Detecting "Whole Language"

Software publishers find it very easy to say, "It's easy to use." It makes purchasers happy when they say that.

Schools find it very easy to say, "We teach phonics." And that makes parents very happy.

But how can you detect when a school is merely giving lip service (no pun intended) to phonics, and is actually devoted to Whole Language? When one parent contacted the Illinois Loop about trying to sleuth out what a "reading consultant" was actually promoting, we asked a recognized expert in reading instruction. Below is this expert's observations and suggestions.

---

I've never heard of [this specialist] so I Googled her on the web. From what I read at her home page ..., I surmise she's a local Illinois consultant who has two areas of emphasis.

First she's a big promoter of guided reading, [and that] immediately signals that she's a "balanced literacy" Whole Language person. She writes that phonemic awareness and phonics are important, so it's possible someone could think that they are getting a phonics consultant, but her description of reading acquisition is: "Phonemic awareness, phonics, comprehension, vocabulary acquisition strategies and fluency all need to be addressed in multiple genres to create a strong program." This is a typical sentence for the "salt and pepper" phonics approach or "Throw in about 10 - 15 minutes of phonics a day in context of the stories being read. This consultant will be just more Whole Language for reading instruction if decoding is an issue (need for phonics-first), at-risk readers are an issue, or older underachieves in reading are an issue.

On the other hand, her focus on writing emphasizes expository writing and sounds like it might be good. [From my experience] the "writing" piece of balanced literacy (a.k.a. Whole Language) is excellent and an effective addition to any program (but don't forget to add in some rigorous grammar drill to the mix). Phonics + balanced literacy writing [can be] an effective combination. It's amazing how the balanced literacy people can be so structured about teaching writing and not about teaching reading.

If this parent wants to unmask the person as not promoting phonics if that is what the district needs, she can ask the following questions to uncover the consultant's Whole Language bias:

1. Do you encourage the 3 cueing system if readers do not know a word? Should teachers encourage students to figure out (guess) the word from context and pictures (this is Whole Language and has no research base) or should the always encourage decoding (sounding out) as the main strategy children use? A WL person will use 3 cueing and be appalled that anyone wouldn't.

2. How many minutes a day should K, 1st, and 2nd graders receive in phonics (sounding out words, identifying letter sounds, blending and segmenting words, reading decodable stories) instruction? For K and 2nd it should be at least 20 minutes a day and for 1st graders it should be at least an hour (unless they are already fluent decoders and readers as assessed by DIBELS assessments in nonsense word reading and oral reading fluency). (If second graders are fluent readers at grade level, they don't need phonics instruction except for new, difficult words which they need to learn to decode.)

3. Should decodable books be an important part of the K and 1st grade curriculum (and for below grade level older readers)? A WL person will believe that decodables create unwilling, unenthusiastic readers.

4. What fluency levels should 1st graders, 2nd graders, and 3rd graders reach? A WL person usually doesn't put much stock in fluency. A phonics-first person knows that students not meeting grade level fluency benchmarks is not reading at grade level. 1st grade should be 60 words per minute; second grade, 90 words per minute; 3rd grade, 110 words per minute.