I am very distressed to read the recent postings on this discussion group
regarding the evils of whole language. One of the difficulties with the
Whole Language approach is the lack of understanding of what it is really
all about. Whole Language is a philosophy, not an instructional method.
When that philosophy is put into action it may have a wide variety of appearances.
Among the things whole language is NOT are the following:
1. WL is not the abolition of phonics.
2. WL is not the same as literature-based reading instruction.
3. WL is not anti-skills.
Instead the foremost of the philosophical tenets of WL are:
1. Children learn language best when engaging in authentic uses of language.
2. Language study is an aggregate of many language functions which are learned
more easily and effectively as a whole rather than in disaggregated fashion.
Among those language functions are speaking, listening, reading, writing,
spelling, phonemic awareness, pragmatics, syntax, semantics, grapho-phonemics,
etc. As in most cases, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
3. Children learn language best when they have a pressing need, a "need-to-know,"
when they are involved in an authentic language process and don't know how
to proceed.
Please be careful about abandoning a worthy philosophy before knowing what
we are abandonning. Whole Language without phonics isn't whole. The Pinellas
County Schools quality initiative has been stalled for lack of top level
support and/or leadership, so quality isn't working there; let's abandon
this initiative. Many ITI projects are simplistic, canned, thematic conglomerations
of innane activities, so integrated thematic instruction doesn't work; let's
abandon it. Many action research projects are conducted by district or campus
committees and become the equilavent of top down decision making, so action
research doesn't work; let's abandon it.
No!
Whole Language, like quality, ITI, action research, and most other things
of worth are difficult to put into practice. They take years of trial-and-error,
discussion, study, and training. Whole Language training has, for the most
part, consisted of workshops, books, and support groups. I've attended Deming
workshops, listened to him discuss his ideas (albeit, by video), read Deming
and others, and I still have difficulty fully understanding quality, much
less "doing" it.
Many of the postings I read on this discussion group indicate to me that
even our most knowledgable participants have disagreements and different
ways of describing quality. Why can't Whole Language be accorded the same
respect? Maybe it's a political issue. I heard one of our national politicans
(don't recall who) say recently that wise politicans never ask a question
for which they don't have an answer. Isn't that very much like "My
mind's made up; don't confuse me with the facts." Unfortunately, too
many have already made up their minds about Whole Language without benefit
of the facts. That flies in the face of both quality and good action research!
Tom Mandeville
Dept. Curriculum & Instruction
Southwest Texas State University