SHEILA KING Class Size Over-Rated DAN TRIPLETT 07-22-96
SK>-> Again, Whole Language is a theory or a "perspective" of literacy
SK>-> development and is not a "process" or a "program."  People who
SK>-> describe it the way you are suggesting don't really understand
SK>-> what Whole Language really is.
SK> 
SK>Why don't you explain it, then. I would be glad to hear more about
SK>it.  
SK>I think there is a big problem in education where there are "in"
SK>terms that are used, but it may be the case that two different
SK>educators mean two very different things even while using the same
SK>term (certainly "whole language" is one example, so is "outcome based
SK>education" and, in math, "compatible with the NCTM standards" is
SK>another!). 
I would agree that this is a real problem.  We have difficulty in 
education arriving at common definitions for the terms we use.  Outcome 
Based Education (OBE) is a perfect example.  The originators of the OBE 
concept (I know very little about its origins) had a specific idea in 
mind.  In our district we implemented OBE and it failed miserably.  
Teachers throughout our district were doing what they "thought" OBE was.  
Even with training (which was minimal) there were wide gaps in our 
understandings.
Regarding your comments of "in terms," we need these terms to identify 
educational concepts.  I agree with you that the real problem is in the 
defining and understanding (and implementation) of the concepts.
Whole Language is one of these concepts.  I will not attempt to explain 
it here, but will (attempt) to explain what it is in another post.
 
SK>One problem, AFAIK with the "whole language" movement, is that some
SK>teachers who thought they were implementing it, felt that it was the
SK>"exclusive" method to use in the classroom and incompatible with
SK>phonics or any other reading methods. A balance of methods is
SK>probably in the best interest of the students (supports multiple
SK>learning modalities).  
Yes!  I fully agree.  For me, a balanced approach is essential. 
SK>You are a kindergarten teacher, right? Do you teach reading? Do you
SK>just do "reading readiness" activities? I would assume you are
SK>certified/qualified to teach reading at any elementary level,
SK>according to your teaching certificate. 
Yes....certified K-8 with a early childhood endorsement.
sk>Maybe you could enlighten
SK>those of us who are not really reading teachers.
We crawl before we walk and walk before we run.  When I have reading 
readiness activities I am teaching reading.  When you read to your child 
at home you are teaching reading.  
Consider this:  Babies are born with no language skills.  As they grow, 
mom and dad are careful NOT to talk to the child or around the child 
much.  The parents feel that when the child is old enough to "learn" 
language they will "teach" the baby to talk.  When the child is 2 years 
old they begin a daily routine of "teaching" the baby to talk.  They 
hold up objects and say "ball" and they have the baby repeat the words.  
They don't use word in sentences yet, just in isolation.  As the child 
progresses in "word skill" the begin to add words:  "blue ball"  
"bouncing ball" etc.  Once this is accomplished they try to teach simple 
sentence structure.  Carry this scenario to your own conclusion...
Sound ridiculous?  It should.  No one would consider teaching a baby to 
talk in this way.  The child is surrounded by language.  Mom, dad, 
brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and gramma and grandpa talk talk 
talk...around the child and to the child.  And the child learns language 
skills "naturally."
Yet when it comes to reading, we have the silly notion that we must 
"isolate" words, sounds and "teach" reading.  Children are capable of 
learning reading just like they learned language.  
I am not saying that we shouldn't teach reading skills.  But, learning 
to read is not a great mystery.  Every year I have children who learn to 
read by the end of the kindergarten year.  My approach is not didatic.  
Like learning language, learning to read can be just as natural.  
SK> 
SK>-> I believe that literature-based instruction will continue to
SK>-> flourish in those districts where Whole Language is correctly
SK>-> understood. 
SK>I am pleased to see the teachers at my children's public school using
SK>literature based instruction. Is this all that you mean by "Whole
SK>Language"? Why have two different terms to denote the same thing?
Literature Based Instruction is a "part" of the whole language concept 
and is not whole language in and of itself.
I hope my explanations were helpful.  I am not a resident expert on 
whole language but I do have a firm grasp (IMO -- grin) of the concept.  
And infused with that I have my own ideas of what a whole language 
classroom should look like.
Dan Triplett
dtriplett@juno.com
* CMPQwk 1.42 445p *After Clinton, *everyone* looks qualified to be 
resident!
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------