Details

Published: 07 February 2014

Hits: 148064

Dr Kerry Hempenstall, Senior Industry Fellow, School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

My blogs can be viewed on-line or downloaded as a Word file or PDF at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/olxpifutwcgvg8j/AABU8YNr4ZxiXPXzvHrrirR8a?dl=0

 New addition - March 2025 

So, this document is a new variant of the original paper. As my original document goes back quite some time, this one is focusing on recent times – it is reporting only on those released between 2000 and 2050. I’m interested to see how the various elements of education may have changed.

Let’s go!

 “As with many educational initiatives, whole language had its (long) moment in the sun followed by an apparent decline, as evaluations of its effectiveness were largely negative and new educational initiatives and fads moved into the spotlight, for example, differentiated instruction, brain-based learning, personalised learning, new literacies/digital literacies/multiliteracies, critical literacy, inclusive classrooms, and flipped classrooms. New and currently popular approaches have been reported in the annual literacy survey series What's Hot, What's Not (Cassidy & Grote-Garcia, 2012) since 1996. Whole Language was voted Cold by 75% of the rating panel in 1998 (Cassidy & Cassidy, 1998), and Extremely Cold in 2001 by 100% of the expert raters. It was finally deleted from the list in the 2003 survey (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2002).

But, has it actually disappeared or even waned? Well, there remain some activists despite a strong disagreement as to its value).

Science of Reading vs. Whole Language War Rages On; Students Lose (2023)

Shannon Moore, Ed.S

“Johnathon stared at me. I stared back at him. With no words spoken between us, we communicated with only our eyes; my tutoring student and I locked in a battle of wills that we were both determined to win. 

I began to ask him a series of questions. First, I asked Johnathan if he could identify all the letters and the letter sounds in the word. He could only identify the basic sounds but not the more advanced phonics sounds. 

Then, I asked him to identify the vowels and the sounds that each vowel makes. I got a stare again. I asked the mental question, “Why don’t you know the vowels and the sounds? Johnathan’s eyes seemed to say, “I have no idea what you are talking about.” 

At the beginning of my teaching career, teaching phonics became second nature for me. I also had plenty of experience using basal reading programs purchased by various school districts. I guess you could say that teaching children to read became a ritual, a daily habit in which I grew very comfortable. It was during this time that the phonics versus whole language debate gained momentum. I had no idea how highly contested this issue was and still is for that matter. 

Adhering to Debunked Reading Theories

Whole language is a theory based on Marie Clay’s approach to reading, in which students learn to read by simply guessing words they do not know. It also relies on a cueing system approach in which students must use written cues to read unknown words. 

The approach also states that given the right environment—reading nooks, students having their own books, and soft lighting—students will learn to read. 

On the other hand, phonics, or the science of reading, is a science-based approach in which students decode or sound out words to make meaning from the text. In my experience, the scientific approach always produced the desired result.

While teaching at one of the local school districts, I assumed they were phonics proponents, or so I thought. However, the reading program purchased by the district heavily favored whole-language learning. While receiving training for the program, I asked, “Where is the phonics component?” The company-sponsored trainer told me phonics was only taught in grades K-2, and after second grade, students did not need phonics. 

I found this hard to believe. As a third and fourth grade teacher, I was still teaching phonics to my students because they could not read words on grade level and did not have strategies to help them decode unknown words. 

Eventually, the school district began to change and purchased a phonics program due to low reading test scores and teachers’ persistent demands for a phonics program. However,  the district still required teachers to utilize the basal reading program, part of whole language learning. A basal reading program is a program with an anthology of books or stories on grade level, which are used along with a vocabulary and comprehension component. 

We were instructed to use both programs, however, some teachers raised the question, “Should we follow the basal program’s phonics component to introduce phonics, or should we follow the phonics program’s scope and sequence?”  No one seemed to be able to provide an answer. 

The teachers weren’t given much guidance by the administration, mainly because I don’t think they knew the answer to our question. This not only led to confusion, but a seemingly impossible standard of learning for our students.  As a result, some teachers, including myself, decided to use the adage “close my door and teach what’s in the best interest of my students.”

We knew that our students needed phonics to help decode unknown words.

Teachers have been using the phonics approach for years, and it works. Students need phonics skills to help them decode unknown words when reading independently, and the phonics approach does just that.  

Acting on Behalf of Students

I proceeded to teach the foundations of reading by incorporating a phonics scope and sequence, which went against the administration's mandate of teaching reading. I knew I was taking a risk doing so, but one I was willing to take for the sake of my students. 

I used the basal program for the stories and comprehension and incorporated the phonics program independently. That year, my students had one of the highest reading test scores compared with the previous year’s reading data, in which my students’ scores were well below grade level. This only further proved my point: Children need to be taught phonics.

Back to Johnathan. Once I discovered he could not identify vowels or their sounds, I decided to give Johnathan a phonics letter/sound assessment. While taking the assessment, Johnathan gave me the long vowel sounds for all the vowels. I asked him if he could give me another sound that the letter ‘a’ makes, and sure enough, I got the “stare” again.  

Then, with more assessing and working with him, I found that besides not knowing the vowel sounds, he didn’t know any other phonics concepts and could not blend or segment unknown words.   

I had a gut feeling that Johnathon was not being given any phonics instruction. I contacted his classroom teacher and asked what reading and phonics program they used to teach reading.  

Sure enough, the teacher confirmed my fear: Johnathan’s school district had bought into the whole-language approach and purchased one of the more popular whole-language reading systems. However, many students, including Johnathan, were falling through the cracks. Why? Because whole-language reading does not produce lifelong readers.

Today, I’m still tutoring Johnathan. He’s progressing, and I see significant reading gains in his reading scores. I believe this because I have incorporated the science of reading approach while working with him. 

The simple fact of the matter is: effective reading instruction should include phonics.

While the debate rages on, our students are falling through the cracks.

Students like Johnathon. Students who deserve better.”

Moore, S. (2023). Science of Reading vs. Whole Language War Rages On; Students Lose. EdPost.

https://www.edpost.com/stories/science-of-reading-vs.-whole-language-war-rages-on-students-lose

“The idea of "whole" language has its basis in a range of theories of learning (called epistemologies) related to "holism." Holism is based upon the belief that it is not possible to understand learning of any kind by analyzing small chunks of the learning system. Holism was very much a response to behaviorism, which emphasized that the world could be understood by experimenting with stimuli and responses. Holists considered this a reductionist perspective that did not recognize that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Analyzing individual behaviors, holists argued, could never tell us how the entire human mind worked. This is--in simplified terms--the theoretical basis for the term "whole language."

Whole language posits the existence of three "cuing systems" that regulate literacy development. These cuing systems are the graphophonemic cuing system, the semantic cuing system, and the syntactic cuing system. These three systems, which overlap, help us read.

Because reading is a holistic system, proponents say that pronouncing individual words can sometimes involve the use of all three systems (letter clues, meaning clues from context, and syntactical structure of the sentence)

Because of this holistic emphasis, whole language is contrasted with skill-based areas of instruction, especially phonics. Phonics is a commonly-used technique for teaching students to read. Phonics instruction tends to emphasize attention to the individual components of words, for example, the phonemes /k/, /a/, and /t/ represent the three graphemes c, a, and t. Because they de-emphasize the individual parts of learning, tending to focus on the larger context, whole language proponents do not favor some types of phonics instruction.

Interestingly, some whole language advocates state that they do teach, and believe in, phonics, especially a type of phonics known as embedded phonics. In embedded phonics, letters are taught during other lessons focused on meaning and the phonics component is considered a "mini lesson." Instruction in embedded phonics typically emphasizes the consonants and the short vowels, as well as letter combinations called rimes or phonograms. The use of this embedded phonics model is called a "whole-part-whole" approach because, consistent with holistic thinking, students read the text for meaning first (whole), then examine some features of the phonics system (part) and finally use their new knowledge to read stories (whole). Reading Recovery is a program that uses a whole language approach with struggling readers.

The whole language approach to phonics grew out of Noam Chomsky's conception of linguistic development. Chomsky believed that humans have a natural language capacity, that we are built to communicate through words. This idea developed a large following throughout the 1960s and 1970s and was eventually recast by some educators as a way of thinking about literacy more broadly. This led to the idea that reading and writing were ideas that should be considered as wholes, learned by experience and exposure more than analysis and didactic instruction. This largely accounts for the focus on time spent reading, especially independent reading. Many classrooms (whole language or otherwise) include silent reading time, sometimes called DEAR ("Drop Everything And Read") time or SSR (sustained silent reading). Some versions of this independent reading time include a structured role for the teacher, especially Reader's Workshop.

Despite the popularity of the extension of Chomsky's linguistic ideas to literacy, neurological and experimental research has shown that reading, unlike language, is not a pre-programmed human skill. It must be learned. Dr. Sally Shaywitz, a neurologist at Yale University, is credited with much of the research on the neurological structures of reading.

The contrast with skills-based approaches to reading also led to an approach to spelling called "invented spelling" or "inventive spelling." This generated considerable controversy in the public domain because parents, as well as some educators, were concerned that their children were not learning to spell well.

Many whole language advocates argued that children went through stages of spelling development and that it was important to appreciate students' attempts to make meaning rather than harp on little mistakes. Popularly, invented spelling has been vilified by some, although little research has been done about the consequences of this shift away from spelling.

‹ Overviewup

Whole Language. In Underlying Premises. K12 Academics. Retrieved 16 March 2022.

https://www.k12academics.com/educational-psychology/whole-language

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

• Home
• About me

NCTE Whole Language beliefs: Would you like some science with that? (2020)

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) website, providing a summary of Whole Language beliefs. Yes, that’s right, beliefs, like the idiosyncratic personal values that we all hold on matters such as morals and religion. In 2020, however, when we’re talking about the life-changing lottery that is early reading instruction, beliefs are not enough. The date on this page (which is headed Literacies and Languages for All) is not stated, but it links to a pdf that is dated 2014. Given that it is currently displayed on the NCTE website, we can only infer that it reflects the organisation's current views.

The heading Literacies and Languages is something of a red-flag in itself, gently fogging the lens on discrete sub-skills that make up successful reading. In fact, the word "reading" appears only once on the page. 

Let's look more closely at these beliefs and see how well they withstand scrutiny. I have reproduced the NCTE beliefs below, and have responded to each in turn: 

One of the problems with beliefs, is their lack of accountability in the face of contradictory evidence. 

History will be the judge of belief systems such as this one espoused by the NCTE, but children in classrooms around the world in 2020 are not historical case studies or education experiments. In the same way that we expect scientific advances to be applied in medicine, nursing, psychology, and a raft of other professions, education cannot ignore the inconvenient denting of belief systems by the march of science. The stronghold of Whole Language and Balanced Literacy beliefs needs to give way to adherence to empirically tested science. As the science changes, so too the classroom practices should evolve. In addition to lifting children’s achievement levels, it is difficult to believe this would not have an immensely positive impact on teacher professional satisfaction, well-being, and retention. 

The longstanding reading instruction knowledge-translation failure is slowly beginning to crumble, but until this empire crashes completely, children will continue to be needlessly turned into educational casualties. As I have noted previously, first world economies have shrinking employment markets for semi-literate workers. This is a looming crisis of epic proportions. 

We need a class action (pun intended) to see Whole Language and Balanced Literacy relegated to the pages of history. Peak bodies such as the NCTE need to be trail-blazers not resistance fighters in this most important of endeavours.

Snow, P. (2020). NCTE Whole Language beliefs: Would you like some science with that? https://pamelasnow.blogspot.com/2020/07/ncte-whole-language-beliefs-would-you.html

“Foreword

Regular readers of this foundation’s publications and web site know we believe strongly that schools should utilize “best practices” that are supported by scientific research and should eschew classroom methods that do not work. In no domain of education is that contrast more vivid than in teaching young children to read. No domain has been studied more intensely. None has yielded clearer and more definitive findings about what works and what does not. Yet no domain is more vulnerable to the perpetuation of bad ideas and failed methods.

Three things are clear about early reading:

First, it isn’t being handled well in American schools. Four in ten of our fourth-graders lack basic reading skills. Tens of millions of adults are weak readers. Millions of children are needlessly classified as “disabled” when, in fact, their main problem is that nobody taught them to read when they were five and six years old.

Second, we know what works for nearly all children when it comes to imparting basic reading skills to them. (The scientific consensus is admirably summarized in the pages that follow.)

Third, we also know what doesn’t work for most children. It’s called “whole language.”

Yet whole language persists, despite efforts by policymakers and reading experts to root it out. Today, though, it often disguises itself, not using the term “whole language” but, rather, wearing the fig leaf of “balanced” instruction. A lot of people who have a casual acquaintance with the research have persuaded themselves that balanced reading instruction means a little of this, a little of that. Take a cup of phonics from one cupboard, add a half-pint of whole language from the fridge, and the resulting blend will succeed with children while avoiding the battles and conflicts of the “reading wars.” Everyone will be happy, and all will be well.

The problem is that it doesn’t work that way. What’s going on in many places in the name of “balance” or “consensus” is that the worst practices of whole language are persisting, continuing to inflict boundless harm on young children who need to learn to read. How and why that is happening—and how and why such practices are misguided and harmful—are what this report is about. In its pages, Louisa Cook Moats describes the whole-language approach; shows why it doesn’t work and how it has been disproven by careful research; and explains why it nonetheless persists in practice and what should be done about that.

We don’t kid ourselves. Rooting out failed methods of reading instruction from U.S. primary classrooms won’t be easy. Those roots run deep, perhaps now deeper than ever, considering their new coating of “balance.” Yet Dr. Moats persuasively makes the case that this is a task that must be taken on.

Executive summary

The whole-language approach to reading instruction continues to be widely used in the primary grades in U.S. schools, despite having been disproven time and again by careful research and evaluation. Whole language still pervades textbooks for teachers, instructional materials for classroom use, some states’ language-arts standards and other policy documents, teacher licensing requirements and preparation programs, and the professional context in which teachers work. Yet reading science is clear: young children need instruction in systematic, synthetic phonics in which they are taught sound-symbol correspondences singly, directly, and explicitly. Although most state education agencies, school districts, and federal agencies claim to embrace “balanced” reading instruction—implying that worthy ideas and practices from both whole-language and code-emphasis approaches have been successfully integrated—many who pledge allegiance to balanced reading continue to misunderstand reading development and to deliver poorly conceived, ineffective instruction.

Almost every premise advanced by whole language about how reading is learned has been contradicted by scientific investigations that have established the following facts:

• Learning to read is not a natural process. Most children must be taught to read through a structured and protracted process in which they are made aware of sounds and the symbols that represent them, and then learn to apply these skills automatically and attend to meaning.
• Our alphabetic writing system is not learned simply from exposure to print. Phonological awareness is primarily responsible for the ability to sound words out. The ability to use phonics and to sound words out, in turn, is primarily responsible for the development of context-free word-recognition ability, which in turn is primarily responsible for the development of the ability to read and comprehend connected text.
• Spoken language and written language are very different; mastery of each requires unique skills.
• The most important skill in early reading is the ability to read single words completely, accurately, and fluently.
• Context is not the primary factor in word recognition.

Despite overwhelming evidence, the reading field rushed to embrace unfounded whole-language practices between 1975 and 1995. The effects have been far-reaching, particularly for those students who are most dependent on effective instruction within the classroom.

Whole language persists today for several reasons. A pervasive lack of rigor in university education departments has allowed much nonsense to infect reading-research symposia, courses for teachers, and journals. Many reading programs have come to covertly embody whole-language principles. Additionally, many state standards and curricular frameworks still reflect whole-language ideas.”

Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of Balanced Reading Instruction. LD Online (2025). Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

https://www.ldonline.org/ld-topics/teaching-instruction/whole-language-lives-illusion-balanced-reading-instruction

An Efficacy Follow-Up Study of the Long-Term Effects of Reading Recovery Under the i3 Scale-Up (Report). Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware. 23 April 2022

"English–Language Arts, Transitional Kindergarten to Grade 1, California Public Schools" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022

"English–Language Arts, Pedagogy Grades Two and Three, California Public Schools" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.

"Reading Competencies, Ohio". Archived from the original on 9 October 2022.

The Science of Reading, RISE, Arkansas" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.

Kim, James. "Research and the Reading Wars" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.

Hanford, Emily (20 October 2022)."Transcript of Sold a Story E2: The Idea". American Public Media.

An Efficacy Follow-Up Study of the Long-Term Effects of Reading Recovery Under the i3 Scale-Up (Report). Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware. 23 April 2022.

Dr. Andy Johnson

2025

Whole Language in the Classroom: A Path to Learning

Funderstanding

https://funderstanding.com › For Teachers

3 June 2024 — Whole language is a holistic approach to learning that takes a comprehensive view of literacy development in the classroom.

NCTE Whole Language beliefs: Would you like some science with that? (2020)

I have found it surprising that despite the strong criticism of Whole Language, there still remains some belief that it is worthwhile!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

This next segment is the original, broader document and includes earlier periods.

“The way we went down the road to whole language is really a story of stupidity” (Lyon, 2005).

A history: Then and now

The history of reading instruction has involved considerable and extended disagreement about the optimal approach to ensuring children become literate and thereby capable of participating in our society. As literacy has become fundamental in all facets of life, so it became obvious that students who did not learn to read effectively were greatly disadvantaged throughout their lifespan. For a history of disputes about reading instruction, see http://www.nifdi.org/news-latest-2/blog-hempenstall/396-a-history-of-disputes-about-reading-instruction.

During the 1980’s and 90’s an approach to education with strong philosophical and political underpinnings, whole language (WL), became a (the?) major model for educational practice in the USA, Canada, New Zealand, and Great Britain (Groff, 1997). According to Smith (1992), 46 of the 50 US States reported using WL programs, and 90% of the WL teachers received some form of WL professional development. Australia, too, followed this strong trend (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education, and Training, 1992), and most state education departments had in-service training programs to inculcate the model into schools.

However, over time, there arose increasing controversy, both in the research community (Eldredge, 1991; Fields & Kempe, 1992; Gersten & Dimino, 1993; Liberman & Liberman, 1990; Mather, 1992; McCaslin, 1989; Stahl & Miller, 1989; Vellutino, 1991; Weir, 1990), and in the popular press (Hempenstall, 1994, 1995; Prior, 1993) about the impact of the WL approach on the attainments of students educated within this framework. In particular, concern was expressed about the possibly detrimental effects on at-risk students, including those diagnosed with learning disabilities (Bateman, 1991; Blachman, 1991; Liberman, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1989; Yates, 1988).

Read more ...