NP - "What's the question about your question that you dread being asked?

[Bekah]

Studies have shown that about 70% of the common English words are phonetically regular.  This means that 30% are not.   Phonics is nice for "sounding out" new words and for spelling,  but its use is very limited when it comes to deriving meaning.  Phonics also falls short of helping with those 30% of words -  
(These are words like:  eight,  read (past tense),  could,  said,  climb,  you, light, tough, school, etc. and homonyms (foul/fowl,  to/too/two,)  more and more as you go up the grades.)  

Eventually the real point of both methods is to have thousands of words memorized for just plain old sight reading with comprehension.  The problem is how to get there.  

What happened was that in the 1970s and '80s researchers found that phonics was not enough,  so the swing to whole language was too far (it started at the university teacher-training level).  Then more research (done by publishing companies mostly) found that  whole language was not enough (and older teachers and parents agreed).    The swing back was almost reactionary (and political and based on $$ in text book publishing) and imo,  went too far.  Taken to their extremes and alone,  neither one is preferable - imo.  

I think phonics is a good start,  but not enough - elements of whole language are also needed for getting those 30% of words which are not phonetically regular as well as for learning to get meaning from the text.    (I could also say that whole language is a good start but elements of phonics are also needed for those who struggle with "new words"  - "unmemorized"  words.)    

Whole language tends to work best for kids who are pretty bright and have a good basis in oral language skills.  These kids can figure out quite a lot and make sense of decoding skills almost on their own (my son did).    Kids with a very good memory can memorize those new words very quickly (and that's the end point),   but kids who don't have such a good memory have to "sound it out" or (figure the context) over and over.   Kids who aren't quite so cognitive have a very hard time figuring out why every time they "read" (repeating and following 'memorized' text) the word "rat" it starts with an "r."  

 Also,  the kids who don't have a solid basis in oral English have a hard time with whole language because they're not so skilled at using context to help determine what the unknown word is.   ("Read that again - does that make sense?")    

Phonics is an incredible tool, but it doesn't make meaning from the text and the early textbook stories can be seriously stupid in terms of comprehension.  Otoh,  whole language is an incredible tool but it can be overwhelming for a learner without a LOT of reading readiness skills (being read to,  memorized texts,  solid language base, etc.) 

A good teacher will use the best of each method and try to use a bit of each as appropriate.  This is feasible using small group instruction - direct instruction - but new methods want whole group instruction to get more teaching time in for all the kids.    The serious whole language people liked indirect (environmental) instruction  -  so that's also a problem.   Whole language done well takes a LOT of time - it's better - imo - overall  - in the long run - if it has phonics included (why ignore that invaluable tool?)   -  but it takes time!  

Hope that helps -  (?)  We spent years and years in debate about it.  The best reading programs (imo)  now use both,  but the focus tends to be on phonics these days again.  


Bekah



On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:55 AM, Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interested in your answer. Is it just that the metrics used to measure "accountability", "progress", etc. are coarse averages? I mean, for all your failing schools you're still the intellectual and scientific centre of the world, so you know, something doesn't suck. 
> 
> Also, what do you think of teaching via the "Phonics" method? Had a debate re this today.
> 
> P.
> 
> 
> On 7 April 2013 21:38, Bekah <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Why are US schools behind much of the world?
> 
> This is way more complicated than tax-slashers or "accountability experts"  or "higher standards"  folks want to think about.
> 
> Bekah
> 
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 1:17 AM, Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > What question about your field do you dread being asked? Maybe it's a sore point: your field should have an answer (people think you do) but there isn't one yet. Perhaps it's simple to pose but hard to answer. Or it's a question that belies a deep misunderstanding: the best answer is to question the question.
> >
> > http://www.edge.org/conversation/whats-the-question-about-your-field-that-you-dread-being-asked
> >
> > Various responses there; any p-listers willing to chime in?
> >
> > Prashant
> 
>