What are we missing if all are to flourish?

What is Phonics?

And what is missing from virtually every definition?

Every definition of phonics should include something like this:

A phonics programme teaches the most common grapheme-phoneme correspondences used in English. This core code enables children to begin reading independently. They continue learning the much larger English alphabetic code through reading, writing, spelling and further instruction as they encounter new words.

The Missing Piece in Every Definition of Phonics

What is phonics?

It sounds like a simple question.

In June 2026, I searched Google for "What is phonics?" from England. The top results included definitions from the National Literacy Trust, Literacy Hub (Australia), Nessy, Wikipedia and Reading Eggs.

Although the wording differed slightly, they all described phonics in essentially the same way.

Children learn the relationships between letters and sounds so they can read and spell.

That is true.

But every definition I found omitted the same crucial piece of information.

Children are not taught the entire English alphabetic code when they are taught a phonics programme.

They are taught the core code.

That missing sentence changes everything.

What is the core code?

Every systematic synthetic phonics (SSP) programme teaches a carefully selected set of the most common grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs).

Different programmes teach slightly different correspondences, but they typically teach around 100 GPCs. These are also the correspondences assessed in England's Phonics Screening Check (PSC).

The core code gives children enough knowledge to begin figuring out a lot of words, and this makes learning to read and spell easier.

It is not the whole English alphabetic code.

The English alphabetic code is much larger

Using Received Pronunciation, the English pronunciation code contains well over 300 grapheme-phoneme correspondences.

If accent variation across English-speaking countries is taken into account, the number is even greater.

No phonics programme attempts to teach every grapheme-phoneme correspondence explicitly.

Nor should it.

The purpose of a phonics programme is to teach enough of the writing system that children can begin learning the rest of the alphabetic code for themselves.

The core code is the starting point, not the destination.

What the top search results say

The definitions below all describe phonics accurately, but none explains that children are only being taught the core code.

National Literacy Trust

"Phonics is a way of teaching children how to read and write."

"Phonics instruction involves teaching students to know the relationships between letters and sounds and how to use this knowledge to recognise words when reading, and to spell words when writing."

Nessy

"Phonics is recognising and knowing all the sounds that can be made by letters."

Wikipedia

"Phonics is a method for teaching reading and writing to beginners."

Reading Eggs

"Phonics is a method of instruction that helps children learn and be able to use the alphabetic principle."

All of these definitions are broadly accurate. And are seen whereever you live (google will change results depending on your location) eg

"Phonics involves matching the sounds of spoken English with individual letters or groups of letters."

Literacy Hub (Australia)

However, none explains that a phonics programme teaches only a relatively small part of the English alphabetic code.

That omission matters.

Why this matters

If parents believe children are being taught the alphabetic code, they naturally expect that once children have "learnt phonics" they should be able to read and spell English.

That is an understandable conclusion.

It is also incorrect.

Children who complete a phonics programme have learnt the core code.

They have not learnt the entire English pronunciation code.

They have learnt enough to begin learning the rest.

For example, a child who has mastered the GPCs taught in a typical SSP programme cannot decode a word such as sugar using only that programme content.

That does not mean phonics has failed.

It means the child has reached the point where they need to continue learning the rest of the alphabetic code through reading, writing, spelling and further instruction where needed.

This is the missing piece.

Until parents, teachers, policymakers and researchers understand how little of the English alphabetic code is explicitly taught in a phonics programme, many will continue to believe that completing programme content, or passing the Phonics Screening Check, marks the end of phonics learning.

It doesn't.

It marks the beginning of the next stage: self-teaching. This is when most of learning to read and spell takes places.

The important question is no longer:

Has this child finished the phonics programme?

The questions become:

Has this child learnt enough of the core code to begin teaching themselves the rest of the English alphabetic code?
What is helping them move into the self-teaching phase?
What is preventing them from doing so?
How much explicit teaching does this particular child need before they can continue learning independently?

Every child is different.

Some need very little explicit teaching before they begin learning new grapheme-phoneme correspondences from reading itself.

Others need considerably more support.

Until we start asking those questions, many people will continue believing that learning phonics ends when a programme finishes or a child passes the PSC.

It doesn't.

That is simply the point at which the much larger task of learning the English alphabetic code really begins.

The missing sentence

Every definition of phonics should include something like this:

A phonics programme teaches the most common grapheme-phoneme correspondences used in English. This core code enables children to begin reading independently and to start learning the much larger English alphabetic code. The goal is not to teach the whole code explicitly, but to teach enough for each child to move into the self-teaching phase, where they continue learning new correspondences through reading, writing, spelling and further instruction where needed.

Without that explanation, many parents and teachers will continue to believe that learning phonics means learning the English alphabetic code.

It doesn't.

Learning the core code is only the beginning, and HOW it is taught can change everything.

What parents are told about phonics

In this blog post from the Department for Education (England), parents are told:

"Through phonics children are taught how to recognise the sounds that each individual letter makes."

Not quite.

Children are not taught every sound that each letter can represent. They are taught a limited number of the most common grapheme-phoneme correspondences that make up the core code. Many alternative pronunciations and spellings are learnt later.

"...identify the sounds that different combinations of letters make, such as 'sh' or 'oo'; and blend these sounds together from left to right to make a word."

Again, this only describes the core code.

Many English words cannot be decoded using only the grapheme-phoneme correspondences taught in a typical SSP programme.

"Children can then use this knowledge to 'decode' new words that they hear or see. This is the first important step in learning to read."

This is closer, but it still misses an important distinction.

Children can decode some unfamiliar words using the core code they have been taught. To identify many other words, they need to continue learning the much larger English alphabetic code through reading, vocabulary, morphology, wider orthographic knowledge and self-teaching.

"Once pupils can decode using phonics, they are able to focus on their wider reading skills and develop a love of reading."

If only it were that simple. What does 'using phonics' actually mean here?

England's own data suggest otherwise. One in four children still do not reach the expected standard in reading by the end of primary school, despite many having passed the Phonics Screening Check. Reading for pleasure is also at its lowest level in more than two decades.

Passing the PSC does not guarantee that a child is ready to move effortlessly into fluent reading or develop a love of books.

"Research shows that when phonics is taught in a structured way, starting with the easiest sounds and progressing through to the most complex, it is the most effective way of teaching young children to read."

The evidence strongly supports systematic, explicit phonics instruction.

The question is whether England's current approach is sufficient for every child.

If around one in four children continue to struggle with reading, we should be asking what those children need beyond the core phonics programme to move successfully into the self-teaching phase.

"Phonics is a highly effective method of teaching word reading. Almost all children who receive high-quality phonics teaching will learn the skills they need to tackle new words."

That statement doesn't sit comfortably alongside England's long-term reading outcomes.

If almost all children acquire the skills needed to tackle new words, why do around one in four still fail to reach the expected reading standard by the end of primary school?

That is exactly the question Phonics Reform England believes should be explored.

"They can then go on to read any kind of text fluently and confidently, and to read for enjoyment."

For many children, yes.

For many others, no.

If learning the core code were enough, England would not continue to see such a large proportion of children struggling with reading years after completing a phonics programme.

"Children who have been taught phonics also tend to read more accurately than those taught using other methods, such as 'look and say'. This includes children who find learning to read difficult, for example those who have dyslexia."

This comparison oversimplifies a much more complex issue.

Children with strong phonemic awareness can often learn successfully through a variety of approaches. Those at risk of reading difficulties generally require more explicit support. The question is whether England's current model provides enough of the right support, for the right children, at the right time.

That is one of the reasons Phonics Reform England exists.

We support systematic, explicit phonics instruction, but done differently eg self-paced. We also believe it is time to ask whether teaching around 100 grapheme-phoneme correspondences, and measuring success largely through the Phonics Screening Check, is enough to ensure every child reaches the self-teaching phase and becomes a confident, independent reader.