On Teaching Reading

Sharp-eyed readers of Patrick Groff’s Dec. 9 commentary probably gawked at the avalanche of misconceptions and inaccuracies contained in his warning to school boards about whole-language reading and writing instruction.

Contrary to Groff, whole-language instruction is direct, systematic, intensive and formal. Whole-language instruction is the product of research that shows that instruction should cater to both sides of the brain, not just the logical left hemisphere. Skills-based, sequential reading instruction educates half a brain.

Whole language does not “de-emphasize” word recognition; it merely eliminates insultingly simple, tedious drill-and-practice exercises, which make a significantly large number of kids hate reading and writing.

Yes, the whole-language approach encourages students to “omit, substitute and insert words in sentences they read,” but it does not “encourage them to make eccentric decisions.” Whole language is based upon the belief that our students are intelligent, sensitive human beings who are capable of decision-making and problem-solving tasks that are neither encouraged nor allowed by sequential, skills-based programs. Experimentation with language encourages students to experience reading comprehension as a creative, reconstructive process that empowers them as human beings who are in control of language, not manipulated by it.

In terms of sequence, the whole-language approach demands higher expectations than mechanistic programs, which limit students by keeping them locked in the sequence even when they have demonstrated the ability to succeed at higher-level critical thinking skills.

Proponents of whole language are enthusiastic because the approach gives us another tool, another way to make reading and writing instruction accessible and meaningful to students, especially those who may not succeed at traditional, sequential methods.

A critical question for Groff should be: “Do you understand that there is more than one effective way to teach reading and writing?”

One more point--the most important component of educational effectiveness is not the program, the approach, or the materials. It’s a good teacher.

JIM JONES, Teacher, Chula Vista Junior High, Chula Vista