I think Jay's observation about progressive movements -- that
just when they become self-critical and begin to broaden or
balance, their critics rush in and try to define them in their
original or stereotypical terms is important. It seems to me that,
perhaps from a defensive anticipation of this phenomenon,
proponents of the movement get caught up in defending the original
turf rather than getting on with constructive work. I guess it's
understandable. Our society has a lot of trouble walking and
chewing gum at the same time, and more balanced messages tend to
get drowned out.
I was heartened to see the xmca discussion of Stone and of
phonics/whole language begin to turn to more synthetic notions --
Jay's third or fourth viewpoints, or "Phonics Plus." Before that,
I was a little concerned that the call to action in defense of the
good ideas on one pole would turn out to be a defensive denial of
the evidence on the other side and of the possiblility of balance.
I think if you actually read Bill Honig's book _Teaching Our
Children to Read_ (Corwin Press '96) or Marilyn Jager Adams'
_Beginning to Read_ (MIT Press '90) you find it hard to accept them
as being a total rejection of whole language, though they are very
hard on a quasi-Chomskian view of how reading might emerge, and I
think you would find terms like "turncoat former superintendant"
and "Gang of 40" inappropriately counter-polarizing. Even the
Newsweek piece, once it gets past the headline polarities, suggests
that good teachers find ways to do both.
I think it is correct to suspect that the right wing seizes on
phonics in part for cynical reasons of political advantage -- it
gives them a wider constituency than they might otherwise have and
a foot in the local door -- but it is helpful to them that some
whole language (or more general school - ) practice, whatever
balance there is in the underlying theory, is vulnerable to
criticism and some, many, kids do seem to benefit from explicit and
systematic instruction on sound/symbol stuff. (And it helps if
teachers know something about all that and have materials available
to support it - in addition to providing context and materials that
help the kids to know why they might want to read or enjoy reading,
etc. etc.). If Phyllis Schafley is carrying Honig's book around, I
just hope she reads it.
For other reasons I was just writing something that resonates
with the discussion Stone has provoked here:
"American education has a long history of enthusiasms, fads, and
half-truths. These seem to cycle between an emphasis on what
students have to know, on the essential pieces of knowledge and
skill, and on imparting these things explicitly and didactically,
versus an emphasis on wholes, on meaning and understanding, and on
the active engagement of student interest through experiencing the
usefulness and relevance of knowledge and skill. While evidence is
adduced by both tendencies to support their views, the struggle
seems to have its true roots in personality and ideology. Science,
with its disrespect for uninformed passion, has a hard time getting
the combatants' attention."
I admit it's a bit romantic about "science" - but it does seem
to me that the evidence is that both are true, and each taken to
the extreme is harmful, and that we need to find a way to get on
with the hard work of striking practical balances and doing better
for students.
Fritz Mosher
Carnegie Corp. of NY
fm who-is-at carnegie.org