Re: phonics politics

Jay Lemke (JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU)
Wed, 08 May 96 12:46:58 EDT

Ken Goodman helps us understand a little of the political
linkages between ultra-conservatism (which I think of as
the conservatism of fear, as opposed to mainstream conservatism
which is the conservatism of caution) and the phonics/W-L
_political_ issue (as opposed to any discussion of it in
the context of what really happens in classrooms and with
the developing reading and writing dispositions of younger
citizens).

Perhaps from a more liberal (pro-risk-taking?) viewpoint,
the fearful ones are really opposing greater student freedom,
and if one builds models of other people's unconscious motives
(or assumes actions derive from what we see as being their
interests, perhaps), this may be reasonable. But I get the sense
that for the followers of these movements (whose interests
and views differ a lot I think from those of the leaders),
the focus is on _content_, as Ken also mentioned.

It is the fear of _what_ students may read and write, and of
any aid and comfort, support and legitimation, implicit _approval_
of their reading and writing views and opinions and beliefs
that their parents may disapprove of which leads to their
opposition to 'liberal' pedagogies. In part this stems from
their belief that they have a right to own their children's
intellectual and emotional lives, to impose their own values
on people they happen to have biologically begat (beyond whatever
extent may be either inevitable or necessary to getting along with
them while supporting them!). But it also stems from fear of
the disapproved ideas and their imagined or possible consequences,
and from fear of their own children (which is often not admitted,
but sometimes is, and may loom larger than the socially approved
fear _for_ one's children). Fear of their 'getting out of hand'.

Phonics on the other hand is so devoid of content, at least at
the level which is visible to most people, that it seems perfectly
safe, unable to contradict parental beliefs, values, norms.

Is phonics safe? is it entirely lacking in all critical potential?

And more generally, what are the politics of form vs. content? Doesn't
it seem strange that the academic left deals so much in abstractions
(form far from content), while the right makes it case in terms of
content (which is what matters to most people), but the case it makes
in this debate is for _form_? Whole Language does not prescribe
content, but it also refuses to proscribe content. And it offers
a _form_ of pedagogy that emphasizes _content_ (just not _which_
content), while the right demands a content for pedagogy (teach
those phonics rules as content) which is a content of pure _form_!

Somewhere in this tangle I think may lie the clues to more
effective ways of talking to parents about what matters in
these debates. Not in terms of 'research shows', but in terms
of very specific contents and consequences. Or maybe Whole
Language should just rename itself "Phonics Plus"! JAY.

JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU