Numerous controversies pertain to the psychology and pedagogy of reading. Among the more important controversies are questions pertaining to the existence of a hierarchy of reading subskills and the advisability of using a subskill approach. Several influential writers have warned that when the process of learning to read is fractionated into subskills, the essential goal of reading, extraction of meaning, is lost. This argument has persuaded a sizable segment of the teaching community to begin reading instruction with what is essentially a holistic approach. The purpose of this article is not to take issue with those who advocate a holistic method, but to extract the best from each approach to the reading acquisition process in order to improve teaching effectiveness. In pursuit of this goal, the controversy between holistic and part methods of instruction is cast in historical perspective, and a comparison between speech and reading acquisition is made. Arguments are presented to the effect that learning hierarchies do exist in reading; that although we do not presently know the precise nature of these hierarchies, methods are available for their determination; and that the most efficient way to teach a complex skill such as reading is to simplify the task by breaking it into subskills. (Author)