Hi Chuck,
Very interesting collection of articles on Whole Language. A comment or
two...
-> "But whole language, which sounds so promising when described by its
-> proponents, has proved to be a near-disaster when applied to--and
-> by--real people.  In the eight years since whole language first
-> appeared in the state's gradeschools, California's fourth-grade
-> reading scores have plummeted to near the bottom nationally,
-> according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
-> Indeed, California's fourth graders are now such poor readers that
-> only the children in Louisiana and Guam--both hampered by pitifully
-> backward education systems--get worse reading scores."
One thing we should acknowledge, however, is that what is _called_ Whole
Language in the state of California is not necessarily what Dan Triplett
is promoting.
Recall that Donna Randsell related that as a substitute in San Diego
schools she was exressly prohibited from teaching _any_ phonics. This is
not in line with what Dan is describing as Whole Language, and so it
doesn't really refute that his method of instruction is appropriate.
What this says to me, is that there are many things masquerading around
the country as "whole language" and this only adds to the confusion and
probable failure of the "method" (yes, Dan, I know it's not a
method...but that's how these teachers in California are using it). This
makes interpreting study results extra difficult as well, because one
has to determine which "version" of Whole Language was being used in
order to correctly interpret the results of the study.
If anything, California's results show that forbidding phonics and
teaching "guess by context" is not a successful reading strategy.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------