Quotes are taken from a message written by Dan to Charles on 07/09/96...
DT>Whole language was born from research.  It is continually fed and 
DT>expanded using current acceptable research.  Are you saying we should go 
DT>back to Dick and Jane and Run Spot Run?
Whole Language was first developed in New Zealand in the 70's and, in 
its purest form, involved no formal reading instruction.  It was 
literature based (no textbooks) and no phonics or word recognition 
skills were taught to students as, the philosophy went, such instruction 
would ruin the children's instinctive desire to read.  To the best of my 
knowledge, it was not developed out of research, but out of a desire to 
help kids learn to love to read.  The theory was that by removing the 
mundane chore of breaking down words into sounds and syllables reading 
would become more pleasurable.
The next country to adopt it as an instructional model was England.  
They were so enamored of the program that they adopted it as part of 
their national curriculum in the late 1970's.  Throughout the 1980's, 
reading and writing scores continued to decline dramatically throughout 
the realm, and by 1990, the national curriculum was being returned to 
more traditional reading instruction, including formal phonics instruction.
The U.S. educational system became enamored of the process in the 1980's 
and, again, that was soon followed by declining scores in both reading 
and writing.  The decline was explained away, at first, as not important 
because whole language was designed to provoke interest and a love for 
reading, not reading skills.  But, as scores continued to decline, many 
of the reading/writing experts in the U.S. have attempted to integrate 
whole language with some phonics skills and thus rescue the program.  
Today, when two people from different schools try to discuss Whole 
Language, it is difficult to determine if both people are speaking of 
similar programs due to the dramatic modifications different school 
districts have made in the process.
Perhaps the most enlightening experience with Whole Language in the U.S. 
comes to us from California.  Back in the late 1980's they adopted the 
program statewide in their elementary schools.  In just the last couple 
of months I read that California's reading/writing scores have fallen to 
lowest in the nation among the 50 states.  I guess they are going to 
abandon Whole Language as well.
As to your question...I am in favor of establishing standards of 
acceptable reading/writing skills and then following the research as to 
the best ways to achieve those goals.  I think phonics instruction, 
spelling instruction and instruction in word-recognition skills should 
be an important part of that program.  Certainly some literature-based 
instruction would most likely have a place as well (I think we called it 
"free reading" when I can through the schools in the 50's).
Since you broached the topic, I imagine your take on the situation is 
somewhat different than mine?  ;-)
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* A book worth banning is a book worth reading.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------