Did anyone miss out on math?

What I think that such glimpses bypass (the plural of anecdote is not data), is that there is always much going on in real life. During the time that whole language is alleged to have run rampant, with resultant loss of global standing in reading scores, the women’s movement drew many bright and talented women away from teaching as a profession. There are measurable drops in class standing, SAT/ACT scores etc. of teachers entering the profession. Couple that with the fiercely protected right of every teacher to determine what goes on in their own classroom and the comparative disadvantage of urban and minority schools in attracting seasoned teachers, and there are many competing influences on reading scores.

If you ask many adults today how they were taught to read, they are likely to respond that they learned by phonics (sound it out!). If pushed, they likely remember the Dick and Jane or Alice and Jerry readers–which, though systematic, were assuredly not phonetic, but a reaction to phonics called look-say. It was based on senseless repetition of an expanding list of words–until they are memorized “by sight.” Those of a certain age also picked up Dr. Suess at the library–which one might view as whole language (recreational reading), but is heavily infused with phonics (hop on pop, in a boat, with a goat).

Except for those instances where approaches have been systematically studied (and despite the disparaging tone of the article, qualitative research does require rigor), most reading is likely taught by an amalgam of many strategies. This in no way discounts the effect of the Reading First program–despite the ethics challenges. However, to use that documentation to disprove any of the features of whole language is not only silly, but unscientific.

What I have come to realize about the scripted approaches–once past my knee jerk response to them–is that they frequently pick up where teacher education left off. Where we don’t systematically provide educators with scaffolded supervision in acquiring methods, these programs, when done well, can provide a short-cut into ensuring faithful application of what has been proven. Whole language–or other constructivist approaches–as presented in the article, frequently become an excuse for “anything goes.” Where faithful applications of whole language principles have been studied–as in Reading Recovery, I believe that there have also been indications of success.

If I ran a school, hobby teaching would be strongly encouraged and anybody who even said the word “standards” would be socked on the arm or the leg and get a charlie horse.

Why? Because I’ve seen some of the best teaching and learning take place when teachers are allowed to follow their passions beyond the limits of their prepared scripts.

I experienced it when I was a student. I see it all around me where I teach.

My 5th grade summer school math teacher was the best social studies teacher I ever had. I will always cherish her digressions.

I had a couple of hobby teaching types in the ’50s in the Midwest, but they were much commoner in the Bay area in the ’90s when my kids were dealing with the modern California version of education. And, lobby teachers are extremely common in English, history, and the social sciences.

But the prevalence of both types is simply a symptom of incompetent management in the schools.