Phonics, Whole-Language Teaching Methods

“Phonics Is Best Aid for Reading, Study Shows” (May 4) validates what well-meaning educators have known for years. An early exposure to phonics instruction helps kids decode, comprehend and read better. On the other hand, we cannot underestimate the benefits of a whole-language program. An intensive daily drill in phonics is not enough. Children have to be able to make an immediate connection to the sounds they just learned.

This is where the role of quality children’s literature comes in. A language arts program such as Open Court combines both approaches and is able to address the different learning modalities of all children.

The state Board of Education, educators and parents have to remember that the greatest gift we can give to our children is to teach them to love books. Some simple things you do now have a big payoff in the years to come.

NIKI NDUBUISI

Pomona

In its time, 14 years ago, phonics taught young students how to read, but turned them off with its drill and kill. It used stories that supported the lesson that were extremely poor literature. Few of the students wanted to read.

It was replaced by whole language, in the belief that quality reading material would turn on the children to reading. Unfortunately, the supplied materials forgot what phonics did well, and got rid of the skill-building. Of course the best teachers used both methods to achieve positive results with their students. I assume that the real study from the University of Houston reflects what good teachers are already doing, not going back to the failed past.

Good teachers never abandoned phonics, or basic math skills--the children need them.

LARRY SEVERSON

Fountain Valley

Although the Wicked Whole-Language Witch is dying, the Whole-Math Witch is not even ill. Curricula that focus only on an unsupported philosophy of mathematics education are only now reaching the classrooms and another decade of declining mathematics performance (in public schools only) is as predictable as the rising of the sun.

Just as predictable are education industry “experts” discounting standardized test verification of the superiority of curricula and teaching strategies that are not sufficiently “constructivist,” a current name for the old, and repeatedly discredited, philosophy of California’s mathematics framework. In the case of reading, the justification is because of an interest in “understanding and comprehension” rather than rote skills such as phonics, vocabulary, spelling and grammar. In mathematics, it is an interest in “higher order thinking skills,” not the structural foundation that is required for such.

WAYNE BISHOP

Dept. of Mathematics

and Computer Science

Cal State L.A.