|
   
|
 |
Nancy
Ichinaga was one of the few principals in California
who refused to adopt the whole language reading program. |
 |
Marion
Joseph, a former state education official, almost single-handedly
got rid of whole language in California. |
 |
“Whole
language should not be a reading program. The methodology is wrong. They
thought kids could learn to read like they could learn to speak - but reading
is a skill that has to be taught.” Nancy
Ichinaga, First to Worst
In 1987, California adopted a new English Language Arts framework.
The framework embraced a method of teaching reading called “whole
language” - a system in which children are “immersed”
in literature, but are not taught how to sound out words. Whole-language
textbooks were adopted by the state, and districts were strongly encouraged
to use these textbooks. Schools that chose not to use whole language methods
and materials were denied state funding earmarked for reading programs.
 |
|
|
|
|
“We
didn't suddenly tumble because of Prop 13. That's not true. And there are
some poorer facilities, but did that cause the reading scores to go down?
Absolutely not. Children learn what they are taught, and if they are not
taught how to become good readers, then guess what? Chances are they won’t.”
Marion Joseph, First to Worst
In 1992, the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) released test results indicating that
California had the fifth lowest reading scores in the country. Despite the
warning signs, the state continued to push the whole language reading method.
However, when a new set of NAEP results released in 1995 revealed that California's
scores had dropped to the lowest in the nation, state educators decided
it was time to change their approach.
Some of the educators interviewed for First to Worst, namely
Marion Joseph, Nancy Ichinaga and Ron
Unz, believe that the single greatest cause of California's public
schools’ decline was this shift to the whole language method of reading.
These experts argue that Proposition 13 is used
as a scapegoat in the story of California's schools. They say it was
misguided instructional choices, and not loss of funds, that had the greatest
negative impact on California's schools.
“To try to run an operation of this magnitude centrally, you
can't do it. You cannot take the risk of driving mistakes from the center.
When you make a mistake from the center, it hurts everyone.”
James Guthrie, First to Worst
Other experts in First to Worst point out that the state
control of school funding resulting from Proposition
13 is in fact what permitted whole language
to have such a devastating effect on the California school system. When
Proposition 13 shifted control of school funding to the state, the state
also gained a large measure of control over what would be taught in the
classroom. This control derived from the fact that the state made certain
funds available to schools only if they adopted specific programs, such
as whole language or class size reduction. This system of “categorical
funding” provided a strong incentive for schools to do whatever the
state told them to do - even if the program was ineffectual or misguided.
This is exactly what happened with whole language reading instruction.
RESOURCE: For an article about whole language reform in
California, see “The
Reading Wars,” by Nicholas
Lemann in The Atlantic Monthly, November, 1997. (requires purchase-
$2.95)
or
|
