Marie Clay’s literacy processing theory is multifaceted and complex, and thus, misunderstandings may occur when extracting partial information from any of Clay’s writings. This appears to be the key to explaining the recurring – and completely false – assertion that Clay’s instructional procedures do not include phonics and that Clay considered phonics nonsense.  In fact, Clay did use the word ‘nonsense’ followed by the word ‘phonics’ in The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties (See Clay, 1979, p.7).  However, to present this as proof that she considered phonics unnecessary is inaccurate.  Following is the complete story of Clay’s use of the term ‘nonsense,’ and the importance assigned to phonics, one component of the literacy processing system.

At the place in the 1979 text where this word, ‘nonsense,’ is found, Clay is reflecting on two alternative approaches to beginning reading instruction.  One approach, the look-say method, was based solely on building the child’s stock of known words (sight words) recognized instantly.  The second approach, the phonics method, focused on helping the child to identify sounds of single letters and letter clusters and blending sounds into words.  These two very different approaches to beginning reading were implemented widely in schools at one time.  Critics, unassociated with Clay, found both approaches lacking.

Look-Say Approach to Beginning Reading

First, in considering the Look-Say method, the assumption that the acquisition of a large sight vocabulary was the entrée to proficient reading was found faulty.  Reading with understanding requires more than instant word recognition.  As a brief example, we expect that a first-grade reader will recognize the words ‘is,’ ‘or,’ ‘not,’ ‘to,’ and ‘be’ instantly and correctly.  However, the interpretation of the statement, ‘To be or not to be,’ will elude the young learner.  Reading with comprehension is more demanding than identifying sight words.

Phonics Approach to Beginning Reading

The phonics approach to beginning reading was focused on instruction building the learner’s knowledge of both letter-sound associations and sounding-out abilities needed to decode and recognize new words.  The phonics curriculum offered an extensive number of rules, presented in what was considered an appropriate sequence, with ample practice of each new rule.  The curriculum was organized to proceed from the easiest rules to more complex rules for identifying sounds and blending sounds to pronounce words.  Again, the goal of the phonics approach was mastery of word recognition skills, and learners did acquire the rules.  However, as with the look-say method,  the effectiveness of the phonics method in supporting a learner’s comprehension was questioned.  For example, following a year of instruction, a young reader would be expected to decode the words ‘bark,’ ‘rig,’ ‘main’ and ‘mast’ successfully; however, this would not ensure understanding of the statement: ‘The fore- and main-masts on this bark are rigged square.’  Reading for meaning requires more than using phonics rules to decode words.

An Alternative View

Clay’s assessment of these instructional approaches resulted from her study of the reading behaviors of beginning readers.  She focused on learning, describing the emerging and changing literacy behaviors of children making proficient progress in reading and writing.  She discovered that even as beginners, those readers making good progress were aware of and attentive to multiple aspects of printed language, i.e., they used many sources of information to read for meaning.  The sources of information they attended to were:

1. The message, or meaning,
2. sentence structures of written language,
3. rules regarding the order of ideas, words, and letters,
4. familiar words used often in the language,
5. the alphabet, letters in words (alphabetic principle),
6. knowledge about books and literary experiences,
7. knowledge of how the world works.
   • • Clay, 1979, 2019

Evidence from Proficient Readers

Clay’s proficient readers attended closely to the print, scanning each letter in a word in serial order (left to right) and each word in text (#4 and #5 above) and combined that information with “information they carry in their heads from their past experiences with language” and their world (Clay, 2019, p. 14) (# 2, 3, 6, 7).  The proficient young reader integrates information from all available sources, monitors the reading, and self-corrects when errors distort meaning.  Clay was clear that command of sight words and knowledge of letter-sound relationships and proficient sounding and blending abilities are essential; however, neither is a sufficient explanation of the processing the capable young mind achieves while reading for meaning.  Therefore, to base an instructional program, or a remedial program, on either of these single components (sight words or phonics) is an oversimplification.   Thus Clay’s (1979) statement: “Such an analysis makes the terms ‘look and say’ or ‘sight words’ or ‘phonics’ nonsense as explanations of what we need to know or do in order to be able to read” (p. 7).

Oversimplified approaches to beginning reading instruction are what Clay calls ‘nonsense’ (1979, 2019).

Clay’s (2001) theory of literacy processing and instructional procedures to support the learner’s acquisition of an effective processing system does not ignore the need for both an ever-expanding sight vocabulary and efficient phonics skills.  Notice that following her critique of look-say and phonics approaches and her term ‘nonsense’ to describe them, she references the reader’s important reliance on such print information saying:

The high progress six-year-old has several ways of functioning according to the type of reading material or the difficulty level of the material.  If he cannot get the meaning with fast recall of known words he shifts to using slower analyses of words, letter clusters and letters.  If the first things he notices are some letters, he makes some letter-to-sound links to solve the words which become chunked in phrases to get to messages.  He uses the words he knows to get to new words and he will also use his knowledge of letter clusters or letter-sound associations to unpick new words.  .  .   .  Throughout this entire flexible process, the competent reader manages to stay focused on the messages conveyed by the text while unpicking the detailed information stored in the print on the page.   

Clay, 2019, p. 15

Low Progress Readers

In contrast, Clay observed that low progress readers used a narrow set of ineffective processes.  These included relying on memory of the book, limited attention to print details (letters and words), and guessing based on limited information, for example using only the first letter of a word.   To address these inadequacies, Clay designed instructional procedures that incorporate specific attention to building fast and efficient word analysis skills in isolation, in writing stories, and during text reading, the goal of phonics instruction.  These procedures involve multisensory and systematic techniques to teach words, the alphabet, clusters of letters, letter-sound associations, and features of letters.   The end goal for the learner is the acquisition of a processing system that involves all language and print knowledge sources, including story structure, language structure, words and word structure, letter-sound relationships, letters, and features of letters.  Thus, sight words and phonics, while essential, involve a singular focus on item learning (e.g., sight words) and skills related to attacking, or decoding, new words (phonics).  Each of these approaches, which reflect a limited theory of reading and learning to read, is only one component of a complex literacy processing system.

A Complex Approach for Struggling Readers

Clay (2001) rejected simplistic approaches to instruction for those first-grade children struggling to acquire beginning reading and stated:  “I am certain that a view of complexity is the kind of understanding required to deliver results in an early intervention programme aiming to prevent subsequent literacy difficulties in as many children as possible (p.138).  Nonsense is a critical term; but, to ensure that struggling learners become proficient readers ready to benefit from their classroom literacy programs, they deserve sensible instruction supporting their acquisition of complex literacy processing systems.

References

Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Second edition. Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2001).  Change over time in children’s literacy development.  Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2019). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. 4^th edition. Global Education Systems (GES) Ltd.

Video shared with permission by Dr. Sam Bommarito, author of Dr. Sam 7, Seeking Ways to Grow Proficient, Motivated, Lifelong Readers & Writers: https://doctorsam7.blog/2022/11/05/dr-sam-interviews-matt-renwick-about-his-book-leading-literacy-like-a-c-o-a-c-h-and-his-upcoming-workshop-at-lit-cons-literacy-institute/

Matt Renwick has served for 23 years as a teacher and administrator. He is the author of Leading Like a C.O.A.C.H.: Five Strategies for Supporting Teaching and Learning. Matt’s areas of expertise include curriculum leadership and building schoolwide literacy cultures that work for all learners.

In this interview, Dr. Sam Bommarito discusses Matt Renwick’s book Leading Like a C.O.A.C.H.: Five Strategies for Supporting Teaching and Learning. Matt shares his five strategies for helping teachers become leaders. Finally, we hear about Matt’s upcoming full-day session at LitCon, where attendees will build their literacy leadership capacity by embracing the actions and identity of a coach. He’ll teach attendees to design and build their own projects using the C.O.A.C.H. framework. Matt added that attendees will be able to apply what they learn to their school as soon as they return. “I want to encourage people to get out and engage in some learning as leaders — it’s crucial,” he shares.

Register today for the Leadership Institue at 2023 LitCon to learn to Lead Literacy Like A C.O.A.C.H.

By Kimmi Sorg

Yesterday my fourth-grade son told me you can hear sound coming from a black hole — it sounds almost like an annoying cat crying. He had a video from YouTube that NASA released to prove it. Crazy, right?

I remembered this in the wee hours of the morning. My puppy woke up and wanted to go outside around 2:00 am (BAD HABIT #1). After taking the two dogs out, I returned to bed and grabbed my phone (BAD HABIT #2). Then, I opened up Twitter and got sucked into the proverbial black hole that is the Twitterverse (BAD HABIT #3). I found a Tweet that had captured my attention earlier in the night asking about comparing three pieces of data and using only one to group children. I responded with a few questions, like what time of year, what grade level, and what the profiles were of these children, which went unanswered. Then, my spiral began.

I was still thinking about the Tweet. So, after a rude response from another person, I responded with two thoughts that went something like this “1- Children are not levels. The level of the book gives information about the complexity… 2- Accuracy is only one measure of the assessment. Those that understand take a deeper look are using that text reading to gain insight about the processing…”

I was getting sucked down further as 3:00 am approached. I reminded the original author that they are selling teachers short by assuming they do not use data in a more organic, diagnostic way, other than level. By 3:30 am, I responded again by giving my answer to the original question posed about grouping kids. “No — analysis of the data is needed to make instructional decisions.”

I finally went to sleep feeling satisfied that I contributed to the learning of the original author — until about 6:00 am when my reflections began. My first reflection was that I needed to put the puppy in her crate for bed so I won’t get woken up in the middle of the night (ADJUSTMENT #1). Then, I decided that I needed to move my phone away from my bed before falling asleep (ADJUSTMENT #2). The last piece about getting sucked into the Twitter-verse is a little more complicated for me. I want to stop the smack talk, for lack of a better term. However, I remember what Peter Cunningham shared at Teacher Leader Institute this summer about understanding the message I want to send. It isn’t about correcting people that do not want to hear what I have to say (an ego-buster). I need to adjust to sharing all of the amazing things my Reading Recovery colleagues are doing to support children in real-time (ADJUSTMENT #3 AND ego-booster).

We are doing #WhateverItTakes and we know that #ResultsMatter. I need to re-center and swipe by those Tweets that take me down that black hole in the Twitter-verse. As a Teacher Leader, I focus on the advocacy of early literacy support and Reading Recovery, so I need to be a better model for this in real life. I know we are making relationships with children, changing lives by supporting their literacy journey, and supporting the core instruction by sharing our knowledge.

I know that I will continue to read literacy posts and will probably respond to a few that frustrate me. However, I will keep in mind that Reading Recovery has 35 years of results — and parent letters that share the impact that Reading Recovery has made — before being pulled into that never-ending black hole.

Kimmi Sorg believes all children can learn to read and we can teach them by following the child while developing self-extending and self-regulated learners. She works in Plainfield School District 202 in Plainfield, IL. As a Reading Recovery Teacher Leader of a site that was re-established, advocacy is very important to her. She is passionate about her work with children.