THERE ARE NO QUICK FIXES, INCLUDING PHONICS, FOR READING PROBLEMS

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, February 2, 1992                   TAG: 9202030163
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: F-2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: CLAIRE M. WALDRON
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium
THERE ARE NO QUICK FIXES, INCLUDING PHONICS, FOR READING PROBLEMS
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Betty G. Price (Commentary page, Jan. 20) on the importance of literacy. I concur that learning to read and write can be a painful and frequently unsuccessful struggle for many children. Few people would disagree that the consequences of illiteracy are grave.
However, a suggestion that reading failure can be attributed to one teaching method (whole language) and eliminated by simple adherence to another method (phonics) is overly simplified and reflects an incomplete understanding of the reading and writing processes, the differences in individual learning styles of children, and the complex and multifaceted nature of reading failure.
There are no more quick fixes or universal cures for reading problems than there are for headaches or cancer or the common cold. A large headline that labels "phonics" as the key for solving literacy, accompanied by a picture of students desperately reaching for this just-out-of-reach key, adds an element of endorsement that smacks of sideshow snake-oil advertisement.
In the past two decades, an explosion of research and knowledge about how children acquire spoken and written language has come from many disciplines, including education, child development, psychology, developmental psycholinguistics, bilingual education and special education. Reading, which used to be viewed as visually based activity or a process dependent on phonic skills, has come to be viewed as a language-dependent process that is developed and refined across the life-span.
Writing, like reading, is a complex cognitive process that reflects a child's cognitive holdings, and knowledge of the interaction between the form of language (sounds, grammar rules), the uses of language and, most importantly, the meaning of language. Whole language is not merely a new label for outmoded "look-say" or "look and guess" teaching methods. Rather, it is an integrated and theoretically based model of teaching that reflects the vast recent research findings of scientists from many fields.
Whole language is not a fad. It is a move away from methods that attempt to teach language by breaking it into fragments that do not carry meaning.
It is a move toward methods that emphasize meaning and comprehension of whole stories, not just surface-level decoding or translating letters to sounds or syllables or words. Whole-language teaching shows children that even small changes in spelling or grammar do change the meaning of a message.
Children are not taught to misspell. They are encouraged to write. My first-grader has been a more prolific writer in her first year and a half of school than most of us were our first eight years.
Children do get specific feedback about the rules of spelling and grammar and pronunciation, but not in isolated tasks. Because they are encouraged to use language in creative and meaningful ways, to communicate messages of importance to authentic audiences without fear of editorial red ink, children come to love writing rather than dread spelling and grammar. Children are allowed to read for content and cohesion without having each tiny mistake corrected.
Newspaper publishers, who only stand to sell more papers if more children leave our schools with decent literacy skills and a love of written language, bear a responsibility to the public, and particularly to children, who lack political clout. Teaching reading and writing is far too important to be politicized or commercialized by grown-ups who already know how to read.
Topics like gun control, abortion and other social hot potatoes may lend themselves to political debate on the editorial pages of newspapers. Surface treatments of complex issues such as literacy mislead and worry the public, who may know about teaching only from a personal historical perspective.
The teachers and principals who have embraced a "whole-language" perspective have not jumped on some new passing bandwagon. In my experience, they have made well-informed decisions about how best to teach.
The teachers who have taught my children have made learning so interesting, so rich, so broad and deep, that I have wanted to be back in first and fourth grades again. Perhaps a series of in-depth investigative reports about innovative programs in schools that included interviews with teachers, parents, children and administrators would do more to educate those who value literacy than false promises and potentially divisive commentary articles.

Claire M. Waldron is an assistant professor at Radford University.

by Bhavesh Jinadra by CNB