There is still little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than common alternative methods of reading instruction: Response to Brooks (2023)

Abstract

AbstractBrooks (2023) rejects Bowers' (2020) conclusion that there is little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative teaching methods common in schools. He makes his case based on challenging my analysis of 4 or the 12 meta‐analyses reviewed in Bowers (2020). I show his criticisms are flawed and conclusions are unwarranted. I also briefly review the more recent PIRLS results that have been taken to support the claim that mandated synthetic systematic phonics has improved reading comprehension in England. This conclusion is also shown to be unjustified. I conclude there is still no reliable evidence that systematic phonics is best practice, that researchers should stop making strong claims based on the current evidence, and that the field needs to explore alternative approaches.