic phonics, and that teacher training and systematic phonics programs will produce "good results for children".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wyse|first1=Dominic |last2=Goswami |first2=Usha|title=Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading|journal=British Educational Research Journal|volume=34 |issue=6|year=2008|pages=691–710 |issn=0141-1926 |doi=10.1080/01411920802268912|s2cid=1234369 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Primary_curriculum_Report.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Primary_curriculum_Report.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum: Final Report }}</ref>

By November 2010, a government white paper contained plans to train all primary school teachers in phonics.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8147987/Education-White-Paper-key-points-explained.html|title=Education White Paper key points explained|publisher=The Daily Telegraph [Telegraph.co.uk]|access-date=20 November 2010|location=London|first=Nick|last=Collins|date=20 November 2010}}</ref> The 2013 curriculum<ref>{{cite web|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425601/PRIMARY_national_curriculum.pdf|title=UK Primary National Curriculum, 2013}}</ref> has "statutory requirements" that, amongst other things, students in years one and two be capable in using systematic synthetic phonics in regards to Word Reading, Reading Comprehension, Fluency, and Writing. This includes having skills in "sound to graphemes", "decoding", and "blending". Following this, Ofsted updated their guidance for school inspectors in 2014 to include tips on how schools should teach reading with systematic phonics, including "Getting them Reading Early". It includes a description of the [[simple view of reading]] as ''the word recognition processes'' (recognizing the words on the page, free of context and using phonics) and the ''language recognition processes'' (understanding the meaning of the language). It also includes some videos to illustrate its principles.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/379489/Getting_20them_20reading_20early.doc|title=Getting them Reading Early, OFSTED, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wGfNiweEkI |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/5wGfNiweEkI| archive-date=2021-12-11 |url-status=live|title=Synthetic Phonics, Mr. T's phonics, 2010|website=[[YouTube]]|date=19 September 2010 }}{{cbignore}}</ref>

In 2015, the Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (published by the [[Department for Education]] calls for [[Evidence-based education|evidence-based teaching]] to be part of the framework for initial teacher training.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carter-review-of-initial-teacher-training|title=Carter review of initial teacher training, DFE, 21015-01-19}}</ref> It gives an example of a case study in which "trainees on the Early Reading placement are required to work alongside a literacy specialist to plan and teach a phonics lesson to a group, evaluate the lesson and deliver a second lesson in light of their evaluation".

The 2016 [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]] (PIRLS) awarded England its best results since the studies began in 2001. Nick Gibb attributes this success to the use of [[synthetic phonics|systematic synthetic phonics]].<ref>{{cite web
 | url =https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/12/04/phonics-revolution-reading-standards-england-best-generation/
 | title =Reading standards in England are best in a generation, new international test results show 
 | last =Turner
 | first =Camilla
 | date =4 December 2017
 | website =The Telegraph
 | access-date =11 December 2017
 | quote =The international study of nine to ten year-olds’ reading ability in 50 countries showed that England has risen to joint 8th place in 2016, thanks to a statistically significant rise in our average score }}</ref> In March of that year the Secretary of State for Education released a report entitled ''Educational Excellence Everywhere''. The report states that in 2010 33% percent of primary school students did not achieve the expected standard in reading, however "since the introduction of the phonics reading check in 2012", that number is down to 20%. The report goes on to say they still have much to do, particularly with students who are disadvantaged.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508447/Educational_Excellence_Everywhere.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508447/Educational_Excellence_Everywhere.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Educational Excellence Everywhere, pages 5-6, Department for Education, England, March 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-12-07-england’s-students-rise-international-literacy-ranks|title=England's students rise up the international literacy ranks, University of Oxford, 2017-12-07|date=7 December 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/664562/PIRLS_2016_National_Report_for_England-_BRANDED.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/664562/PIRLS_2016_National_Report_for_England-_BRANDED.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS): National Report for England, December 2017}}</ref> The phonics check involves pupils reading aloud 40 words (including 20 non-words). In 2016, 81 per cent of pupils reached the expected standard of 32 correct words – up from 77 per cent in 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.tes.com/news/phonics-leads-easier-more-accurate-reading-new-research-finds|title=Phonics leads to easier, more accurate, reading, new research finds, TES.com|date=2017-04-20}}</ref>
 
In 2016 the London School of Economics published a paper supporting the teaching of synthetic phonics to disadvantaged children because it helps to close the literacy gap.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/25/phonics-method-helps-close-attainment-gap-study-finds|title=Phonics helps to close the attainment gap:The Guardian |website=[[TheGuardian.com]] |date=24 April 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1425.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1425.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Teaching to teach literacy}}</ref>

In 2018 Ofsted, as part of its curriculum research, has produced a YouTube video on Early Reading. It states "It is absolutely essential that every child master the phonic code as quickly as possible ... So, successful schools firstly teach phonics first, fast and furious."<ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWQipfbc7fg&list=PLLq-zBnUkspPXjODb3PJ4gCqNc2LvfhSh&index=4  |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/jWQipfbc7fg| archive-date=2021-12-11 |url-status=live|title=YouTube video, Early Reading, Bradley Simmons, Regional Director, South West at Ofsted, UK, 2018 |website=[[YouTube]] |date=18 December 2018 }}{{cbignore}}</ref>

In January, 2019 Ofsted published a report entitled ''Education inspection framework: overview of research'' that further supports ''systematic synthetic phonics'' together with phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/813228/Research_for_EIF_framework_100619__16_.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/813228/Research_for_EIF_framework_100619__16_.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Education inspection framework: overview of research, page 19, Ofsted, January 2019, No. 180045}}</ref>

While there has been concern expressed about the phonics screening test at the end of year one, some report that phonics is especially valuable for poor readers and those without English as a first language.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/07/18/how-phonics-took-over-english-schools|title=How phonics took over English schools, The Economist, 2019-07-18.|newspaper=The Economist|date=18 July 2019}}</ref>

Research published in 2022 by two [[University College London]] professors<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wyse |first1=Dominic |last2=Bradbury |first2=Alice |title=Phonics teaching in England needs to change – our new research points to a better approach |url=https://theconversation.com/phonics-teaching-in-england-needs-to-change-our-new-research-points-to-a-better-approach-172655 |website=The Conversation |date=19 January 2022 |access-date=15 March 2023}}</ref> does not recommend the sole use of phonics for developing children's literacy. Their work is backed up by a systematic review of 55 research papers. An article about the study, published in [[The Conversation (website)]] concludes: The approach to teaching reading in England means that children in England are unlikely to be learning to read as effectively as they should be. Teachers, children, and their parents need a more balanced approach to the teaching of reading. The actual research report describes ''balanced instruction'' as having a balance of teaching based on the use of whole text and the systematic teaching of the alphabetic code and other linguistic features.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Wyse |first1=Dominic |last2=Bradbury |first2=Alice|title=Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers' practices for teaching phonics and reading|journal=Review of Education |url=https://berajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ftr/10.1002/rev3.3314|date=January 18, 2022|volume=10 |doi=10.1002/rev3.3314 }}</ref> In this way, the comprehension of written language is balanced with a range of skills and knowledge. The report places a great deal of emphasis on the [[PISA]] study which critics say is "fundamentally flawed" and failing in its mission.<ref name="Zhao, Y. 245–266"/><ref name="washingtonpost.com"/><ref name="theguardian.com"/><ref>{{cite book|title=Dire Straits: Education Reforms, Ideology, Vested Interests and Evidence|author1=Montserrat Gomendio |author2=José Ignacio Wert |doi=10.11647/OBP.0332|year=2023|isbn=978-1-80064-930-9 |s2cid=256890161 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The report also included an analyses of three Canadian provinces saying Canada, amongst English-dominant nations, is the strongest performer in PISA and [[PIRLS]]. In fact, the 2016 PIRLS report places Canada in 23rd place and England in 10th place.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/wp-content/uploads/structure/PIRLS/3.-achievement-in-purposes-and-comprehension-processes/3_1_achievement-in-reading-purposes.pdf|title=PIRLS Exhibit 3.1: Achievement in Reading Purposes|year=2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/664562/PIRLS_2016_National_Report_for_England-_BRANDED.pdf|title=Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS): National Report for England, Government of UK|year=2017}}</ref>

====Northern Ireland====

In 2007 the Department of Education (DE) in [[Northern Ireland]] was required by law to teach children [[foundational skills]] in [[phonological awareness]] and the understanding "that words are made up of sounds and syllables and that sounds are represented by letters (phoneme/grapheme awareness)".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2007/46/pdfs/nisr_20070046_en.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2007/46/pdfs/nisr_20070046_en.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Statute2007 No. 46, Northern Ireland, pgs. 4–6}}</ref>
In 2010 the DE went further by outlining a new strategy with standards requiring that teachers receive support in using [[evidence-based practices]] to teach literacy and numeracy. It outlined ten requirements, including a "systematic programme of high-quality phonics" that is explicit, structured, well-paced, interactive, engaging, and applied in a meaningful context.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/count-read-succeed-a-strategy-to-improve-outcomes-in-literacy-and-numeracy.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/count-read-succeed-a-strategy-to-improve-outcomes-in-literacy-and-numeracy.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Count Read: Succeed, pg 25, N. Ireland, 2010}}</ref>

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Northern Ireland achieved the 7th highest score in Reading Literacy for students in their fourth year of school according to the [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]] (PIRLS).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS reading achievement 2016}}</ref>

In 2018, in the PISA Reading Performance of 15-year-old students, Northern Ireland students achieved a score of 505 as compared to England at 507 and the OECD average of 487.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/education/Achievement%20of%2015-year-old%20pupils%20in%20Northern%20Ireland%20PISA%202018%20National%20Report.PDF |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/education/Achievement%20of%2015-year-old%20pupils%20in%20Northern%20Ireland%20PISA%202018%20National%20Report.PDF |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title= Achievement of 15-year-old pupils in Northern Ireland: PISA 2018 National report}}</ref>

==== Scotland ====

Synthetic phonics in Scotland has its roots in the Clackmannanshire Report, a seven-year study that was published in 2005. It compared analytic Phonics with synthetic Phonics and advantaged students with disadvantaged children. The report found that, using synthetic phonics, children from lower socio-economic backgrounds performed at the same level as children from advantaged backgrounds in primary school (whereas with analytic phonics teaching, they did significantly less well.); and boys performed better than or as well as girls.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383|archive-url=https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20170701074158/http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383|url-status=dead|archive-date=2017-07-01|title=Clackmannanshire Report, a seven-year study that was published in 2005, webarchive.org.uk }}</ref>

A five-year follow-up of the study concluded that the beneficial effects were long-lasting, in fact the reading gains increased.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4938/1/nls_phonics0303rjohnston.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4938/1/nls_phonics0303rjohnston.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Accelerating Reading and Spelling with Synthetic Phonics: A Five Year Follow Up, Johnston & Watson}}</ref>

Subsequently, [[Education Scotland]] concluded that explicit, systematic phonics programs, usually embedded in a rich literacy environment, give an additional four months progress over other programs such as whole language, and are particularly beneficial for young learners (aged 4–7). There is evidence, though less secure, that synthetic phonics programs may be more beneficial than [[analytic phonics]] programs; however it is most important to teach systematically.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://education.gov.scot/improvement/pages/EEF-Toolkit-Results.aspx?911459f09ef0012d8e7c32f03e32d003d881d45febd1eba332753219e922d8f5|title=National Improvement Hub:Phonics|access-date=2020-06-19|archive-date=2018-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180709011653/https://education.gov.scot/improvement/pages/EEF-Toolkit-Results.aspx?911459f09ef0012d8e7c32f03e32d003d881d45febd1eba332753219e922d8f5|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In the [[PISA]] 2018 reading results of 15-year-old students, Scotland's score was above average, 504 as compared to the [[OECD]] average of 487.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/28450521-en.pdf?expires=1592595146&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=7B88AF82F7B774AD08D0C997C3CF5601|title=PISA results, 2018 Table 1.4.4|date=3 December 2019|doi=10.1787/28450521-en|s2cid=242908925}}</ref> Scotland does not participate in [[PIRLS]].

===United States===
More than a century of debate has occurred over whether English phonics should or should not be used in teaching beginning reading.

The use of phonics in education in the [[United States]] dates at least to the work of [[Favell Lee Mortimer]], whose works using phonics includes the early [[flashcard]] set ''Reading Disentangled'' (1834)<ref>''The Clumsiest People in Europe: Or, Mrs. Mortimer's Bad-Tempered Guide to the Victorian World,'' [[Favell Lee Mortimer]], foreword by Todd Pruzan, 2006 edition, [https://books.google.com/books?id=B_AC9ae6lzkC&pg=PA5&dq=favell+mortimer+phonics p. 5]</ref> and text ''Reading Without Tears'' (1857). Despite the work of 19th-century proponents such as [[Kate Harrington (Poet)|Rebecca Smith Pollard]], some American educators, prominently [[Horace Mann]], argued that phonics should not be taught at all. This led to the commonly used "[[look-say]]" approach ensconced in the ''[[Dick and Jane]]'' readers popular in the mid-20th century. Beginning in the 1950s, however, inspired by a landmark study by Dr. Harry E. Houtz,{{citation needed|date=August 2023}} and spurred by [[Rudolf Flesch]]'s criticism of the absence of phonics instruction (particularly in his book, ''[[Why Johnny Can't Read]]'', 1955) and [[Jeanne Chall]] (the author of ''Learning to Read the Great Debate'' - 1967–1995<ref>{{cite book|title=Learning to Read: The Great Debate, 1967-1995|author=Jeanne S. Chall|year=1996|publisher=Harcourt Brace College Publishers |isbn=0155030809}}</ref> phonics resurfaced as a method of teaching reading.

In the 1980s, the "[[whole language]]" approach to reading further polarized the debate in the United States. Whole language instruction was predicated on the principle that children could learn to read given (a) proper [[motivation]], (b) access to good [[literature]], (c) many reading opportunities, (d) focus on meaning, and (e) instruction to help students use semantic, syntactic and graphophonic cues to "guess" the pronunciation of unknown words. Also, in practice children are often taught to use pictures to guess a word. For some advocates of whole language, phonics was antithetical to helping new readers to get the meaning; they asserted that parsing words into small chunks and reassembling them had no connection to the ideas the author wanted to convey.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=A psycholinguistic guessing game|journal=Journal of the Reading Specialist|volume=6|issue=4|pages=126–135|doi=10.1080/19388076709556976|year = 1967|last1 = Goodman|first1 = Kenneth S.}}</ref>

The whole language emphasis on identifying words using context and focusing only a little on the sounds (usually the alphabet consonants and the short vowels) could not be reconciled with the phonics emphasis on individual sound-symbol correspondences. Thus, a dichotomy between the whole language approach and phonics emerged in the United States causing intense debate. Ultimately, this debate led to a series of [[United States Congress|Congressionally]]-commissioned panels and government-funded reviews of the state of reading instruction in the U.S.

In 1984, the [[National Academy of Education]] commissioned a report on the status of research and instructional practices in reading education, ''Becoming a Nation of Readers''.<ref>''Becoming a Nation of Readers'', National Academy of Education, Center for the Study of Reading, 1984</ref> Among other results, the report includes the finding that phonics instruction improves children's ability to identify words. It reports that useful phonics strategies include teaching children the sounds of letters in isolation and in words, and teaching them to blend the sounds of letters together to produce approximate pronunciations of words. It also states that phonics instruction should occur in conjunction with opportunities to identify words in meaningful sentences and stories.

In 1990, Congress asked the [[U.S. Department of Education]] (ED) to compile a list of available programs on beginning reading instruction, evaluating each in terms of the effectiveness of its phonics component. As part of this requirement, the ED asked [[Marilyn Jager Adams|Dr. Marilyn J. Adams]] to produce a report on the role of phonics instruction in beginning reading. This resulted in her 1994 book ''Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print''.<ref>{{cite book |author=Adams, Marilyn Jager|title=Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print|year=1994|publisher=MIT Press|location=Cambridge, MA 
|isbn=978-0-262-51076-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/beginningtoread00mari}}</ref> In the book, Adams asserted that existing scientific research supported that phonics is an effective way to teach students the ''alphabetic code'' – building their skills in decoding unknown words. By learning the alphabetic code, she argued, students can free up mental energy used for word analysis and devote this mental effort to meaning, leading to stronger comprehension. Furthermore, she suggested that students be encouraged ''not'' to skip words they find difficult. Instead they should take the time to study the challenging words and to reread sentences after they have succeeded in decoding them. She also concluded that while phonics instruction is a necessary component of reading instruction, it is not sufficient by itself. Children should also have practice reading text provided they do not make too many mistakes. In spite of her study, the argument about how to teach reading eventually known as "the Great Debate", continued unabated.

In 1996 the [[California]] Department of Education took an increased interest in using phonics in schools.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/22/us/california-leads-revival-of-teaching-by-phonics.html|title= NY Times 1996, California Leads Revival Of Teaching by Phonics|website= [[The New York Times]]|date= 22 May 1996}}</ref> And in 1997 the department called for grade one teaching in concepts about print, phonemic awareness, decoding and word recognition, and vocabulary and concept development.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title= English–Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools}}</ref>

In 1997, Congress asked the Director of the [[Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development|National Institute of Child Health and Human Development]] (NICHD) at the [[National Institutes of Health]], in consultation with the [[United States Secretary of Education|Secretary of Education]], to convene a national panel to assess the effectiveness of different approaches used to teach children to read.

The [[U.S. National Research Council|National Research Council]] re-examined the question of how best to teach reading to children (among other questions in education) and in 1998 published the results in the ''Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children.''<ref>Snow, Catherine E., Susan Burns, Peg Griffin, eds. ''Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children''. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998 {{ISBN|0-309-06418-X}}</ref> The National Research Council's findings largely matched those of Adams. They concluded that phonics is a very effective way to teach children to read at the word level, more effective than what is known as the "embedded phonics" approach of whole language (where phonics was taught opportunistically in the context of literature). They found that phonics instruction must be systematic (following a sequence of increasingly challenging phonics patterns) and explicit (teaching students precisely how the patterns worked, e.g., "this is ''b'', it stands for the /b/ sound").<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Ziegler JC, Goswami U |title=Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory |journal=Psychol Bull |volume=131 |issue=1 |pages=3–29 |date = January 2005|pmid=15631549 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3|s2cid=7082443 }}</ref>

In 2000 the findings of the [[National Reading Panel]] was published. It examined quantitative research studies on many areas of reading instruction, including phonics and whole language. The resulting report ''Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction'' provides a comprehensive review of what is known about best practices in reading instruction in the U.S.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf|title=National reading panel, nichd.nih.gov}}</ref> The panel reported that several reading skills are critical to becoming good readers: phonemic awareness, phonics for word identification, fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension. With regard to phonics, their meta-analysis of hundreds of studies confirmed the findings of the National Research Council: teaching phonics (and related phonics skills, such as phonemic awareness) is a more effective way to teach children early reading skills than is embedded phonics or no phonics instruction.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080705194256/http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.cfm Findings and Determinations of the National Reading Panel by Topic Areas<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The panel found that phonics instruction is an effective method of teaching reading for students from kindergarten through 6th grade, and for all children who are having difficulty learning to read. They also found that phonics instruction benefits all ages in learning to spell. They also reported that teachers need more education about effective reading instruction, both pre-service and in-service.

The State driven [[Common Core State Standards Initiative]] was developed in 2009, because of a lack of standardization of education principles and practices.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.corestandards.org|title=Common Core State Standards Initiative}}</ref> The site has a comprehensive description of the specific details of the English Language Arts Standards that include the areas of the Alphabetic Principle, Print Concepts, Phonological Awareness, Phonics and Word Recognition, and Fluency.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/introduction/|title=English Language Arts Standards, Reading – Foundational Skills, K-5|access-date=2020-05-13|archive-date=2020-05-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200514204551/http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/introduction/|url-status=dead}}</ref> It is up to the individual States and School Districts to develop plans to implement the standards. As of 2020, 41 States had adopted the standards, and in most cases it has taken three or more years to have them implemented.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/|title=Standards in your state|access-date=2020-05-13|archive-date=2019-06-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190610015351/http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/|url-status=dead}}</ref> For example, [[Wisconsin]] adopted the standards in 2010, implemented them in the 2014–2015 school year, yet in 2020 the state Department of Public Instruction was in the process of developing materials to support the standards in teaching phonics.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2020/01/22/wisconsin-dpi-endorses-explicit-phonics-instruction-reading/4543737002/|title= DPI endorses 'explicit phonics instruction' as critical component of reading instruction, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2020-01-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://dpi.wi.gov/standards|title=Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction|date=10 April 2015}}</ref>

The [[State of Mississippi]] passed the Literacy-Based Promotion Act in 2013 in part because of the States' poor showing in the [[National Assessment of Educational Progress]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://legiscan.com/MS/text/SB2157/id/1390375|title=Literacy-Based Promotion Act, Mississippi Senate Bill 2157,2016-04-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bdtonline.com/opinion/from-the-opinion-page-literacy-and-phonics-are-and-should-be-among-america-s-top/article_79a291d2-9e22-11ea-809a-c3bf323a44a1.html|title=OPINION PAGE: Literacy and phonics are, and should be, among America's top issues|date=25 May 2020 }}</ref> The [[Mississippi Department of Education]] provides resources for teachers in the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension and reading strategies.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.mdek12.org/ESE/literacy/professional-development-and-resources-for-teachers|title=Professional Development and Resources for Teachers, Mississippi}}</ref> In 2019 Mississippi made a bigger advance in reading than any other State.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2019/|title=Nations report card}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/mississippi-schools-naep.html|title=Opinion, Mississippi schools, NT Times, 2019-12-05|website=[[The New York Times]]|date=5 December 2019|last1=Hanford|first1=Emily}}</ref>

In 2014 the California Department of Education stated "Ensuring that children know how to decode regularly spelled one-syllable words by mid-first grade is crucial". It goes on to say that "Learners need to be phonemically aware (especially able to segment and blend phonemes)".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/documents/elaeldfwchapter3.pdf|title= English–Language Arts, Transitional Kindergarten to Grade 1, California Public Schools}}</ref> In grades two and three children receive explicit instruction in advanced phonic-analysis and reading multi-syllabic and more complex words.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/documents/elaeldfwchapter4.pdf|title= English–Language Arts, Pedagogy Grades Two and Three, California Public Schools}}</ref>

In 2015 the New York State Public School system began a process to revise its English Language Arts Learning Standards. The new standards call for teaching involving "reading or literacy experiences" as well as [[phonemic awareness]] from prekindergarten to grade 1 and phonics and word recognition from grade 1 to grade 4.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-next-generation-english-language-arts-learning-standards|title=2015 New York State Next Generation English Language Arts Learning Standards}}</ref>

In 2015 the Ohio Legislature set minimum standards requiring the use of phonics as a technique in teaching reading. It includes guidelines for teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Operating-Standards/Table-of-Contents/Instruction/Phonics|title=Rules for Phonics, Ohio}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Early-Learning/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee-District-Resources/Approved-List-of-Research-Based-Reading-Instructio/Reading_Competencies.pdf.aspx |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Early-Learning/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee-District-Resources/Approved-List-of-Research-Based-Reading-Instructio/Reading_Competencies.pdf.aspx |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Reading Competencies, Ohio}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Literacy/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee-Teacher-Resources|title=Third grade reading guarantee, Ohio }}</ref> In February 2017, the Ohio Department of Education adopted new learning standards for English Language Arts. They include ''Reading Standards for Foundational Skills K–12'' that clearly lay out a systematic approach to teaching ''phonological awareness'' in kindergarten and grade one, and ''grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words'' (including fluency and comprehension) in grades one through five.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/English-Language-Art/English-Language-Arts-Standards/ELA-Learning-Standards-2017.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US|title=Reading Standards for Foundational Skills K–12, OHIO Department of Education, 2017}}</ref>

In 2016 the What Works Clearinghouse<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/|title=What Works Clearinghouse}}</ref> and the [[Institute of Education Sciences]], an independent and non-partisan arm of the U.S. Department of Education, published an Educator's Practice Guide (with evidence) on Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf|title=What works clearinghouse: Educator's Practice Guide on Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade, 2016, Institute of Education Sciences}}</ref> It contains four recommendations to support reading: 1) Teach students academic language skills, including the use of inferential and narrative language, and vocabulary knowledge, 2) Develop awareness of the segments of sounds in speech and how they link to letters (phonemic awareness and phonics), 3) Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words (phonics and synthetic phonics), and 4) Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Some universities have created additional material based on this guide.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdGMRJSEjzU |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/xdGMRJSEjzU| archive-date=2021-12-11 |url-status=live|title=Youtube, Overview of the Foundational Reading Skills Practice Guide and PLC Webinar, Florida State University, 2018|website=[[YouTube]]|date=June 2018 }}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://place.fi.ncsu.edu/local/catalog/course.php?id=15&ref=1|title=Teaching Foundational Reading Skills MOOC-Ed, NC STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION}}</ref>

In 2016, [[Colorado Department of Education]] updated their Elementary Teacher Literacy Standards with a comprehensive outline including standards for development in the areas Phonology; Phonics and Word Recognition; Fluent Automatic Reading; Vocabulary; Text Comprehension; and Handwriting, Spelling, and Written Expression.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/elementaryteacher-literacystandards|title=Elementary Teacher Literacy Standards, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 2016}}</ref> At the same time, the Department of Education in Delaware produced a plan to improve education results. It states that teachers' preparation programs must include evidence-based practices, including the five essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.doe.k12.de.us/literacyplan|title=Literacy plan, prekindergarten to grade 3, Delaware, USA}}</ref>

In 2017, research published in the ''[[Journal of Experimental Psychology]]'' has shown that learning to read by sounding out words (i.e. phonics) has a dramatic impact on the accuracy of reading aloud and comprehension.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Comparing and validating methods of reading instruction using behavioural and neural findings in an artificial orthography. Taylor JSH, Davis MH, Rastle K.|journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology: General|volume = 146|issue = 6|pages = 826–858|pmc = 5458780|year = 2017|last1 = Taylor|first1 = J. S.|last2 = Davis|first2 = M. H.|last3 = Rastle|first3 = K.|pmid = 28425742|doi = 10.1037/xge0000301}}</ref> It concludes that early literacy education should focus on the systematic approach in "print-to-sound relationships" in alphabetic languages, rather than teaching "meaning-based strategies", in order to enhance both reading aloud and comprehension of written words.

In 2018 The [[Association for Psychological Science]] published an article entitled ''Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert''. The purpose of the article is to fill the gap between the current research knowledge and the public understanding about how we learn to read, and to explain "why phonics instruction is so central to learning in a writing system such as English".<ref>{{cite journal |title=Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert, The Association for Psychological Science, 2018.|journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest|volume=19|issue=1|pages=5–51|doi=10.1177/1529100618772271|pmid=29890888|year = 2018|last1 = Castles|first1 = Anne|last2=Rastle|first2=Kathleen|last3=Nation|first3=Kate|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In 2018 the [[Arkansas Department of Education]], Literacy Support Unit, published a report about their new initiative known as R.I.S.E., Reading Initiative for Student Excellence, that was the result of The Right to Read Act, passed in 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/RISE/RISE_Arkansas/RISE_Arkansas_2018_Report_REV2.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/RISE/RISE_Arkansas/RISE_Arkansas_2018_Report_REV2.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=A New Chapter for Arkansas Students, 2018 Report}}</ref> The first goal of this initiative is to provide educators with the in-depth knowledge and skills of "the science of reading" and evidence-based instructional strategies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/RISE/SCIENCE_OF_READING.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/RISE/SCIENCE_OF_READING.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=The Science of Reading, RISE, Arkansas}}</ref> This includes a change of focus to research-based instruction on phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Specific requirements are that reading instruction be systematic and explicit, and include decoding techniques.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/r.i.s.e.-arkansas/its-all-about-meaning|title=It's all About Meaning, arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services, 2018|access-date=2020-03-21|archive-date=2019-07-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190730065926/http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/learning-services/r.i.s.e.-arkansas/its-all-about-meaning|url-status=dead}}</ref> Part of the instruction involves the use of a book and study guide entitled Essentials of Assessing, Preventing and Overcoming Reading Difficulties, by David Kilpatrick.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/RISE/It_s_All_About_Meaning/Book_Study_Facilitator_Guide.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/RISE/It_s_All_About_Meaning/Book_Study_Facilitator_Guide.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title= Essentials of Assessing, Preventing and Overcoming Reading Difficulties, David Kilpatrick, cortland.edu, arkansased.gov/public/userfiles}}</ref>

In 2018 the Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC)<ref>{{cite web |url=https://minnesotareadingcorps.org/the-challenge/|title= Minnesota Reading Corp, Our Work}}</ref> published impact evaluation reports of their reading programs for children in pre-kindergarten to grade three (2017–2018). MRC is a participating organization under [[Americorps]] in which volunteers tutor at-risk students who need extra support in reading and math. The tutors are trained to use research-based literacy activities and interventions as identified by the [[National Reading Panel]], including phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The reports, presented by [[NORC at the University of Chicago]], compare the results of students in the MRC program with students in control groups. They found that MRC kindergarten students achieved significantly higher scores in letter-sound fluency, and MRC first grade students achieved significantly higher scores in both [[nonsense word]] fluency and oral reading [[fluency]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://1kvjxp28gemz2aa4gi2qmxxh-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Minnesota-Reading-Corps_2017-2018-Evaluation_Full-Report-FINAL.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://1kvjxp28gemz2aa4gi2qmxxh-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Minnesota-Reading-Corps_2017-2018-Evaluation_Full-Report-FINAL.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Final Report, Impact Evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps K-3 Program (2017–18)}}</ref>

In 2019 the [[Minnesota Department of Education]] introduced standards requiring school districts to "develop a Local Literacy Plan to ensure that all students have achieved early reading proficiency by no later than the end of third grade" in accordance with a Statute of the [[Minnesota Legislature]] requiring elementary teachers to be able to implement comprehensive, [[Evidence-based education|scientifically based reading]] and oral language instruction in the five reading areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/120B.12 |title=MN Statute 120B.12, 2019, READING PROFICIENTLY NO LATER THAN THE END OF GRADE 3}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/stds/|title= MN Department of Education Academic Standards (K-12), 2019}}</ref>

In 2019 the [[International Literacy Association]] released a report entitled Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=Meeting the challenges of early Literacy Phonics Instruction, International Literacy Association, 2019}}</ref> The report clearly supports the use of phonics instruction that is explicit and systematic, stating that "phonics instruction is helpful for all students, harmful for none, and crucial for some". It also offers an opinion on the ten most common causes of Phonics Instructional Failure, namely: inadequate time devoted to mastering a new phonics skill such as blending (4–6 weeks recommended); lack of application to real reading instruction; inappropriate reading material to practice the skills; too much teacher instruction, and too little reading by the student; lost time during instructional transitions; the teacher's attitude and knowledge of phonics instructional material; lessons that are not fast-paced and rigorous; lack of assessments over an extended period of time; waiting too long to transition to multi-syllable words; and over-emphasis of phonics drills at the expense of other aspects such as vocabulary.

In 2019, the Best Evidence Encyclopedia,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bestevidence.org|title=Best Evidence Encyclopedia}}</ref> part of [[Johns Hopkins University]], released a review of research on 61 studies of 48 different programs for struggling readers in elementary schools.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bestevidence.org/word/strug_read_April_2019_full.pdf|title=A Quantitative Synthesis of Research on Programs for Struggling Readers in Elementary Schools, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, April 24, 2019|access-date=May 4, 2020|archive-date=July 8, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200708081225/http://www.bestevidence.org/word/strug_read_April_2019_full.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> It concluded that:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bestevidence.org/word/methodological_Sept_21_2015.pdf|title=How Methodological Features Affect Effect Sizes in Education, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, September 2015|access-date=2020-05-04|archive-date=2020-07-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200708050526/http://www.bestevidence.org/word/methodological_Sept_21_2015.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* Outcomes were positive for one-to-one tutoring
* Outcomes were positive but not as large for one-to-small group tutoring
* There were no differences in outcomes between teachers and teaching assistants as tutors
* Technology-supported adaptive instruction did not have positive outcomes
* Whole-class approaches (mostly [[cooperative learning]]) and whole-school approaches incorporating tutoring obtained outcomes for struggling readers as large as those found for one-to-one tutoring, and benefitted many more students
* Approaches mixing classroom and school improvements, with tutoring for the most [[at-risk students]], have the greatest potential for the largest numbers of struggling readers

In 2019, 52.8% of Louisiana's third-graders scored at or above the State's reading benchmark.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/test-results/fall-2019-dibels-reading-report.pdf?sfvrsn=51c9a1f_2|title=Fall 2019 K-3 Reading Report, Louisiana Dept. of Ed.}}</ref> Also in 2019, 26% of grade 4 students were reading at a proficiency level according to the Nation's Report Card.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=1&sub=RED&sj=AL&sfj=NP&st=MN&year=2019R3|title=GRADE 4 READING 2019, Nation's Report Card}}</ref> In that same year, the [[Louisiana State Legislature]] passed resolution 222 urging the Department of Education to create the ''Early Literacy Commission'' to make recommendations to implement a system providing effective [[Evidence-based education|evidence-based reading instruction]] for children from birth through third grade.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1142799|title=Louisiana HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 222, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/early-childhood/louisiana-s-early-literacy-commission-legislative-report.pdf?sfvrsn=984b9a1f_4|title=Louisiana Early Literacy Commission}}</ref> On March 8, 2019, the [[Louisiana Department of Education]] revised their curriculum for K–12 English Language Arts. Its ''Reading Standards for Foundational Skills'' includes requirements for instruction in the alphabetic principle, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency and comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/teacher-toolbox-resources/k-12-ela-standards.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/teacher-toolbox-resources/k-12-ela-standards.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=K-12 Student Standards for English Language Arts, Louisiana, 2019-03-08}}</ref> Effective in 2020 The [[Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education]] (BESE) screens for the following skills: Kindergarten-Phonemic Awareness; First Grade-Phonics; Second Grade-Oral Reading Fluency; and Third Grade-Reading Comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/early-childhood/louisiana-s-early-literacy-commission-legislative-report.pdf?sfvrsn=984b9a1f_4|title=Louisiana's Early Literacy Commission, 2020}}</ref>

In 2019, 30% of grade 4 students in [[Texas]] were reading at the "proficiency level" according to the [[National Assessment of Educational Progress|Nation's Report Card]], as compared to the National Average of 34%.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=1&sub=RED&sj=AL&sfj=NP&st=MN&year=2019R3|title=Grade 4 Reading, The Nation's Report Card (NAEP, 2019)}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_221.40.asp|title= NAEP reading scale score of 4th-grade public school students, by state, 1992 through 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=147|title=Fast facts, NCES}}</ref> In June of that same year the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3 (HB 3 Reading Academies) requiring all kindergarten through grade-three teachers and principals to "''begin'' a teacher literacy achievement academy before the 2022–2023 school year". The training is anticipated to be a total of 80 hours.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tcta.org/node/15296-tea_releases_new_details_on_literacy_achievement_academies|title=Literacy Achievement Academies, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, 2019-12-03}}</ref> The goal is to "increase teacher knowledge and implementation of [[Evidence-based education|evidence-based practices]] to positively impact student literacy achievement".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/tra_overviewparticipantdetails_final_1_2020.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/tra_overviewparticipantdetails_final_1_2020.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=HB 3 Reading Academies, Texas Education Agency}}</ref> The required content of the academies' training includes the areas of ''Science of Teaching Reading, Oral Language, Phonological Awareness, Decoding (i.e. Phonics), Fluency and Comprehension.''

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, the United States achieved the 15th highest score in Reading Literacy for students in their fourth year of school according to the [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]] (PIRLS).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/pirls/student-achievement/pirls-achievement-results/|title=PIRLS reading achievement 2016}}</ref> Of 78 countries, the United States ranked 14th in reading for the international [[PISA]] study for 15-year-old students.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_USA.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_USA.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=USA in PISA, 2018}}</ref> In 2019, with respect to the nation's grade-four public school students, 34% performed at or above the [[National Assessment of Educational Progress|Nations Report Card]] "proficient level" (solid academic performance) and 65% performed at or above the NAEP "basic level" (partial mastery of the proficient level skills).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/states/achievement/?grade=4|title=The NAEP nation's report card}}</ref>

In 2021, the State of Connecticut passed an act concerning the "right to read" that will take effect in 2023. It requires education standards that are evidenced-based and scientifically based and focused on competency in the five areas of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and reading fluency, including oral skills and reading comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/FC/PDF/2021HB-06620-R000650-FC.PDF |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/FC/PDF/2021HB-06620-R000650-FC.PDF |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=The right to read, sHB6620 / File No. 650, Connecticut, USA}}</ref> In the same year, the state of [[North Carolina]] passed a bill requiring that the teaching of reading be based on the [[Reading#Science of reading|science of reading]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2021/S387|title=Excellent Public Schools Act of 2021, Senate Bill 387 / SL 2021-8, April 9, 2021}}</ref>

Between 2013 and 2022, 30 States have passed laws or implemented new policies related to [[Reading#Science of reading|evidence-based reading instruction]].<ref name="Sarah Schwartz"/> In some instances, this requires the teaching of phonics in an explicit and systematic manner. However, these requirements are not uniform and may prove difficult to implement as "old practices prove hard to shake".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/states-are-pushing-changes-to-reading-instruction-but-old-practices-prove-hard-to-shake/2022/07|author=Sarah Schwartz|date=July 20, 2022|title=States Are Pushing Changes to Reading Instruction. But Old Practices Prove Hard to Shake, EdWeek|website=[[Education Week]] }}</ref>

In 2023, New York City set about to require schools to teach reading with an emphasis on phonics. In that city, less than half of the students from the third grade to the eighth grade of school scored as proficient on state reading exams. More than 63% of Black and Hispanic test-takers did not make the grade. Elementary school teachers will have to implement one of three comprehensive reading programs over the next couple of years. The United Federation of Teachers celebrated the announcement, but the local principals union was “not satisfied” with the lack of choice. All but two of the school superintendents chose the most traditional of the three choices, with explicit and systematic instruction in foundational literacy skills such as vocabulary and reading comprehension.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-nyc-mandate-public-schools-teach-reading-phonics-20230509-twzrkyjkqjgxhnnpzz3dcmqt7i-story.html|title=NYC to mandate citywide reading approach in bid to lift lagging literacy rates, New York Daily News|date=2023-05-09|author=Cayla Bamberger|website=[[New York Daily News]] }}</ref>