phonics
Phil Agre (pagre who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu)
Tue, 7 May 1996 19:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
I think it's important to study regressive tracts like Stone's, to see
where they are coming from and what their strategy is, and I think it's
important to respond forcefully to campaigns like the anti-whole-language
campaign now going on. An op-ed could be built around the thesis that
"This is a politically motivated campaign against sound educational
practices, built on shoddy science and caricatures." Each element of
that thesis would be illustrated with supporting facts, for example the
identities and agendas of the organizations that sponsor it, the nature
of the shoddy science (with specific examples of bias), specific contrasts
between caricature and reality, specific evidence of the soundness of
whole language practice, credible alternative explanations for assertions
such as declining reading scores (presented not as speculation but as
scientifically supported fact), a clear portrayal of the whole business
as part of a campaign against public education, and stern rebuke for the
appeasers in the educational establishment who have gone along with it.
A particularly important argument is that recommended whole language
practices, contrary to stereotype, do teach children the formal concepts
they need to analyze language, while placing those concepts in the context
of real activities and relationships; this should be portrayed as a rational
pedagogy for the world as it is, and support for this approach from people
and organizations who need to hire graduates with deep understanding of
language will be important supporting evidence. Ignoring attacks, or just
blowing them off as stupid or merely political without vigorous response,
is a mistake in my view. To the contrary, it's important to identify
constituencies who support sound educational practices and public schools,
and let those folks know in clear, factually supported terms what is at stake.
That's my opinion.
Phil Agre