I received one year of clinical training at Mass General Hosptial in Orton
Gillingham techniques back in the 70s. This is considered the grandfather of
most multisensory structured language techniques for addressing the reading
problems of children and adults with dyslexia. This is perhaps the
quintessential phonics based technique since it is intended to focus on
phonologically based disorders.
I have to tell you that in practice, what we were trained to do sounded very much
like what whole language advocates would recommend. We were told to use trade
books- never a basal- and to not expect mastery of basic phonics priniciples as a
criteria for moving along the spectrum of acquisition of phonology, keep
presenting and linking concepts, constantly spiraling back. We were told that we
were to get those students reading something relevant to them as quickly as
possible and spiral back in the phonics concepts progression for review but only
when it was relevant to the book they were reading. Thus, we tried to bring
together the structure of the language- of which, I beg to differ, there is much
structure that you would learn about if you took clinicial training in reading-
and relevancy as the medium for reading and writing. We were trained to analyze
books both for readability based on interest of student and concepts that were
presented within the book to be sure we could ensure successful acquitsition of
the patterns of the language.
Fundamentally, the phonics camp and the whole language camp differ in their
belief of how reading develops- at least that is what I have been presented. A
quick overview of that discussion was presented in The New Literacy, an APA
Psychology in the Classroom series book and they quote Ken for the basis of whole
language so i would be interested if they have misrepresented his position or
understanding.
But further, you have to differentiate what you mean by phonics. The phonics
that is typically taught in classrooms is not multisensory structured phonics
intended for at risk for reading development populations. It is a worksheet
driven process that has little connection to reading and writing as spelling
programs are typically divorced from the phonics. And as I point out in
workshops, phonics is meant to be HEARD so stop making it silent and independent
seat work!
There are also a variety of levels of intensive phonics dependent upon which
population you are addressing. For example, Reading Recovery from New Zealand
mimics many components of whole language and intensive phonics but drops the
students after a quick jump start, assuming that is all they need to intuit the
patterns further. This is actually true in my own practice- once they see there
are patterns some can take off with classroom instruction. Howver, failure to
continue growth after REading Recovery is another diagnostic indicator that the
child needs further support in illuminating the patterns of the language- in
large part because teachers don't see the patterns so don't teach them properly.
Another classroom based program for at risk readers that is basedo n Orton
Gillingham is Project Read from Minnesota- not the Project Read from California
which is completely different in approach. Teachers complain to me that the
manual is not user friendly- meaning there is a guide for a unit of instruction
conceptually but they have to make their own lessons around relevancy to the
students in choice of materials, books, etc. Teachers don't have the planning
time to bring these two together, primiarliy because they have never had a
conceptually driven model of instruction before in reading. They need support
from people who understand the structure of language to operationalize it inthe
classroom for many learners.
Further, when I see tutors of at risk kids quagmired in phonics without attention
to relevancy and efficacy, I move them out of that swamp as quickly as I can!
Decontextualized phonics practices are performed by the unknowledgeable- not the
well trained- as is true of teaching in general!
The problem I have found in my reading consulting is that teachers hold many of
the same beliefs espoused by some of the contributors of this group that "there
is no structure" and they actually convey to students that it is a matter of luck
in spelling or good memory, or don't worry, the language doesn't make sense."
That is completely false and doesn't help poor readers become motivated to
acquire the patterns of the language.
While I am in total sympathy with Ken in the combating the extreme position of
those folks in California- I take offense that "phonics" is being named as the
culprit. I think those people are hiding behind a term that is unfortunately
fraught with misunderstanding in that it seems to convey mindless, dry lessons
filled with drill and practice. I assure you, it doesn't have to be that way.
Enough from me,
Ilda- hey, I passed- now Dr. Ilda:-)
Mike Cole wrote:
> Hi Ken--
>
> Today the Cal legislature is instuting the Democratic party reform
> plan with accountability the center plank and lots of difficulties promised.
> Listening to the head Ed honcho extol the plan, I was reminded of the factory
> Fordist ethos in all the engineering folks are planning.
> Could you post again the source where we can find the legal documents
> embodying the injunction not to teach about context when teaching reading? I
> can see how this grows out of a phonics approach and I even have some idea of
> what it refers to (e.g., don't JUST guess from the word context) but it runs
> so counter to well established research results on cognition in general
> and reading in particular it seems like it should be vulnerable to critique.
> Critique on what might pass for technical ("neutral") grounds-- if presented
> in the right context (!! - :-) ).
> At least, such an attempt might cause some productive trouble.
> mike