| Author | Message | ||
     Mck |
BLH: This is good. Your daughter is at SB, I believe. That was not the way things were a few years ago. I wonder if perhaps it is a sign that Mrs Davenport knows what she is doing, or if it is the reality in every school, which it should be. There is something very wrong if there are kindergarten kids in some schools who are not being taught sound/syllable correlation. I believe WL will die hard, but die it must and die it will. | ||
| Cjmullins |
Quote from Unct: "Are many children doing just fine learning how to read through whole language ? Undeniably, yes." My daughter is a preschooler so I must confess that I have no actual personal experience in the SOM schools yet, but from anecdotes told to me by my many friends of elementary school age children, I have concluded that those children who are learning just fine through WL have been exposed to phonics by parents in the home or through outside tutoring. We are using the Hooked on Phonics program with our preschooler -- just in case she's not a WL learner, we want to make sure she has a good foundation before she enters school. | ||
| Mck |
cjmullins; i'm sure you're doing the right thing, but don't worry too much. I believe the word is out now. The best research (Jeanne Chall, 1967"Learning to Read", Marilyn Adams, 1991"Beginning to Read", and the recent 30 year, 200 million dollar study by the NIH) shows that expert readers read every sound in every word - but fast and seamlessly. They decode in order to comprehend. This flies in the face of WL's insistence that children read in chunks and guess meaning from context (a "psycho linguistic guessing game", as WL promoter Goodman famously said, approvingly). Those lucky kids who learn to read effortlessly intuit decoding. Those who don't have to be taught carefully. No one really is a WL learner. It's a belief system, not a learning system. | ||
| Debby |
UCNT- I don't know why "Debby" is in quotes. It's my REAL name. What's yours? I am not merely repeating what I have heard administrators say, I am sharing my actual experience. My son attended kindergarten at Marshall School, and is now in 1st grade at So Mtn Annex. So I can speak with first-hand knowledge about two of the district's five elementary schools. In kindergarten, tremendous emphasis is put on phonemic awareness - i.e., phonics. Children are taught to sound out words, starting with the initial sound, and to attempt spelling the word or parts of the word. All year, they work on making sound/letter connections. They keep journals from the first week of kindergarten. At the very beginning they may just draw a picture and then dictate something for the teacher to write, then gradually begin writing on their own. This daily journaling would probably be seen as whole-language. As kindergarten progressed, my son had homework 2-3 times a week which usually included tracing and then writing a letter and words that began with that letter. He made "letter books" for each letter of the alphabet. With words featuring that letter and sentences with a lot of sound repetition (alliteration, I believe). I have observed kindergarten classes at South Mountain Annex (both Mrs. Pokatilow and Mrs. Morgan's class) and have seen, personally, children sitting on the floor in front of the teacher at a flip chart. On this flip chart is a simple sentence. They practice counting words, counting syllables, finding punctuation, finding specific sounds, finding specific words, and finally, reading the sentence. This is direct phonics instruction. In Mrs. Morgan's class, the children each create "Grandma's Treasure Chest" (or something to that effect)in which they keep one special object starting with each letter. Creative, yes, and definitely phonemic. In first grade, reading is further developed along with writing and proper spelling. They are taught to sound out words, think of and write a list of words containg a specific letter combination (e.g. "ing", and then king, thing, drinking, tingle, etc.). There is also a HUGE emphasis on writing, with daily journaling as well as Writer's Workshop, where they are actually taught to write stories in stages including planning, drafting, revising and editing. ( I don't know about any of you, but I didn't learn that until High School). They are taught to develop a story with a beginning a middle and an end, and gradually learn to provide more detail. If your children are older, the experience may very well have been different. I think in the eighties and early nineties school districts around the country ( as well as teachers' colleges) placed a much higher emphasis on Whole Language, and then the reading specialists would use phonics to rescue the kids who weren't learning to read! I think many children were done a disservice during these years. In my experience, this is NOT what's going on presently. Would any of the others of you out there care to share your personal experiences? | ||
| Blh |
MCK, yes, my little one is at SB. But, as I think about it, my son - now a fourth grader - had a letter/sound of the week when he was in Kindergarten too (at Tuscan). They did a lot of work on building letter-sound recognition. I think the transition away from pure WL has been on the move for quite some time. On a separate note though, my son had a toy computer when he was 4 or 5. It's a brand called VTECH. In any case it includes several learning games for reading/math enhancement. Reading the literature, the reading games were very much WL influenced. I think a combination is the way to go. Children learn differently - some need the structure of phonics, while others learn better when they learn the sounds of "root" words and the skills to build on them. I agree that pure WL isn't the best route -- just because so many children can't learn that way. By the way, both of my children have been writing and journaling daily (in school) since Kindergarten. There's been a nightly writing/reading expectation from the schools for my son since 2nd grade. | ||
| Mck |
Maplewood native Tyce Palmaffy wrote this great overview of the "Reading Wars". http://www.policyreview.com/nov97/flunk.html | ||
| Deadwhitemale |
Please read the curricula, K-5, and then re-read the above remarks, if you have the strength. I have read the curricula, and more, and the articles in the curricula books, articles which substitute for meat and potatoes. [Qualyian spelling?] Please, get out of the narrow channels, and go to the website for the National Right to Read Foundation, at http://www.nrrf.org DWM | ||
| Cbbk |
My children are at SB, one in 5th grade and one in 1st grade. Davenport has not done much to change things at the school... lots of hype, not enough action! My 5th grader learned by whole language, interesting concepts. No help but interesting... It wasn't until the end of third grade after much complaining (since 1st grade)that there is a problem,I requested numerous times that he be tested for a learning disability. What a surprise he has a learning disability. After the assessments and testing I was told one of the "major problems" with his reading was poor phonics skills. My question to all at these meetings was.. how could his phonics skills be adequate when whole language is taught? Answer: Well his teachers should have picked this up and provided extra time/help. My first grader, did the letter/sound correlation in Kindergarten, yes that did help, but over the summer before first grade, we used the "Hooked on Phonics" program. Thank God, or else we would have a real problem now. I feel the district needs to come up with a way to implement the two, and not just at the individual teachers descretion. | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
Thanks Mck ! A great article. One I hope all WL defenders on this board take the time to read . | ||
| Nan |
To quote a recent poster on this thread, "Although I'm probably wasting my time here it goes.".... I have to admit I have been avoiding (or glazing over) all educational topics on this board for a while now, having been fatigued by a small group of anti-whole language obsessed zealots (do any of these people have a child in the public school system?). The arguments are filled with lots of out of context quotes and all predict dire consequences for any child unfortunate enough to fall into the clutches of a language-based reading program. I mean, I might as well give the kid poison as send him to kindergarten in MSO. So, rather than continue to contribute to the endless REPETATIVE (my brain is getting carpal tunnel syndrome) excuse for a discussion (You can check the archive for my previous attempts to argue this topic. I might as well have been talking to rocks.) I thought I would instead mention a personal experience that contributed to my belief in whole-language based reading programs and indicates some of the pitfalls of a phonics-based reading curriculum. Briefly: my own elementary school experience was phonics-based (U, DWM and mck would have approved). Although I was a very enthusiastic reader, I found the endless workbooks and worksheets sounding out every combination of letters mind-numbingly dull and irrelevant. We almost never discussed what happened in a story, only how many words began with the sh..combination. I eventually lost interest in school, and my grades slipped. Teachers began to consider me a weak student and I even remember a second grade teacher telling me that I couldn't take the book I had selected out of the school library, because it was above my level and I wouldn't be able to understand it. I went to the public library that afternoon, got the same book out and read it in a day. From then on I seemed to have two separate lives: one as an uninterested failure at school and another, as a smart, self-taught kid who read about five grades higher on her own. I can remember just daydreaming through school and thinking guiltily, "Why can't we just talk about what happens in these stories?" Years later, when I was a graduate student in elementary education, I was overjoyed to discover that educational pedagogy had finally evolved to endorse literature based reading programs--where students begin as writers and readers. Reading is much more than sounding out letter combinations. (Have you ever seen the commercial for "Hooked on Phonics" with the young child reading the Constitution like a vacant parrot?). This is not to say that I propose a phonics-free curriculum. Teachers need every tool they can get their hands on for different kinds of students. However, I WOULD rather give my child poison than send him to a school that emphasized phonics, at the expense of whole-language (reading, writing, speaking) exploration and development. | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
I find it extraordinary that those who voice their opinions against whole language here are summarily dismissed as "obsessed zealots and" filled with "venom". Hardly ! (And speaking of obsessed zealots: "I would rather give my child poison"?!!! Wow ! Seems a bit extreme to me !) Vilifying us may be convenient and/or satisfying but it does nothing to forward your argument. | ||
| Mom |
Last night I went to a reception at The Hilton Branch of the Maplewood Library To celebrate the inauguration of new evening hours. There were many school children, most of them from Seth Boyden, who came to read poems and stories written by others and themselves. There were some first and second graders reading their own compositions, each one was a complete and entertaining story. One second grader read from a typed page, indicating that her story had gone through the editing process. The first grader read her story from her original manuscript. Every time she showed us her illustrations, we could see that she had making effective use of creative spelling techniques while composing this story. At six years old her ability and desire to write is not stymied by her inability to spell correctly every word she needed to use. You cannot possibly achieve that level of creativity, confidence and competence in six and seven year olds using phonics alone. Children have to love the written word for the pleasure it brings and they need to participate actively in the writing process. I have two children in the system and I think that many teachers get the blend of phonics and whole language right and our children are indeed learning. I certainly can't remember writing complete stories at age six on a regular basis or even being encouraged to try. I won't engage in a long winded ideological debate on this subject, but I thought those of you who don't have children in the system yet might like to know that the districts language arts program can and does work fo many children. What I saw last night and frankly, what I see on a daily basis with my own children, convinces me that while there are always improvements to be made, our children are learning to read and write and to enjoy both. We are not as bad off as some would have you believe. | ||
| Fringe |
------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Fringe (Fringe) on Saturday, July 15, 2000 - 11:14 am: Edit Comparing South Orange-Maplewood School District's Spring 1999 performance on the Grade 4 and Grade 8 Proficiency Test an in Language Arts Literacy with the 90 districts with elementary schools and 87 districts with middle schools in SO-M's socio-economic grouping (District Factor Group I) the rankings are: LANGUAGE ARTS Top Category - DFG I Grade 4 - 42 DFG I districts had a greater percentage of students scoring in the "ADVANCED PROFICIENT" category for Language Arts than SO-M - 43/89 (less 1 tie) Grade 8 - 75 DFG I districts had a greater percentage of students scoring in the "ADVANCED PROFICIENT" category for Language Arts than SO-M - 76/87 MEAN - DFG I Grade 4 - 81 DFG I districts had higher MEAN scores for Language Arts than SO-M - 82/90 Grade 8 - 85 DFG I districts had higher MEAN scores for Language Arts than SO-M - 86/87 Bottom Category - DFG I Grade 4 - 11 DFG I districts had a greater percentage of students scoring in the "PARTIALLY PROFICIENT" category for Language Arts than SO-M - 12/90 Grade 8 - SO-M had the greatest percentage of students scoring in the "PARTIALLY PROFICIENT" category in Language Arts - 1/87 If compared with the 67 (including SO-M) districts in DFG GH with 4th and 61 districts with 8th grades, the rankings would be: LANGUAGE ARTS Top Category - DFG GH Grade 4 - 21 DFG GH districts had a greater percentage of students scoring in the "ADVANCED PROFICIENT" category for Language Arts than SO-M - 22/66 (less 1 tie) Grade 8 - 41 DFG GH districts had a greater percentage of students scoring in the "ADVANCED PROFICIENT" category for Language Arts than SO-M - 42/61 MEAN - DFG GH Grade 4 - 44 DFG GH districts had higher MEAN scores for Language Arts than SO-M - 45/67 Grade 8 - 59 DFG GH districts had higher MEAN scores for Language Arts than SO-M - 60/61 Bottom Category - DFG GH Grade 4 - 25 DFG GH districts had a greater percentage of students scoring in the "PARTIALLY PROFICIENT" category for Language Arts than SO-M - 26/67 Grade 8 - 2 DFG GH districts had a greater percentage of students scoring in the "PARTIALLY PROFICIENT" category in Language Arts than SO-M - 3/61 Rankings based on data taken from the NJ Report Card, the State Summaries on the 4th and 8th grade assessments published by the NJ Department of Education in December 1999. Scores of Special Education and Limited English Proficient students were not included in the calculations. Data was reported in terms of the percentage of students scoring in one of three classifications - "Partially Proficient" , "Proficient", "Advanced Proficient". NOTE: The scores for Spring 2000 will not be released until next month. At that time new comparative data for the 1999 4th grade test will also be released. JTL | ||
| Nan |
U, Ok, you have a point. I should not be calling people names. I think after reading the same blather over and over again, I got a little emotionally carried away and starting sounding like the people I was criticizing. I do remember someone on this board saying that they "...would rather let their kids eat dirt (or worms) than send them to a school with a whole-language reading program." The point I really want to stress is that you are wrong to assume that a basic skills/phonics based program is the panacea needed to fix academic problems in the MSO school curriculum. I was also complaining about the domination on this board by individuals whose real argument seems to be that MSO's school curriculum does not match up with their conservative/right-wing philosophy of life. I never get the sense with all the statistics, quotes from "Why Johnny Can't Read," Website recommendations, or statements like "Whole Language will die a hard death, but die it must and it will" that any of you have any long-term experience with what happens in a MSO public school classroom. I have never read a post of yours that said how you had come to these beliefs, that you had children in the public school system, or described specific problems encountered, etc. Sometimes, I have even questioned whether you really live here. You don't have to give us your name, rank and serial number, but without conveying some sense of real personal involvement, your billboard-sized headlines (now co-opted by revaluation armies) sound hollow and only function as unfair bad publicity for our school system and our town. | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
Nan: You must not have been reading too closely. Yes, I live in Maplewood. Yes, I have children in the system. Yes, I have wide range of experience in the field of education. Yes, I have personally witnessed the poor and self-esteem destroying results of SOMA and other school district's "language arts" programs. You, however, (as do others on this board) continue to make gross generalizations about me and my views. You also purposely manufacture statements and opinions and then attribute them to me. I can only surmise that you use these tactics out of frustration. I never claimed that "skills/phonics based program is the panacea needed to fix academic problems in the MSO school curriculum." If only it were that easy ! However, it would be good beginning and a step in the right direction. There are many problems with our school system . Some extremely complex with no easy solutions. This one is not too difficult. WL doesn't work for at least 50% of students learning to read and write. WL language doesn't work as a curriculum nor is it a useful educational philosophy. Extensive research confirms this. Our own poor statistics confirm this. You are perfectly free to continue to fight, against all reason, to maintain your WL curriculum for whatever personal reasons you may have. I, however can and will not allow you to misquote me or falsely ascribe ideals, attitudes, and positions to me without a challenge. Show me the data . Share the information you have regarding widespread WL success rather than a few personal experiences . Show me the statistics and data relating to how well WL is working in our public schools right here in town. I am genuinely happy for the individuals in the few success stories presented. Nevertheless, I remain an advocate for the many children who unfortunately lie in the 50% (at least) of the student population who do not and will not have happy tales to tell about WL. | ||
| Gerardryan |
Maybe you should try signing your name. | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
Would that make my argument stronger, in your opinion ? | ||
| Gerardryan |
Yes, absolutely. I don't agree with Fringe on a lot of things, but at least Tucker has the courage to put his name on his opinions and his postings. In my opinion that commands a measure of respect that a cowardly or cutesy pseudonym does not. | ||
| Debby |
The funny thing is, the conversation keeps getting steered back to a condemnation of the district's reliance on whole language, when the district really does not rely exclusively on WL at all. I realize the WL debate is where you guys can find good links and statistics. However, the district is evidently two steps ahead of you, and has not utilized WL exclusively for years. By the way, we had to purchase a new spelling notebook for my 1st grader this week. It will be used for weekly spelling lists and related writing assignments which will be checked for proper spelling and punctuation. But go ahead...scrounge up another article with no relevance, and post the link. | ||
| Mck |
I have been a very vocal, on and off line WL critic since I saw it at work in my child's classroom about 4 years ago. Always with my name attached. HOWEVER, i think i made clear that i am hopeful that things have changed in this district, and was glad to hear from BLH and others that they have. WL was a nation-wide event, after all. I'm sorry that Nan had a bad experience with a bad teacher and phonics worksheets. (the fact that she can actually remember learning to read is amazing! Back when I learned to read, when dinosaurs roamed the earth...) Bad teaching is bad teaching, whether it is with phonics or whole language. But my purpose in posting the links was to get beyond people's personal experiences to the research. Nan should read anything written by recognized expert Marilyn Jager Adams, who visited our District a couple of years ago at the invite of the Language Arts Curriculum review. She is very respectful of the WL humanistic, for lack of a better word, attitude, and of teachers, while throughly rejecting its underlying theory: that children learn to read as naturally as they learn to speak, or would if teachers got out of the way. A must read is her article "Resolving the Great Debate", in the 1995 American Educator, Vol. 19(2)j, the magazine of the AFT. And Debby: the noisy WL debunkers led the way on this issue, not the District. I could provide you with letters to the editor from us critics back then that prove it. Mary C. Kinniery |
