The Mysterious Case of Right Vs. Wrong

In 1991 I was asked to serve on a panel researching whole language learning. I assumed the goal of this task force was to genuinely look at the available data and determine whether the facts supported whole language or phonics or some other method for that matter as the best practice for encouraging literacy. The panel was made up of several principals, a number of early grades teachers from different schools in our district, representatives from the administration as well as myself and other parent representatives. For many weeks we were given articles to read and comment on.

The many articles we read made it clear that whole language was not only a viable means of teaching children to read, but also undoubtedly the best. It was tantamount to students developing a better overall understanding of words and a passion for the art of reading, not merely a pieced together group of sounds that they could pronounce, but held no real meaning or power for them. The curriculum allowed for kids to get excited about books and use context and sight words woven together to form understanding and comprehension. The choice seemed clear.

The findings of our panel were presented to the school board and received their approval. Our glowing report of the documented success of this type of program easily swayed them to our way of thinking. The other teachers in the district were trained accordingly and brought on board either willingly or by necessity. I was shocked to find that so many parents and teachers were not on the same page as our panel. How could they not see that the research showed this was the best for our kids? Dissention ensued at the schools and at the district level, but the program pushed ahead and was implemented district wide.

The program was used through the early education of my two older sons and by the time my daughter entered first grade, six years later, was being supplemented with phonics. By the time my fourth child reached our schools the scales had tipped back to phonics and a smattering of sight words, with teachers claiming that really it appeared that whole language didn’t work for many of the students. A mixed approach gave every child different options for learning as suited them best.

I learned several valuable lessons about education through this experience. The first lesson is that you can never please everyone. Each of us values different things in education and different approaches to achieve these goals. The next lesson for me was that there is always a faction in education that feels they have found the golden ticket, so to speak, to unlocking children’s minds and enabling them to learn. Unfortunately, these factions must, it appears, discredit the current conventional wisdom and opinions of dissenters. Thirdly, I realized that there is good in most of the ideas that teachers have and use in the classroom and there is neither a “right” way to teach in most cases just as there is no “right” way to go about learning.

Looking back at my experiences with the whole language panel I see that it was very biased to achieve the goals of its initiators. The only teachers, parents and others selected to serve on the panel were individuals that were certain to agree with their bias. The articles we read were only articles that supported the desired outcome. People with dissenting opinions were discredited as being stuck in their rut or ill informed or too lazy to want to change to what is best for the children. Fingers were pointed rather than looking at varied opinions and methods as all having value though different.

You may be asking how this relates to what we have been reading. I feel that what I read in the Kohn article was a perfect representation of this style of pushing an agenda by discrediting another opinion or faction. There was a tremendous amount of name calling, labeling, and crediting others with motives that were unsubstantiated in order to advance the bias of the author. This was not a balanced look at a concern for how to best serve the children in our schools, both the ones who learn with ease and the ones who must work more diligently. This article was designed to advance an agenda towards a style of education that the author feels passionate about, by attributing less than honorable motives to those who have a different opinion.

My thoughts on this article are that it is a shame that we can’t acknowledge that others may have different experiences, beliefs and opinions about what is effective in the classroom and respectfully disagree. Maybe there are valid points to each opinion that can be explored. Why was it OK for this article to attribute attitudes to the whole “Christian Right” or “white” community any more than it would be right to attribute attitudes to people from any particular class or race. Shameful!

People involved in education, educators, parents, and other education professionals are passionate about seeking the best for children. The reality is that there will always be differences of opinion about what that best is. Education is always in a state of flux as we seek to encourage success for every child. Constant change is a constant in education as anyone who has been in the field for a number of years can testify.

Must we forge ahead in this pursuit by planting our heels on the backs of those we’ve thrown under the cart wheels? Can we set the bar higher by realizing that through varied backgrounds and experiences we have come to varied beliefs about what is best for all children? We need to understand that we will never all agree, but we can all work side by side, laboring within our own beliefs in best practice, for the common goal of educating children to their fullest potential. The premise of this article itself was a testament to how the opinions of best practice change through time. Was it worth the finger pointing and degrading of others for an idea that itself has since come and gone?