A conversation on Facebook about reading became touchy yesterday, reminding me that you only need to scratch the surface to find serious differences when it comes to education and public policy. While many come together against Common Core State Standards, yesterday’s arguing resulted from the same old differences about how to approach reading…phonics or whole language.
There are two camps: the phonics lovers who consider whole language to be the mark of the devil, and those who prefer whole language—a more natural approach to learning how to read.
There’s a third group too who want to criticize everything about public schools, claiming we have had a reading crisis on our hands forever. They like to use the argument that the lack of phonics has caused all the difficulties in public schools. The trouble with this argument is that phonics programs have dominated instruction in politics and most schools for many years. Children get exposed to phonics whether they need it or not. If phonics was the solution, one could ask, why are there still reading problems?
The trouble with the phonics/whole language argument is that there really should be no argument. At times phonics is appropriate. For students with dyslexia or certain other learning disabilities, a structured phonics program is critical. Some children without disabilities learn to read by sounding out words.
Other children don’t require phonics. They pick up reading naturally. They start school comfortable with reading—eager to do a lot of it. Learning to read comes easy to them.
There are also all kinds of in-between readers. Some might need a little phonics to help them sound out words for spelling and writing purposes, but they don’t require a highly structured phonics program. A little phonics for them goes a long way.
While children who require phonics should get it, children, who come to school reading well for their age, should not be forced to sit through endless structured phonics drill. It is a sure fire way to turn fluent readers against reading. What once was a joyful experience becomes drudgery!
It’s the lack of individualizing the needs of the student that is the real problem—sweeping all kids into a narrow plan to make education cheap and easy. Today’s message is to teach them all the same way…disregarding differences.
Children need distinct methods of instruction when learning how to read. It takes professional judgment, well-prepared and credentialed reading teachers and parental involvement. It is all about individual evaluation and I don’t just mean testing here.
There are many ways to teach children how to read. Whether it is phonics, whole language, and/ or a little of both, one thing is for certain. Children require good community and school libraries with well-prepared certified librarians and a mix of old beloved stories and up-to-date fiction and nonfiction. It is essential that children get time to explore books for their enjoyment and are provided dedicated individuals who will read to them for fun.
The more a child is curious about books and/or stories, the more they will wish to read. Wanting to read is half the battle.
Prescriptive reading programs, where individualized reading needs are identified are what both parents and teachers desire. Smaller class sizes would help with this endeavor.
But one thing is certain. We need to end the either/or with the phonics and whole language argument. In part, it was a stirred up fight to help break up public schools. I will write about this another time.
Both approaches are important. Both phonics and whole language have their place at the table when it comes to the teaching of reading.
thank you.
While I do agree with your sentiments that literacy instruction cannot be all phonics or all whole language and must be differentiated for students to meet the many different needs in a classroom, I’m not sure where you got the impression that in our public schools, teaching reading is an either/or phonics or whole language situation. Metro Nashville Public Schools (where I am a literacy coach in an elementary school) adopted a balanced literacy framework over 10 years ago that acknowledges the need for a balanced approach to literacy, thus meeting the needs of different learning styles. Elementary teachers are required (and new teachers are trained) to teach reading and writing using this framework. Furthermore, elementary teachers administer a text-level assessment using a running record in which a student’s reading level is determined. Once text levels are determined, teachers are required to instruct students at their “instructional level” in small-group, guided reading instruction. This is in addition to the grade-level instruction that students would receive in whole-group “shared reading” scenarios. While trying to meet the individual needs of each student in a classroom is always challenging, your quote “today’s message is to teach them all in the same way…disregarding differences,” is simply not true. Differentiation is required by our district and supported through the assessments that determine individual reading and spelling levels (text-leveled assessment and developmental spelling assessment). Of course, I can only speak for the district in which I teach, but in Nashville, differentiation and a balanced approach to teaching literacy is the expectation for every classroom teacher.
I want to make sure I am clear…I’m not arguing your point. I agree with your thoughts about what makes literacy instruction effective. I just wanted to share that there are districts where these best practices are being utilized.
Hi Jennifer, I appreciate your response and it sounds like you have quite a reading program going on there. It seems very measured. I’m wondering about the students who read well…how much free reading do they get and/or journal writing etc? I like much of what you mention though. Also, how is Common Core addressed and why are you called a coach and not a teacher? Thanks for taking the time to let me know more about Nashville’s reading program.
http://improve-education.org/id46.html
“My guess is that Whole Word seemed to these educators the best device for forging children into a more homogeneous mass. In any event, phonics was scorned and Whole Word was king, through the Depression, World War II, and into the postwar boom. Dick and Jane readers were in every classroom; and all the problems that Dr. Orton discussed became commonplace.”
I love Bruce’s page. he works so hard to help kids read and shares the lie that is “Whole Word”
Whole word was and is a complete nightmare!! It is the sole reason why we have millions of functional illiterates! Whole word was meant for the deaf not the hearing.When a child is told to “guess” or look for context clues just to be able to read, something is wrong! Balanced Lit is nothing more than another term for “Whole word” mixed with a little bit of phonics. Sounding out words makes a reader, not guessing and not be “Guided” what ever that means, LOL