I totally agree with you. Whole Language, I think, was
detrimental to children. My young colleagues were taught that
way and tend to teach that way. We still have theWright books
that teachers use to teach reading. I had one teacher tell me
that she was concerned about one of her students because he
tried to sound out the words. What?

Being a much older teacher, I shut my during this time and
continued to teach phonics to my special ed children and then
my 2nd and 3rd graders.

And yes, I'm tired of all this testing as well. We test special
ed kids, kids who can't speak/read English. How dumb is that?

Who in the world comes up with all this cr*p!!

On 10/25/09, I Couldn't Agree More wrote:
> On 10/25/09, Not a Whole Language Fan as Such wrote:
>> "My view,"
>> You are so right. Good teachers know how to pull the
>> best of many approaches. However, the newbies that are
>> trained by the district with one approach, are the
>> losers. That's what happened to many who had this
>> "CLEVER" New Zealand woman train them in
>> Whole Nonsense. Anything was acceptable as long as it
>> agreed with their style. Yes, the kids had a great time
>> but they simply could not read independently. It was
>> all memorization of cutsy books and no substance. Three
>> year olds can memorize but it doesn't mean they are
>> actually reading. During that absurd time, we were told
>> no children should ever be given unfamiliar material to
>> read. Just when were they supposed pick up a book and
>> read it?? Thank goodness those people are out of our
>> district for good!! Perhaps other districts had a more
>> sensible way of presenting Whole Language than mine
>> did.
>>
>> I do not agree with the testing and regimentation of
>> today. There needs a blending of both approaches with
>> some common sense thrown in as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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