"Fluency is not an instructional target. It is the result of decoding instruction that leads to automatic word recognition." "If a child can decode accurately and automatically, they do not need fluency practice." "Fluency is an outcome of good decoding not a process to go through." "Fluency is a byproduct of solid word recognition skills and not its own distinct subskill." Have you ever heard someone say that reading fluency is just a natural byproduct of learning phonics? This idea has been a point of conversation lately in many literacy spaces, and surprisingly, it's not sparking much debate. Is reading fluency just a natural byproduct of decoding development? If only it were that simple! Fluency is one of the five essential components of reading because it’s a distinct part of skilled reading. Of course, the five components don’t exist in separate vacuums; they overlap and influence each other. Naturally, this can cause some confusion. Let’s discuss the relationship between phonics , fluency , and comprehension . There’s no doubt that automatic word recognition is a key reason why text fluency is so highly correlated with comprehension. When children can automatically read words, their cognitive load is freed up for meaning-making. Children must first develop their decoding skills in order to eventually become automatic decoders. But is an automatic decoder the same as a fluent reader? Consider this reading sample: