A clear, consistent definition of whole language is very difficult to come by, since many have a different definition and understanding of what is meant by the term, and also because the term can be used in different contexts. Some define "whole language" strictly within the context of imparting reading skills - as a teaching technique differentiated from the technique of teaching phonics. Still others refer to a broader concept - the "whole language philosophy."

Depending on the scope of one's perspective, either approach can be an acceptable way to use the term whole language. However, "whole language" as contrasted to phonics is clearly just one narrow application (see Freedom Party's Ontario Information Bulletin) of a much broader whole language philosophy, making the latter usage the more relevant one. Brochures provided by school boards explicitly promote a "whole language philosophy," which is central to their group-oriented and "child-centered" approach to teaching.

A growing mountain of evidence shows that the whole language philosophy is based on a number of verifiably incorrect and false assumptions, leaving it more accurately defined as an education cult, one that fails to prove objective results. The cult of "whole language," though not the term, has been around in North America for much longer that public educators care to admit.

Over the years, variants of the "whole language philosophy" have been referred to as universal instruction, visual method, look-and-say, whole word, word method, sight reading, top-down, whole-to-part, top-to-bottom, real books, Aldine method, Scott, Foresman Method, whole language, psycholinguistics, and the alternative approach, among others.

The confusion created by constantly changing the terms that all refer to the same "philosophy" has been the main tactic by which "whole language" has survived in the public school system. Over the years, instead of abandoning one of the above-mentioned teaching techniques whenever it was discovered to be ineffectual, educators using the technique simply changed its name to create the illusion that the old technique had been abandoned or "improved upon." 'Whole language' is simply one of the later terms given to an education philosophy that is continuing to produce poor results - most visibly in the teaching of literacy skills.

The only thing that makes the term 'whole language' more significant than previously-used terms is the unprecedented number of parents, students, and educators who have come to identify that specific term with the increasingly poor literacy skills of public school graduates. In other words, 'whole language' is a term that the public can identify with.

Already, local school boards and the provincial Ministry of Education are making new efforts to "redefine" whole language to make it sound more appealing to its detractors. "Whole language", we are now beingtold, "includes and prescribes graphophonics," - yet another term to add to the growing list of "whole language aliases" - and one calculated to appease supporters of the phonics based approach to literacy.

Whichever term our government-run educational monopoly uses to disguise a primary cause of its poor performance and unjustifiably-high education taxes, the only identifiable "philosophy" motivating the "whole language" approach is the philosophy of egalitarianism. You'll see this philosophy most-often expressed in terms like "Success for Every Student"... which explains the educational monopoly's evasions relating to the issues of objective educational standards, testing, objective performance,and results measurements.

The WHOLE LANGUAGE issue is fundamental to every citizen and taxpayer's understanding of what's wrong with our schools today - from ever-increasing education taxes to the ever-decreasing results taxpayers get for their money.

GET THE DETAILS! Read Freedom Party's "Just Say 'Know' To Whole Language." See both sides of the issue presented as objectively and fairly as possible, including reprints of direct challenges to Freedom Party's campaign, and reprinted media coverage (and opinion) relating to the issue of 'whole language.'

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002