CB>-Many do not teach children the phonetic patterns and rules of the 
CB>English Language.  Some teachers do not even teach spelling."
CB>==================
Yes we do...that is if we understand the importance of such patterns.  
Consider what has been taught in the past.  According to IBM's Writing 
to Read program there are 42 phonemes while there are only 26 letters.  
If teaching phonics was simply teaching a sound association to every 
letter that would be one thing.  But we have diphthongs and diagraphs to
help make up additional sounds.  And after one learns all the sound 
combinations you have to remember "r" controlled words put up with 
"exceptions to the rule."  
Remembering that it is young children we are trying to teach these 
skills to is important.  Some of our language structure, especially the 
irregular spelling of some words, is very confusing.
Try this phonetically "hear."  You don't need the vowels.  Consider the 
/sh/ sound.  Why does our language spell /sh/ sound as in sugar, or *ti*
as in motion, or *oc* as in ocean, or *se* as in nauseous.  
How about *hair* *bear* and *bare.*  Three different spellings for the 
same sound.  Or *do* and *due* and *through* and *to* *too*  and *two.* 
These spellings change sounds in *go* *so* and *rough* and *women.*
  
I learned that "when two vowels go walking, the first one does the 
talking."  But this rule has several exceptions.
The point is that our language is complicated for young children.  
Teaching phonics is important as is teaching sight-word skills.  But the
answer to literacy hardly rests on the shoulders of phonics instruction.
Phonics is an important part but only a piece of a greater puzzle. 
CB>Of course there are variations in the practice - just as there are 
CB>differences in the way that teachers teach phonics.  I'd say my
CB>position  is, if a teacher is using phonics and word-attack skills as
CB>a primary  means of instruction (not just when a student is totally
CB>lost), then  they are not following whole language practices.
If a teacher is using phonics and word-attack skills as a *primary* 
means of instruction they certainly are not following a whole language 
approach.  A question I might ask is "To what degree are they teaching 
phonics and word-attack?"  Sounds like you are describing "drill and 
practice."  These same teachers probably use lots of work sheets in 
their classroom.  Work sheets (IMO) do not teach any skills.  There is 
not one skill that work sheets really teach (I think they are primarily 
busy work).  I am not saying all work sheets are bad...in fact some are 
very good.  But in general (I mean if work sheets are a primary part of 
the classroom curriculum) they are not skill developing tools.  
Busy work yes, skill development -- no.  At best they can facilitate the 
learning objectives of lesson.  But the draw a line from the letter to 
the picture that matches is pointless.  I'd be happy to elaborate if 
someone wants to hear why I believe this.
That oughta raise some eyebrows here.....but my statement is not meant 
to step on toes.  Like I said, some oughta are very good.  
More on this Whole Language thing later.....
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
... "Nice landing...next time, put the wheels down first."
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------