Dan,
DT>Charles, you cannot uniformly dismiss every single bit of research I 
DT>have cited and call it "non-existant" because you don't happen to 
DT>believe it was "scientific."
To a certain extent, you are right...I am getting repetitive and it 
is getting boring.  I will make one last summary of my perspective 
on the matter, then drop it.  The research branch of the American 
Federation of Teachers and a distinguished group of scientists from 
the northeast, as was reported in a number of articles I posted this 
past summer, have determined that there is no credible evidence 
supporting the superiority of whole language over more traditional 
instructional processes.  Each of these groups analyzed much of the 
research that you point to and determined that it was ill-conceived 
and poorly conducted research.  Until I see something from an 
unbiased source that contradicts this determination, I remain 
unconvinced of the effectiveness of the whole language process.
DT>Don't you really mean that you have no confidence in 
DT>any of information I have shared here regarding Whole Language and 
DT>approximated spellings and this "no confidence" is based on what you 
DT>have read and heard from others?
Yes.
DT>And isn't it probably true that you began this discussion with 
DT>hostility toward both those concepts?
Yes.
DT>Hardly a fair hearing.
I gave whole language a fair hearing over twenty years ago.  It was 
called "the new math" back then, and more recently during the 
1980's, as the term whole language actually emerged, I broached it 
with an open mind.  As more and more evidence emerged that it wasn't 
working well and that the research supporting it was flawed, I lost 
respect for the program.  The time for debate is over and the time 
for real research on the best techniques to use to teach children to 
read is upon us.
Chuck Beams
cbeams@dreamscape.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams
___
* UniQWK #5290* I don't think the Ranger is going to like this, Yogi.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------