Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
DT>I didn't get the impression that California did significant research 
DT>into the nature of WL.  If they had, they could not possibly have missed 
DT>the part that phonics plays in a WL classroom.
I don't have first hand evidence with which to refute your point, but, 
as described in the article I posted from Jill Stewart, a good number of 
"experts" from across the state gathered together to design the reading 
program.  The state education department and its commissioner continued 
to defend the process for several years, even after preliminary evidence 
suggested the process was failing - they had to know what was being 
promoted as whole language in the schools, and they supported it.  The 
state's colleges continued to train tens-of-thousands of new teachers in 
a process that the professors (many self-proclaimed experts who had 
researched it) deemed to be "whole language."  I think YOU think of 
whole language as a process somewhat different from the purists' point of 
view.
DT>California, like many other well-intentioned folks, simply do not 
DT>understand the underlying ideas that are foundational to a Whole 
DT>Language perspective.
It certainly is a matter of who is out of step in representing the whole 
language process - Dan Triplett, or the state education department of 
California, all of the universities in California, and most of the 
school administrators in California.  Hmmm....
DT>Drill and practice is out.  Such an approach is far too structured 
DT>for young children.
I think this proclamation is far too broad to be taken seriously.  I 
can't imagine an athlete suggesting that "drill and practice" are out, 
nor the student trying to learn his/her math facts.  But it's a process 
that you don't believe will work in learning to read? I disagree 110%.
DT>From a recent college textbook about early childhood education 
DT>(Copyright 1990) consider the following:
DT>
DT>"Some people mistakenly believe that as soon as you advocate the whole-
DT>language approach to literacy, you assume that teaching strategies in 
DT>reading such as the sight- or whole-word approach and the phonics 
DT>approach are eliminated.  With the whole-language approach to literacy 
DT>development, we feel that teachers create a literate environment and 
DT>then use the best tools available to teach the components of literacy. 
DT>These tools include........the sight- or whole-word approach, where 
DT>children see the representation of the whole word and begin to read it; 
DT>or phonics, where children learn the letter sound in order to facilitate 
DT>sounding out the words as they read." 
There are two parts to the confusion that arises out of this discussion, 
including your quote.  Part one of the argument is the degree to which 
whole language should include phonics.  One report I posted proclaims 
that phonics instruction is the very LAST step in teaching children to 
read (in a 7-step process), but the quote you post suggests that it is a 
very important second step (perhaps as much as 40%?) of the 
instructional process (which may still not be enough, BTW).  We do not 
have a definitive answer to this yet, do we?
The second part of this disagreement, however, is perception.  How do 
people perceive whole language?  As an example, I point to the use of 
the slang, "dork."  This word was popular in our area for quite some 
time by our students as they chastised one another and they used the 
word to mean "stupid" or "oaf."  As *I* grew up, the word "dork" meant a 
"penis" and it was not considered polite to use it in mixed company.  
Despite my efforts to curtail the use of the word in my class and in our 
school, it was used frequently and even some of the younger teachers 
started using it.  Eventually the perception of "dork" became that of 
"stupid" or "oaf" and the original meaning was lost.
Today, the common perception of "whole language" is reading instruction 
that denies the importance of phonics and word attack skills.  Many 
teachers graduating from many colleges today, trained in the whole 
language approach, do not even know how to teach phonics skills (see 
Jill Stewart's article).  To deny that and say simply that they are 
doing it incorrectly does not solve the problem for millions of kids 
taught to read without knowledge of word attack skills.
Our objective here is to get the word out that phonics and word attack 
skills must be a significant part of the instruction in EVERY child's 
reading instruction, or we are doing them a grave disservice.  Call it 
whole language, call it phonics, call it "dork," but for heaven's sake, 
teach it correctly!
DT>This is a reflection on those teachers and not the concept of WL.  I am 
DT>on a WL listserv and we have had this discussion and all agree that 
DT>phonics and decoding skills are important.  
Again, this does not deny that many teachers of whole language do *not* 
teach phonics nor does it prove that YOUR perception of the process is 
correct.  And how much phonics is taught by these teachers?  Is it enough?
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* > - you're it!
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------