Metz reviewed the literacy problems faced under 'whole language' and contrasted them with the positive approach of phonics making it clear that, "Given a choice, I would never have my child exposed to the 'whole language' cult."
Metz made it clear from the outset of his presentation that the biggest challenge facing both sides in the "whole language" debate was "trying to describe whole language in terms that both its supporters and detractors can discuss without becoming unduly hostile in the process." He cited his previous experience with trying to raise the issue with the Board which did not want to discuss "whole language" within a budget setting.
"Had I proceeded to talk dollars and cents without first explaining what I understood the concept of 'whole language' to be, I know that my listing of costs and my suggestions for savings would have been dismissed out-of-hand or ridiculed for being 'unrealistic' in light of the Board's objectives," declared Metz. He emphasized the hostility surrounding the "whole language" debate and the "lack of an open willingness to discuss the issue in a meaningful forum." He also questioned how anyone within the educational establishment could possibly regard the simple request that "the sounds of letters be taught to our school children" as "hate literature."
"As you will see, though we have an open and declared bias against 'whole language,' our material also includes reproductions of this Board's definition of 'whole language,' verbatim transcripts of Fp's two March 28 submissions to the Board on 'whole language,' a reprint of a direct criticism of our Ontario Information Bulletin which was distributed by one London school principal, and a host of information, newsclippings, commentary, debate, and a list of relevant references used to help us prepare our package," announced Metz.
"Could it be that perhaps there is something so fundamental about the true nature of 'whole language' that it threatens the powerful educational establishment and teachers' unions?"
The fundamental issue, of course, is choice. In an environment where parents/taxpayers/students could direct their education tax dollars to the school of their choice, "whole language" simply would not survive since most people would opt for the best value for their money.
Choice is the fundamental issue underlying all political conflicts, and until individual choice is acknowledged as the solution to our education crisis, the conflict is guaranteed to be a perpetual one.
He cited that the problems related to "whole language" simply amounted to an "imperfect understanding of the curriculum including Whole Language, by all stakeholders including teachers," a poor "communication with stakeholders/partners in education," and to "a significant inconsistency in the implementation of a Whole Language philosophy."
It's a classic tragic irony. Given that "whole language" has been promoted as a means of acquiring "language skills," the fact that even those who are promoting it do not understand it or have a clear definition of it is possibly the best proof available to illustrate the inherent inability of "whole language" to impart such skills.
In the meantime, taxpayers will continue to get bilked for billions of education tax dollars that are being spent not only on a system that fails to produce results, but also on the propaganda made necessary to justify the waste.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
