The Literacy Divide: How Overemphasis on Phonics Fails Gestalt Language Processors
Building on yesterday’s article, today’s focus is on pre-k & kindergarten … and where the literacy problems grow.
Introduction
My first assignment in a K-12 setting was in an elementary school Special Day Program (SDC) classroom. As an alexithymic autistic teacher, I may have had a distinct advantage of being able to read the room. There, I had the privilege of working with both Analytic Language Processors (ALPs) and Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs). Through my own struggles with language learning, and my experiences in that first classroom, I have witnessed firsthand the stark differences in how ALPs and GLPs acquire and process language, and the impact that these differences can have on their learning and behaviour in the classroom.
Recalling from yesterday’s article, ALPs, who typically develop language skills through systematic, rule-based learning, tend to thrive in classrooms that emphasise structured phonics instruction. They often show rapid progress in developing phonological awareness, letter-sound relationships, and decoding skills. In contrast, GLPs, who rely more heavily on context and meaning to process language, often struggle to keep pace with their ALP peers in phonics-heavy classrooms. This is particularly evident for GLPs in Stage 2 of language development, where they rely on mitigated gestalts and modified scripts to communicate.
When the unique needs of GLPs are not met, the literacy divide between ALPs and GLPs begins to widen, leading to a host of challenges that extend beyond just reading and writing. As the old adage goes, “all behavior is communication,” and this is especially true for young learners who are struggling to keep up with the demands of the classroom. GLPs who feel frustrated, disengaged, and unsupported may begin to act out, displaying challenging behaviours that disrupt learning for themselves and their classmates.
The current emphasis on systematic phonics instruction in early literacy education, while beneficial for ALPs, fails to address the needs of GLPs adequately. This not only perpetuates the literacy divide but also contributes to behavioural and classroom management issues that can have long-lasting effects on student outcomes. In today’s article, I’ll explore the characteristics of ALPs and GLPs in pre-k and kindergarten, examine the impact of phonics-heavy instruction on both groups, and propose alternative strategies for supporting GLPs in Stage 2 of language development. By advocating for a more inclusive approach to early literacy education, we can work towards closing the literacy divide and ensuring that all students have the opportunity to succeed, both academically and behaviourally.
ALPs at ages 4-5 - pre-k and kindergarten
For ALPs in pre-k and kindergarten, the journey of learning to read is an exciting and rewarding one. These young learners, who naturally gravitate towards systematic, rule-based language acquisition, find themselves in an educational environment that is tailored to their strengths. As they begin to develop phonological awareness and letter-sound relationships, ALPs eagerly engage with the world of print around them, showing a keen interest in early writing behaviours and attempting to decode simple words and sentences.
In classrooms that prioritise systematic phonics instruction, ALPs thrive. The explicit teaching of letter-sound correspondences and blending skills provides them with the tools they need to crack the code of written language. As they progress gradually from individual sounds to words to connected text, ALPs gain confidence in their abilities and develop a sense of mastery over the reading process. The emphasis on decoding strategies and word attack skills further reinforces their understanding of the building blocks of language, empowering them to tackle new words and texts with enthusiasm.
The success stories of ALPs in phonics-based programs are numerous and heartening. One such example from my first year of teaching is that of Jose, a bright-eyed kindergartener who entered the classroom with a natural curiosity about letters and sounds. As we began systematic phonics instruction, Jose’s eyes lit up with understanding. He quickly grasped the relationships between letters and sounds, and began to apply this knowledge to decode simple words. Within a few short months, Jose was reading short sentences and even small books independently, beaming with pride at his accomplishments.
As much as I’ve railed against the so-called “science of reading,” I have witnessed the effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction for ALPs firsthand. It’s incredible to see how quickly these young learners can progress when they’re given the right tools and support. For ALPs, phonics instruction is like a key that unlocks the door to literacy. It’s a joy to watch them grow in confidence and skill, and to see the positive impact it has on their overall behaviour and engagement in the classroom.
Indeed, for ALPs, being part of the “in crowd” when it comes to reading instruction is a powerful motivator. When their needs are met and they feel included in the learning process, ALPs are more likely to exhibit positive behaviours and attitudes towards school. They actively participate in classroom activities, engage with their peers, and take pride in their accomplishments. This sense of belonging and success can have far-reaching effects, setting ALPs on a path towards lifelong learning and achievement.
As we celebrate the successes of ALPs in phonics-based programs, it is important to recognise that their experiences are not universal. For GLPs, who process language differently, the emphasis on systematic phonics instruction can lead to feelings of frustration, exclusion, and disengagement. In the next section, we’ll explore the unique challenges faced by GLPs in Stage 2 of language development, and consider alternative strategies for supporting their literacy journey.
GLPs at Stage 2 - pre-k and kindergarten
In stark contrast to the experiences of ALPs, GLPs in Stage 2 of language development often find themselves struggling to keep pace in classrooms that prioritise systematic phonics instruction. These learners, who rely heavily on mitigated gestalts and modified scripts to communicate at this stage, face unique challenges that can lead to frustration, disengagement, and even behavioural issues when their needs are not adequately recognised or supported.
At Stage 2, GLPs are still developing their understanding of language as a meaningful, context-driven system. They may have difficulty breaking down words into smaller components, such as individual sounds or syllables, and often require language experiences that are rich in context and meaning to make sense of new information. In phonics-heavy classrooms, where the emphasis is on decontextualised skills like letter-sound correspondence and blending, GLPs may struggle to keep up with their ALP peers, leading to feelings of inadequacy and frustration.
When GLPs’ unique learning styles are not recognised or supported, they are at risk of being labeled as “delayed” or “struggling” readers. This can have far-reaching consequences for their academic and social-emotional development. GLPs may become increasingly disengaged from learning, feeling like they are constantly trying to fit into a mold that doesn’t suit them. This sense of disconnection and frustration can manifest in challenging behaviours, such as avoidance, acting out, or shutting down altogether.
Tragically, many parents of GLPs at Stage 2 are unaware of the reasons behind their child’s lack of progress in reading. They may attribute their child’s struggles to a lack of effort or ability, not realising that the instructional methods being used are simply not compatible with their child's language processing style. It often falls to educators to identify and address these issues, which may lead to GLPs being evaluated for special education services under the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) eligibility category.
However, it is crucial to recognise that GLPs do not have a “disability” in the traditional sense. Rather, they have a different learning style that requires alternative strategies and teaching methods to unlock their full potential. By incorporating visuals, gestures, and movement into language activities, using repetitive and predictable books and songs to build language skills, and providing opportunities for structured play and social interaction, educators can create a more inclusive and supportive learning environment for GLPs at Stage 2.
The failure to recognise and support the unique needs of GLPs can have devastating consequences, both for individual students and for the education system as a whole. When GLPs are made to feel like they are the problem, rather than the instructional methods that are failing them, they are more likely to disengage from learning and exhibit challenging behaviours. This not only undermines their own academic and social-emotional development but also contributes to a cycle of frustration and misunderstanding that can be difficult to break.
To truly support GLPs at Stage 2, we must move beyond the notion of a one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction and embrace a more inclusive, flexible model that recognises the diversity of language processing styles. By providing educators with the knowledge, tools, and resources they need to support GLPs, we can create a learning environment that values and nurtures the unique strengths of all students, regardless of their language processing style. Only then can we begin to close the literacy divide and ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential.
The consequences of neglecting GLP needs
The failure to recognise and support the unique needs of GLPs in early literacy education has far-reaching consequences that extend well beyond the classroom walls. As the achievement gap between ALPs and GLPs in reading proficiency continues to widen, the long-term effects on academic success, self-esteem, and overall well-being become increasingly apparent.
Research evidence consistently shows significant disparities in reading outcomes between ALPs and GLPs, with GLPs often falling behind their ALP peers in traditional measures of reading proficiency (the “40%”). These disparities can be traced back to the early years of schooling, where the emphasis on systematic phonics instruction and decontextualised language skills puts GLPs at a distinct disadvantage. As a result, GLPs may struggle to keep up with the academic demands of later grades, leading to a cycle of frustration, disengagement, and underachievement.
The consequences of neglecting GLP needs extend far beyond academic performance. When children consistently struggle with reading and feel like they are not meeting expectations, their self-esteem and confidence can suffer. They may begin to doubt their own abilities and lose motivation for learning, which can have long-lasting effects on their mental health and overall well-being. These negative experiences in the early years can shape children’s attitudes towards education and their sense of self for years to come.
One of the most tragic aspects of the current situation is the missed opportunities for early intervention and targeted support. The early years of schooling represent a critical window for identifying and addressing the unique needs of GLPs, when targeted interventions and support can make a significant difference in preventing future reading difficulties. However, when teachers are not trained to recognise the characteristics of GLPs and provide appropriate support, these opportunities are lost, and GLPs are left to struggle on their own.
To address this issue, we must call for a more balanced and inclusive approach to early literacy instruction that recognises the validity of different language processing styles. This means moving beyond a one-size-fits-all model of reading instruction and providing a range of instructional strategies and materials that can support both ALPs and GLPs in their literacy development. By incorporating more context-rich, meaning-based language experiences alongside systematic phonics instruction, we can create a learning environment that is more responsive to the needs of all learners.
Crucially, this shift towards a more inclusive approach to early literacy education must start with teacher training and professional development. It is not enough to simply offer a few sessions on GLPs as an adjunct to the standard, ALP-focused training. Instead, teachers must be educated from the outset to identify and understand the different language acquisition styles present in their classrooms. This means incorporating information about ALPs and GLPs into core teacher education programs, as well as providing ongoing professional development opportunities that help teachers deepen their understanding of these different learning styles.
Furthermore, schools and districts must invest in the tools and resources necessary to identify and support GLPs in the early years. This may include the use of survey instruments and evaluations to determine the language processing styles of individual students, as well as the development of instructional programmes tailored to the needs of all students in the classroom. By taking a proactive, data-driven approach to identifying and supporting GLPs, we can ensure that no child falls through the cracks and that all students have the opportunity to reach their full potential as readers and learners.
Ultimately, the consequences of neglecting GLP needs in early literacy education are too great to ignore. By failing to recognise and support the unique learning styles of these students, we are not only limiting their academic potential but also putting their mental health and well-being at risk. It is time for educators, policymakers, and society as a whole to embrace a more inclusive and equitable approach to early literacy education, one that values and supports the diversity of language processing styles present in our classrooms. Only then can we begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that all children have the opportunity to thrive as readers and learners.
Final thoughts
As we have seen throughout this article, acknowledging and addressing the unique needs of GLPs in early literacy education is not merely a matter of preference or convenience; it is a moral and educational imperative. By continuing to prioritise phonics-based instruction at the expense of other approaches, we are not only failing to support the diverse learning needs of our students but also perpetuating a system that disadvantages and discriminates against a significant portion of the population (the “40%”).
The consequences of this narrow, one-size-fits-all approach to early literacy education are far-reaching and devastating. When GLPs are denied the opportunity to learn and develop their language skills in a way that is compatible with their processing style, they are at risk of falling behind their peers, losing confidence in their abilities, and disengaging from the learning process altogether. These early experiences of frustration and failure can have long-lasting effects on their academic and personal trajectories, limiting their potential and diminishing their quality of life.
In light of these sobering realities, it is deeply concerning that California’s AB 2222 seeks to enshrine phonics-based instruction as the sole approach to early literacy education. By mandating a narrow, prescriptive approach to reading instruction, this legislation sets us on a path towards the grim outcomes we have discussed, consigning countless GLPs to a future of needless stress and struggle. This is not only a disservice to these individual students but also a profound failure of our educational system to fulfill its basic promise of equity and opportunity for all.
It is time for us to take a stand against this misguided approach and advocate for a more comprehensive, equitable vision of early literacy education. This means challenging the assumptions and biases that have long privileged phonics-based instruction and recognising the validity and value of alternative approaches that support the needs of all learners, regardless of their language processing style. It means investing in research and development to deepen our understanding of the diverse ways in which children acquire and process language, and using this knowledge to inform our instructional practices and policies.
Most importantly, it means empowering educators, policymakers, and researchers to work together towards a common goal of creating a more inclusive, responsive, and effective system of early literacy education. This will require a sustained commitment to professional development, resource allocation, and collaboration across stakeholder groups, as well as a willingness to challenge entrenched beliefs and practices that have long gone unquestioned.
The stakes could not be higher. By failing to address the needs of GLPs in early literacy education, we are not only limiting the potential of individual students but also undermining the very foundations of our democratic society. Literacy is not merely a technical skill but a fundamental human right, one that is essential for full participation in civic life, personal fulfillment, and social mobility. When we deny this right to any group of students, we are diminishing our collective capacity for growth, innovation, and progress.
Let us seize this moment as an opportunity to reimagine what is possible in early literacy education. Let us work together to build a system that honors the diversity of human cognition and experience, that provides every child with the support and resources they need to thrive as readers and learners. Only then can we truly fulfill the promise of education as a means of empowerment and liberation for all.