Julie Boesky’s Jan. 12 Maine Voices column was very disturbing. Her science-based reading is inadequate. I’m retired now but taught for many years, my favorite being combined first- and second-grade classes.

There have been many theories about how to teach reading!

Marilyn Adams (1990) wrote that good phonic instruction should be taught early and thoroughly. She remains a strong advocate for stressing phonics for all children learning to read.

Frank Smith (1985) believed that “The system of ‘phonics’ is both cumbersome and unreliable (and) is dysfunctional in fluent reading and interferes with learning to read.” And there is much validity to his theory.

However, there’s a problem with each theory. It is just right for some children and not at all beneficial for others. If one method is taught to all children, there will be some struggling and others failing. The key is finding out which children thrive with phonics and which need a release from that stress. The latter thrive by reading book after book. When they are accomplished readers, then they, too, can learn phonics to accomplish good results in standardized tests.

But how can any child with poor auditory skills thrive with phonics?

Students make choices along the way about how they learn to read. They choose to use phonics or avoid them because innately, they know a better way. Although there are commonalities among children, no one learns in the same way. So it disturbs me, with all the research about different learning styles, that anyone would propose only one way to teach all children.