Over on Ed News, Kerry Hempenstall has a paper examining the phonics-vs-whole-language question that vexed educators for many years in the late 1900s. With his typical appreciation of irony, Professor Hempenstall recounts in one place many of the disparate factors that affected that “great debate.” Here’s his abstract:
Over the past twenty years, there has been considerable controversy over the competing emphases to beginning reading known as Whole Language and phonics. To provide a context for the debate, this paper examines the history of disputes about reading instruction, particularly as it applies to at-risk students. It commences with a brief discussion of the advantages and challenges of our English alphabetic writing system, and of the literacy issues associated with it. Identification of the major attempts to deal with the complexity of our writing system is followed by a history of the search for the most efficacious means of evincing reading development. An examination of early research efforts, such as The Great Debate, The USOE Study, Follow Through, and Becoming a Nation of Readers helps illuminate the current debate by highlighting which issues are novel, and which are from the past but as yet unresolved. A thread throughout the paper involves the role of educational research in influencing practice in beginning reading instruction.
Hempenstall, K. R. (2009). The whole language-phonics controversy: A historical perspective. Education News. Retrieved 30 July 2009 from http://ednews.org/articles/the-whole-language-phonics-controversy-a-historical-perspective.html.
Sphere: Related Content
Gladwell’s Outliers
Outliers, by Malcom Gladwell, is an interesting read. But I got to wondering about the message of the book. I understand that Gladwell maybe didn’t mean for it to have a message for educators. But, then again, maybe he did. I just don’t know. But I do know that the book left me unsatisfied as far as knowing what to do as an educator is concerned. OK, so timing, luck, opportunity, hard work, a culture of high demand are all important in creating outliers. The implications for educators seem to be that students should work hard and seize opportunities. The implications for teachers seem to be that we should try to create opportunities and encourage hard work. Beyond that? I dunno. We can’t change a lot of the things that Gladwell thinks are important, like when people are born, where they’re born, their families, their cultures. Then, too, I’m thinking that only a relatively small percentage of people can become outliers regardless of any of these things.
Gladwell does mention KIPP as an example of an educational program that shows dramatic results because it emphasizes a culture of hard work and achievement. He says the students in KIPP are chosen through a lottery system. Sounds great! One little issue, though. KIPP chooses through a lottery only those who’ve applied. If you don’t apply, then KIPP doesn’t put you in the lottery. Doesn’t even consider you. Now, I may be a little cynical about proposals to revolutionize public education, but probably if KIPP wants to go head-to-head with other schools, then it needs to select at random from all those potential students who live in a catchment area, regardless of whether they’ve applied. So, KIPP would include students who don’t want to go to school at all and those who don’t want to work hard and those who aren’t motivated to apply—in short, kids at random without any protective screen whatsoever. And KIPP would have to report on drop outs and students suspended or expelled.
Oh, never mind. If you’re looking for outliers… well, welcome to Lake Wobegon North, where all the children are not only above average, they’re all WAY above average!
Actually, Gladwell has some interesting observations. Only thing is (and he never proposed that purpose for his book), they don’t tell us much about how we go about making things better for kids in typical public schools.
Sphere: Related Content