The Rhetoric of Whole Language

“Leap into the Boundless …”: Teacher Freedom and Philosophies of Teaching

“…Despite recent controversies regarding the effectiveness of whole language in producing results on some state and local assessments, given its significant and pervasive influence on the field of literacy (e.g., Goodman, 1992;Moorman et al, 1994;Pearson, 1989), its continued popularity, and its close association with student and teacher freedom, this discussion will focus on whole language and its most formidable adversary, eclecticism. The work of Chuang Tzu was selected for this task for a number of reasons, chiefly because (a) the writings of Chuang Tzu focus on the realization of true freedom; (b) the writings of Chuang Tzu are widely acknowledged as some of the most eloquent, insightful, and humorous philosophical discourses in the history of the world (e.g., Creel, 1970;Suzuki, 1959;Watson, 1968;Wu, 1982;Yutang, 1955); and (c) educational literature written in English is grounded almost exclusively in western philosophy and a fresh perspective might be able to shed new light on this issue.…”

“…Among current philosophies of teaching related to literacy, it can be argued that no philosophy has more closely associated itself with the promotion of student and teacher freedom than whole language (e.g., Deegan, 1995;Edelsky, Altwerger, & Flores, 1991;Goodman, 1989c;Shannon, 1994;Weaver, 1990). However, many educators have questioned whether whole language or any other individual philosophy of teaching can empower teachers with such freedom (Duffy, 1997;Kameenui, 1995;Moorman, Blanton, & McLaughlin, 1994;Pressley et al, 1996;Stahl, 1994).…”

<Whole Language> as Signifier: Considering the Semantic Field of School Literacy

“…The irony of this suppression of any mention of reading research's own political economy was so striking to us as we followed Moorman et al's analysis that we were very surprised it was not brought up in the three rebuttals that followed their article or in their response, all of which are found within the same issue of Reading Research Quarterly. Instead, and although each did discuss the issue of "ownership," the focus of these rebuttals and response is on "the rhetoric of 'the rhetoric'" (Cambourne, 1994), the "theory and meaning" (Willinsky, 1994), "deconstructing the rhetoric" (K. Goodman, 1994), and the "rhetoric and community" (Moorman, Blanton, & McLaughlin, 1994b) of <whole language> and/or of Moorman et al (1994a) -in other words, on analyzing the analysis and its analyzers and finally on analyzing the analyses of the analysis, a process that discursively moved the signifier of <whole language> farther and farther from any of its possible objective referents. In doing so, the talk about <whole language> was also effectively whisked away from any discussion of the actuality of classroom practice and its relation to research practice, until <whole language> was safely contained within a discourse that Jean Baudrillard (1983Baudrillard ( ,1995 would characterize as the hyper-real "simulation" of a conversation about the "best way" to teach children to read.…”

“…The critique of Stanovich this time was relegated to the "Letters to the Editors" column of The Reading Teacher, rather than to a format providing "equal time," as was allowed to Edelsky in 1990. But perhaps the most significant indicator of a reversal in the tide of discourse about <whole language> is to be found in the "deconstruction" of <whole language> writing published in IRA'S research journal, Reading Research Quarterly, by Moorman, Blanton, and McLaughlin in 1994. In their analysis of the discourse to date promoting <whole language> pedagogy -and which appeared in a journal whose primary audience must always be interpellated (Althusser, 1971), or "hailed," as researchers, not practitioners - Moorman et al (1994a) took the notion of "ownership" to task as:…”

“…By charging <whole language> with "extending" the discourse of children's literacy into economic realms, Moorman et al (1994a) effectively suppressed any mention of the extension of economic logic to practices that had supported and sustained the privilege of researchers within the field of reading years before the rise of <whole language>, practices in which "users" (teachers) had been routinely interpellated in practice journals as the consumers of research produced by "scientists" like the readers and contributors of Reading Research Quarterly, who would, from time to time, write about their work in simple terms for practitioner journals like Language Arts and The Reading Teacher, and so gain the attention and consultancy fees of major textbook publishers and educational administrators. The irony of this suppression of any mention of reading research's own political economy was so striking to us as we followed Moorman et al's analysis that we were very surprised it was not brought up in the three rebuttals that followed their article or in their response, all of which are found within the same issue of Reading Research Quarterly.…”