One of the researchers I have cited whose work has contributed to Whole 
Language theory is Marie Clay.  I have mentioned her at least a few 
times and have indicated her work is recognized and respected by many in
early childhood education.  According to Charles, the work I have cited 
is deemed "worthless" and another has called it "trendy" stuff.  The AFT
apparently is more trustworthy when it comes to researching educational 
issues.  Apparently, a team of "distinguished" scientists, on behalf of 
the AFT, have Pooh-pooed the research I cited.  Interestingly however, 
is the fact that Marie Clay's research is regarded favorably at least in
this AFT release.  Of further interest is the fact that Marie Clay did 
observations (qualitative research) to obtain much of her data.   
QuESTLINE A newsletter for school reform leaders from the Educational 
Issues Department of the American Federation of Teachers
Vol. 2/No. 1 October 1993
Early Intervention: We Can Invest Now or Pay More Later
Early failure can be prevented for nearly every child.... If we, as a 
society, decide to make school failure a thing of the past, we
can do so. The choice is there to be made.    --    Robert Slavin, 
Preventing Early School Failure
All children can learn. You hear that phrase every day, and you want to 
believe it, but the evidence doesn't always make it easy.
Most children enter school enthusiastic and eager to learn, but even in 
first grade, they experience failure and disappointment rather than 
success. Many don't learn to read, fall behind, and are placed in 
boring, slow-paced remedial classes that never allow them to catch up. 
In some of our urban school systems, almost a quarter of the students 
repeat first grade, and many more are passed on even though they're not 
ready.
But there are grounds for optimism. We have a growing body of compelling
evidence that all students, including the most troubled and 
disadvantaged, can learn  --  if we devote sufficient resources toward 
giving them high-quality curriculum and instruction base d on evidence 
about what works. In this issue of QuESTLine, we look at two programs 
that have shown great promise in helping virtually all students become 
competent readers in the early grades: Reading Recovery and Success for 
All.
As more and more AFT members work in schools and districts with site-
based management or in schools with schoolwide Chapter 1 projects (see 
QuESTLine, April 1993), teachers have a growing ability to shape school 
programs. These certainly aren't the only promising approaches for 
improving elementary schools, but they are two that merit serious 
consideration.
One thing that sets Reading Recovery and Success for All apart from many
other programs is that their effectiveness is supported by solid 
evaluations. Common sense and intuition might help improve some schools,
and anecdotal evidence might tell us that a new approach seems to be 
working, but that's not enough. We can't afford to waste money on 
strategies and programs that aren't backed up by reliable, well-
constructed evaluations showing that they make a measurable difference 
in helping more children succeed.
Reading Recovery
Reading Recovery, developed by New Zealand child psychologist Marie 
Clay, has spread to more than 3,800 schools in this country since it was
adopted by researchers in Ohio in the mid-1980s. The program uses one-on
one tutoring  --  which research has shown is by far the most effective 
strategy for preventing early reading failure  --  to help the lowest-
achieving first graders in a school keep up.
Typically, the 20 percent of first graders with the lowest reading 
abilities  --  based on the results of diagnostic tests given at the 
beginning of the year  --  receive 30 minutes of intensive tutoring each
day from a highly trained teacher in addition to their regular reading 
instruction. The tutoring is discontinued, usually after 12 to 16 weeks,
when the student is able to read at the level of the middle reading 
group and thus can succeed in the regular classroom without extra help.
Clay's research in New Zealand indicated that poor readers lack the 
basic strategies of good readers, such as knowing that you should reread
a passage if it doesn't sound right, that you need to constantly monitor
yourself to make sure you understand what you're reading, and even that 
pictures can give clues to a text's meaning. As a result, she developed 
a tutoring model that immerses the child in reading and writing, with 
the teacher helping the student develop the necessary strategies that 
can make him a better reader.
Dan concludes:
While this may do little to promote my previous arguments regarding 
Whole Language or approximated spelling, I do think it points out the 
hasty nature in disregarding researchers I have mentioned.  Apparently 
the AFT sees the value and validity of Marie Clay's research as well.  
Others such as Brian Cambourne, Ken Goodman, Donald Holdaway, (among 
others) have made significant contributions to Whole Language theory and
literacy learning (consider Ken Goodman's research with young children 
regarding "Miscue Analysis." )  The above article has been sniped and if
anyone is interested I can send it in its entirety to an email address. 
I noticed several claims in this article that echo claims I have made in
this echo.  
"We have a growing body of compelling evidence" 
"which research has shown is by far the most effective strategy for 
preventing early reading failure"
 
"Clay's research in New Zealand indicated"
The above quotes don't go on to show specifics, and the reader must have
some confidence that the information is correct.  There are no specifics
as to the research method (I doubt it would fit the most revered 
"scientific" model...) but if one reads Clay's work you will easily 
realize she did a lot of observing to gather her data.  I think this 
shows some support for a qualitative approach (like it or not) and it is
supported by the AFT.  
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------