"Prior to the rise of whole language
methods of teaching children to read, nearly all children mastered the skill
of reading without undue difficulty. In the 3-4 decades between 1960-5 and
1995-2000 the methodology employed for the teaching of reading (not only in
Australia but also in America and Britain) was changed, with disastrous
outcomes. Between 25 and 40% of children were graduating from high school in
a condition described as functionally illiterate. More significantly,
even while the gap between the top performers and the lost children
increased exponentially, the high achievers were under-challenged.” 1
Having graduated in l990 with a Master’s degree in Early Childhood
Education, I find it absolutely appalling to think that the entire focus of
my program between 1988 and 1990 was Whole Language. Whole-language
embraces "the theory that kids learn to read the way they learn to
talk--naturally. To foster this natural ability, whole-language educators
surrounded children with real literature and nonfiction and threw out the
old basals and worksheets that frequently manipulated words, offered
nonsensical passages, and turned kids off to reading. Whole-language
theorists also believe in providing students with mini-lessons. For
instance, a whole language teacher might help a student sound out words, but
the instruction is given in context to individual students on an as-needed
basis.”2
I can’t help but wonder why in l988 none of this research had surfaced and
that none of my professors were questioning this methodology. While reading
several of the writings by Glynne Sutcliffe, a woman dedicated to the cause
of early childhood reading instruction, I noticed that she posed the
question whether those responsible for setting up or sustaining a particular
system are likely to be the best people to investigate how it is working.3
I am certain that some of this research has made its way into the mainstream
because when I taught 1st grade in 2000, the Whole Language approach
was evolving into something called Balanced Literacy and many
educators were utilizing Pat Cunningham’s Four Blocks Literacy Model
which incorporated guided reading, self-selected reading, writing, and
working with words. "Balanced instruction combines the best elements from
phonics instruction and the whole-language approach. That is, children are
explicitly taught the relationship between letters and sounds in a
systematic fashion, but they are being read to and reading interesting
stories and writing at the same time.”4
Given that the current pedagogy is finally swinging back
toward center, the questions that must be asked are these? How much does the
window of opportunity (optimum time for learning) factor into a
child’s success in learning how to read? What effect do differing degrees of
parent involvement have? What approach is the best, phonics first or the
balanced approach to reading? Finally, how much does student success have to
do with methodology; i.e. teacher directed or student centered? Regarding
this last question, Ms. Sutcliffe famously reminds us that in the case of
the latter, "If every child is to have some kind of individualized program,
the teacher has to be all things to every child, and is so stressed out that
only the most talented and workaholic types could stay upright.”5
Brain
research points to the need for an early start with letters because 75% of
brain growth occurs between birth and five years of age, in direct response
to learning experiences. Between three and five years of age the foundations
for more formal learning can be most easily established. The specialized
area of our brain that deals with language has a peak period, between birth
and six years of age, when it is under the greatest degree of development.
After that it becomes more difficult for a child to pick up the syntax
(grammatical features) of the language. Between five and ten years of age
there’s a culling process that eliminates unconnected neural cells in every
area of the brain. They’re re- absorbed by the body so their availability
for building new areas of knowledge or skills just disappears. For children,
between six and seven years of age still in the stage of having to learn the
basics, it will be harder and they’ll resent not being able to read as
easily as other children in their classroom. Children presenting at school
with foundational skills in literacy experience an immediate positive
feedback loop and enter into an upward spiral of new learning of all kinds.
In contrast, children who present at school without foundational skills find
themselves struggling, and in many instances fall behind their peers.
Sometimes children give up the struggle for literacy skills as early as the
middle of first grade. While those who are struggling are spending all their
time on learning to read, their classmates have begun reading to learn.6
Students who fall behind early have a hard time catching up. Intensive-and
usually costly--remediation can help some of them. In New Zealand, where
children start school a year earlier than they do in the United States,
researchers at the University of Auckland conducted studies of whole
language methods vs. phonemic-awareness training. On all measures of
phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling, the group that received the
phonemic-awareness training scored higher than the other two groups. In
fact, the group that received semantic training and the group that received
no special training showed no difference in scores.7
The US federal government and the British government both acknowledge the
need to start children early using phonics to embed early reading skills.
The No Child Left Behind Act has an Early Reading First provision
whose goal is to transform early education programs into centers of
excellence that provide high quality, early education to young people. The
premise is that children should enter kindergarten with the necessary
language, cognitive, and early reading skills to prevent reading
difficulties and ensure school success. It’s "based on the understanding
that literacy is learned, not a biological awakening, and promotes coherent,
skill based instruction in the years before kindergarten.”8
However, Early Childhood and Education Departments have resisted changing
the status quo.
Ms. Sutcliffe says there is no question that phonics should come
first. She believes that the balanced approach, which uses the best
of both whole language and phonics, stems from "whole language advocates
trying to make the best of a bad situation, that phonics has won out in the
research literature as the fundamental key to learning to read.”9
Douglas Carnine, a PhD of Education at the University of Oregon says, "Whole
language is a symptom of a field that does not have at its core the use of
scientific logic and public safeguards that you have in other professions. I
can't imagine any other profession promulgating a practice that ends up
harming literally hundreds of thousands of children."10
"Whole-language boosters even go so far as to suggest that researchers have
become the unwitting pawns of the conservative and religious right whom,
they believe, want to eradicate all features of whole language.”11
Direct instruction is crucial to maximizing children’s mastery of basic
skills and knowledge. We need to abandon discovery based learning. Adults
need to deliberately set out to develop phonemic awareness and to teach
children exactly how the alphabet is used to create text.12 ”The
only children who can cope with a child centered classroom are those who are
self-motivated, well-organized, and family supported and who have had a good
start with parents whose inclinations have led them naturally to the
encouragements and activities and conversational inputs that maximized the
child’s responses to those early developmental windows of opportunity for
learning. These children will probably get straight A’s but nevertheless
will still not have been really challenged or stretched to their maximum
personal best.13 "Educational professionals should get involved
in supporting any and all campaigns for improving the quality of preschool
parenting for children. The situation of lost children will not be improved
by by-passing parents and improving child-care facilities.”14
If there is to be a classroom emphasis on phonological
processes, teachers need to be trained in phonemic awareness in order to
teach it effectively. Research shows that many teachers do not have a solid
foundation in their own phonemic awareness and few have received an adequate
level of training. Students, of teachers with phonological deficiencies,
display lower levels of reading skills as a consequence.15
Here is the recipe for success in school. There needs to
be an early start with literacy instruction. Students who fall behind have a
hard time catching up. Phonics should be taught in the beginning. Teachers
should employ direct instruction. Teachers will need to be trained in
phonemic awareness. The question is, how long before we get on the
bandwagon? The alternative is the continued dumbing down of America.
(2,3,7,10,11) The Best of Both Worlds by Karen
Diegmueller
(1,4,5,6,9,12)Who’s Got Brains Around Here? A Meditation For Australian
Parents by Glynne Sutcliffe
http://cleverkids.blogspot.com/
(8,13,14) 100 Children Turn 10 A Critique by Glynne Sutcliffe
http://review100childrenturn10.blogspot.com/
(15)Phonemic Awareness: What Does it Mean? A 2003 update
Dr. Kerry Hempenstall, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
http://www.educationnews.org/phonemic_awareness_what_does_it_.htm
Nancy Salvato is a middle school teacher in Illinois and an independent
contractor for Prism Educational Consulting. She is the Educational Liaison
to IL Sen. Ray Soden and she works with national and local organizations
furthering the cause of Civic Education. She is a columnist for American
Daily, The Common Voice, GOP-USA, OpinionEditorials and The New Media Journal.us. Her
writing has been recognized by the US Secretary of Education. She has been published in
The Washington Times, The Washington Dispatch,
Iconoclast, Free Republic Network & Townhall.com., as well as other
nationally and internationally published media outlets.

|