Image created by AI.

The missing link in literacy under the LOMLOE

License Creative Commons

Miguel Ángel Tirado

Teaching children to read and write is what we mean, in its most basic sense, by literacy. It is surely one of the most decisive tasks of schooling, for it gives every pupil, whatever their background, the chance to progress academically and to take a full part in social life. For precisely that reason, it is worth asking what place literacy actually occupies in our education system.

Over the past two decades, the curriculum has moved steadily towards a competency-based model, now embodied in the LOMLOE, the 2020 Spanish education law. Yet this shift has brought with it a quiet but significant development: the explicit teaching of the written code has gradually ceased to be treated as a central object of instruction in the early years of schooling. The question, within the curriculum’s own logic, is therefore unavoidable: when do children actually learn to read and write?

The Royal Decree on Early Childhood Education (1) makes clear an intention to avoid the early formal teaching of reading and writing. The text refers only to an initial ‘approach’ to these forms of learning, in line with a model focused on experience and the child’s overall development. There would be nothing necessarily wrong with this were it not for the fact that it leaves out the very foundations which, according to research (2), support the learning of reading and writing and, crucially, help to prevent later difficulties.

Key components such as phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle and grapheme–phoneme correspondences are scarcely developed in the regulations, or are mentioned only in passing. The same is true of more instrumental aspects: the directionality of handwriting strokes, the functional pincer grasp, graphomotor development, and the perceptual-motor foundations on which these skills depend. Oral language, by contrast — rightly recognised as a fundamental pillar of literacy — is given a clear place in the curriculum. The result, however, is a system that neither teaches the written code explicitly nor ensures the conditions needed for children to learn it successfully.

One might assume that these matters are taken up in Primary Education. Yet the Royal Decree governing that stage (3) suggests otherwise. Reading and writing do become central, but chiefly from a competency-based perspective. From the earliest years, pupils are expected not merely to understand texts but to analyse them with support (4). But when have they actually been taught to read? They are also expected to write by planning and revising their work (5). But when have they been taught to write? In other words, the curriculum works with the use of language, but does not spell out how pupils are to acquire the written code that makes such use possible.

This creates a tension that is hard to overlook. In Early Childhood Education, the formal teaching of the code is avoided; in the first cycle of Primary Education, mastery of that code is assumed. Between these two stages, the process through which literacy is built is left obscure. Is the curriculum assuming that reading and writing simply emerge of their own accord?

It is striking that, decades after theories of the ‘natural’ learning of written language (6) — modelled on the acquisition of speech — the current curriculum still contains formulations that seem, at least partly, to follow that logic. In the first cycle of Primary Education, for example, pupils are expected to produce texts ‘from the different stages in the developmental process of writing’ (7), as though writing simply unfolded as children matured. The accumulated evidence, however, points in the opposite direction: neither reading nor writing is acquired naturally. Both require explicit, systematic and progressive teaching, especially in the early years.

A basic point is worth restating: reading and writing are not ends in themselves, but instruments for learning. They allow pupils to access knowledge, reflect on it and communicate it. To perform that role, they require a sufficient degree of automaticity — something achieved only through deliberate practice and effective instruction.

Research has shown consistently (2) that when decoding has not become automatic, reading comprehension suffers, because cognitive resources are spent recognising words rather than constructing meaning. Much the same applies to writing: without fluent handwriting and secure spelling, the mechanical effort involved limits the use of writing as an instrument of thought. Seen in this light, the teaching of written language is not an optional extra. It is a necessary condition if reading and writing are to serve their purpose in school.

We are therefore faced with a paradox: a curriculum that avoids explicit teaching in the early years, prioritises competent language use in later stages, yet fails to define the learning of the written code as a process. It does not explicitly teach children to read and write, but it does expect them to do both competently.

This gap is especially damaging for pupils with greater learning difficulties, or for those who have had less prior exposure to written language. They are precisely the children who depend most on structured, explicit and systematic teaching. Where such teaching is not guaranteed, inequality deepens, and literacy ceases to perform one of its essential functions: to serve as an instrument of equity. Are we, under the banner of inclusion, producing a form of invisible segregation?

In light of all this, if the curriculum avoids teaching the written code in Early Childhood Education and assumes its mastery in Primary Education, the question remains: where, exactly, are children taught to read and write? Perhaps this is the missing link in school literacy — and one of the keys to understanding the present difficulties of the education system.

Notes and references: 

(1) Real Decreto 95/2022, de 1 de febrero, por el que se establece la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Infantil [Royal Decree 95/2022 of 1 February, establishing the organisation and minimum curriculum for Early Childhood Education]. Boletín Oficial del Estado [Official State Gazette], no. 28, 2 February 2022.
https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2022-1654

It is striking that, in the legal text, the concept of literacy is used exclusively in relation to the digital sphere, including specific assessment criteria — for example, ‘1.4 interact with different digital resources, becoming familiar with different digital media and tools’ — in contrast with paediatric recommendations concerning early screen use in childhood.

(2) See, among others, the following works, which summarise research findings on the teaching of reading and writing:

Ripoll Salceda, J. C. (2023). Un marco para el desarrollo de la competencia lectora [A framework for the development of reading competence]. Ministry of Education, Vocational Training and Sports.
https://www.libreria.educacion.gob.es/libro/un-marco-para-el-desarrollo-de-la-competencia-lectora_183942/

Tirado Ramos, M. A. (2024). ‘Dime cómo lees y te diré cuánto aprendes: ¿Qué nos aporta la investigación a la enseñanza de la lectura?’ [Tell me how you read and I will tell you how much you learn: what does research contribute to the teaching of reading?]. Supervisión 21, 71(71).
https://doi.org/10.52149/Sp21/71.8

Tirado Ramos, M. A. (2025). ‘Pensar con lápiz y papel: Aportaciones de la investigación a la enseñanza de la escritura’ [Thinking with pencil and paper: research contributions to the teaching of writing]. Supervisión 21, 78(78).
https://doi.org/10.52149/Sp21/78.11

(3) Real Decreto 157/2022, de 1 de marzo, por el que se establecen la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Primaria [Royal Decree 157/2022 of 1 March, establishing the organisation and minimum curriculum for Primary Education]. Boletín Oficial del Estado [Official State Gazette], no. 52, 2 March 2022.
https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2022-3296

(4) Real Decreto 157/2022, specific competence 4, first cycle, Spanish Language and Literature: ‘understand the overall meaning and relevant information’ (4.1) and ‘analyse, with guidance’ (4.2).

(5) Real Decreto 157/2022, specific competence 5, first cycle, Spanish Language and Literature: ‘produce written texts … using strategies of planning, drafting and revision’.

(6) See, among others:

Dottrens, R., & Margairaz, E. (1933). El aprendizaje de la lectura por el método global [Learning to read through the global method]. Espasa-Calpe.

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1979). Los sistemas de escritura en el desarrollo del niño [Writing systems in the child’s development]. Siglo XXI Editores.

Freinet, C. (1970). Los métodos naturales. I: El aprendizaje de la lengua [The natural methods. I: Language learning]. Fontanella.

These approaches share a conception of learning written language centred on the child’s activity, meaning and interaction with the environment. They remain highly influential today, even though the empirical evidence of recent decades has stressed the need for explicit, systematic and progressive teaching of the written code.

(7) Real Decreto 157/2022, specific competence 5, first cycle, Spanish Language and Literature: ‘produce written texts … from the different stages in the developmental process of writing’.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons