I think this shows that not there is not one magic bullet that is right
every student. Of course, some students learn best by whole language and it
certainly is more authentic and exciting. But some students need a phonics
approach. (Let's don't forget we must now answer to the testing police.
Testing is absolutely NOT friendly toward whole language) We get into
trouble when we buy a curriculum and believe it is the answer to all our
woes. What a huge waste of money for districts to purchase an adoption, buy
into it hook, line and sinker and insist that this is what teachers must
use, especially if it is a scripted program like Open Court. A good teacher
uses a mix of theories and methods to address the needs of our students.

On 10/25/09, Not a Whole Language Fan wrote:
> H,
> "Whole language" as such has its place. However, in many districts and
> mine included, the cart was taken before the horse. Most children
> respond to a systematic approach to learning to read. Phonics would
> come first as a springboard to get the kids started. After that is
> solidly in place, then they should be weaned from phonics and
> concentrate on contextual clues which increase speed and understanding.
> Contextual clues also are very valuable for vocabulary development.
>
> The way it was taught in my district was to accept any free flowing
> ramblings in the writing. They were to be in "print rich" classrooms
> and exposed to wonderful literature. They also would paint pictures and
> the teachers would throw up captions about what their story was. If
> they were "enriched" in print, they would learn to read by osmosis.
> Yeah, right. If that's true, then I should be able to learn to play the
> piano by listening to the fine music. This was the New Zealand approach
> complete with the Wright Group (Wrong Group) materials.
>
> That being said, M, please explain the way whole language should be
> presented. You seem to be in the know and that's great. You just
> didn't mention specifically how it should be done.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Renee- simple! It wouldn't get done! Now I do work extra because I want
>> to teach well, but if EVERY teacher committed to doing this (not
>> working extra) to make a point I would participate. I think it would
>> send a strong message. I know if I did this this weekend I wouldn't
>> have any lesson plans for next week!
>>
>> And a side note about Whole Language- no, Renee didn't post this, but I
>> saw it on another comment. Whole Language is good. Many people have no
>> clue what real Whole Language practice is. Actually, most do not.
>> Principals, districts, etc. took it and created their own version- as
>> what almost always happens. Readers and Writers Workshop is alive and
>> well in many classrooms, and children are thriving on it.
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/09, Renee G wrote:
>>> On 10/16/09, yep wrote:
>>>> Boy did you hit the nail on the head. Of course, the state is
>>>> going to say that "funding on a shoestring" is working-only
>>>> because TEACHERS ALWAYS make things work. We're working our
>>>> behinds off-but no one sees or admits that. Conditions are
>>>> abysmal, class sizes are too big, and we don't have enough or any
>>>> prep time-yet we make it work. It's imperative that this time we
>>>> don't make it work, that we "complain" loudly and clearly, and
>>>> make sure parents and students feel the difference.
>>>> Otherwise, we're stuck-even when money comes back to California
>>>
>>> What would happen if......
>>>
>>> .... teachers worked ONLY their assigned hours (and not at home)
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> ..... teachers did not spend their own money... not a dime.... on
>>> their classrooms?
>>>

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one