CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story: Whole La to DAN TRIPLETT on 08-27-
96
CB>DT>California, like many other well-intentioned folks, simply do not 
CB>DT>understand the underlying ideas that are foundational to a Whole 
CB>DT>Language perspective.
CB>It certainly is a matter of who is out of step in representing the
CB>whole  language process - Dan Triplett, or the state education
CB>department of  California, all of the universities in California, and
CB>most of the  school administrators in California.  Hmmm....
Ok...I think I am in step with my representing WL concepts.  It is the 
way I was taught in my undergrad program and what was represented to me 
in my graduate work as well.  Workshops, journal articles, books I have 
read, they all say the things I have been saying.  Someone is out of 
step that is for sure....I am confident in my sources
CB>DT>Drill and practice is out.  Such an approach is far too structured
CB>DT>for young children.
CB>I think this proclamation is far too broad to be taken seriously.  I 
CB>can't imagine an athlete suggesting that "drill and practice" are
CB>out,  nor the student trying to learn his/her math facts.  But it's a
CB>process  that you don't believe will work in learning to read? I
CB>disagree 110%.
Ok...I'll retract it....I'm a kindergarten teacher..what do you expect?  
I shouldn't make such broad claims.  It was an emotional response.  
Sheila made a good point regarding this on one of her posts.
CB>There are two parts to the confusion that arises out of this
CB>discussion,  including your quote.  Part one of the argument is the
CB>degree to which  whole language should include phonics.  One report I
CB>posted proclaims  that phonics instruction is the very LAST step in
CB>teaching children to  read (in a 7-step process), but the quote you
CB>post suggests that it is a  very important second step (perhaps as
CB>much as 40%?) of the  instructional process (which may still not be
CB>enough, BTW).  We do not  have a definitive answer to this yet, do
CB>we?
Perhaps herein lies a significant problem.  It seems the experts are in 
conflict here.  I for one favor phonics as well as other reading 
strategies.  
CB>Today, the common perception of "whole language" is reading
CB>instruction  that denies the importance of phonics and word attack
CB>skills.  Many  teachers graduating from many colleges today, trained
CB>in the whole  language approach, do not even know how to teach
CB>phonics skills (see  Jill Stewart's article).  To deny that and say
CB>simply that they are  doing it incorrectly does not solve the problem
CB>for millions of kids  taught to read without knowledge of word attack
CB>skills.
You are right here....and it would seem that WL proponents have a great 
deal of work to do.
CB>Our objective here is to get the word out that phonics and word
CB>attack  skills must be a significant part of the instruction in EVERY
CB>child's  reading instruction, or we are doing them a grave
CB>disservice.  Call it  whole language, call it phonics, call it
CB>"dork," but for heaven's sake,  teach it correctly!
Im smiling....(Preach it brother!).  I agree with you Charles.  I agree.  
I teach phonics to kindergartners, both using direct instruction and 
language experiences.  IF I have a child who is NOT getting it, I work 
one-on-one and do assessments.  I have even done home tutoring.  For 
some children it is developmental (if they are not getting it).  For 
others it is lack of experience (in language and reading).  I have said 
that a WL teacher creates a literate environment where the teacher uses 
the best tools available to teach the components of literacy.  
CB>DT>This is a reflection on those teachers and not the concept of WL.
CB>DT>I am  on a WL listserv and we have had this discussion and all
CB>DT>agree that  phonics and decoding skills are important.  
CB>Again, this does not deny that many teachers of whole language do
CB>*not*  teach phonics nor does it prove that YOUR perception of the
CB>process is  correct.  And how much phonics is taught by these
CB>teachers?  Is it enough?
Good question.  I think the answer to "What is enough" is "How much ever 
it takes."
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
Huked on fonics werked for mee.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------