Subject: Re[2]: phonics politics
Author: FM at CC
Date: 5/10/96 12:44 PM
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 superintendent" 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
fm%carnegie who-is-at mcimail.com