LONDON (March 28, 1992) - In separate presentations to the London Board of Education's public budget hearings, Fp leader Robert Metz and Provincial Secretary Robert Vaughan both attacked the direct and indirect costs associated with the whole language philosophy.
Reactions of trustees and school board administrators to Metz's and Vaughan's comments ranged from disbelief to open hostility, making it clear that the "whole language" issue touches a very sensitive nerve within the government-run education monopoly.
To illustrate the point, Metz and Vaughan cited how "whole language" budget priorities supported by the Board were directly responsible for unnecessarily high pupil-teacher ratios, escalating costs, and lower performance results.
Upon Metz's first mention of the term "whole language," Board chairman Bill Brock, a London trustee, immediately interrupted, warning that "if you continue with the philosophical debate, your presentation will cease."
Curiously, up to the point of Brock's interruption, the term "philosophy" was never mentioned by Metz, confirming once again that whole language is seen in that light by most educational authorities. Brock again reemphasized a philosophical perspective when he similarly interrupted Robert Vaughan by attempting to divert Vaughan's focus away from the "whole language" issue. He suggested that Vaughan be "invited to a meeting... where you will be able to espouse your philosophy."
"Thank you very much, but it's not my philosophy," Vaughan replied, "and if you'd let me continue, I'll get on with the budget."
Among "the most costly side effects of whole language," Vaughan cited the following:
large pupil-teacher ratios (PTRs) as a consequence of the inadequacy of "whole language;"
an excessive number of professional development days, "so that (teachers) may be brought up-to-date on new techniques to improve a program which needs to be scrapped;"
an ineffective child-centered approach that stretches out "the six-month and in some cases, six-week process of learning to read write, and spell into a never-ending process..;"
more "special educational assistants" due to a "whole language-caused" increase of children thought to be in need of "special help."
Beyond such measurable costs, Vaughan emphasized that "there are some hidden costs of whole language that cannot have a price tag put on them," including:
the harming of children who have become victims of the approach;
harassed teachers, "who are afraid to speak out against what they know to be an inferior system;"
blaming parents for the illiteracy of their children;
an uncompetitive economy, forced to absorb "high school graduates, 17% of whom are functionally illiterate and 40% of whom have some difficulty of one form or another with literacy."
Metz and Vaughan were the only two presenters to broach the subject of whole language throughout the entire London Board budget hearings, and they were the only two who were repeatedly interrupted in attempts to have their presentations cease. At one point, it literally came down to a standoff between trustee chairman Bill Brock and Fp president Robert Metz.
In countering Brock's attempt to stop his presentation, Metz challenged: "I was told that I could speak on any subject that concerned the budget of this board. What you're telling me is that you believe my points don't concern the budget and because you disagree with me, I don't have he right to speak." After a long pause, Brock conceded: "Continue."
After fielding a few sarcastic remarks and absurd questions from London Board trustees, Metz concluded his appeal to the board by asking that parents "have the right to question the product before we have to pay for it."
Remarkably, after Metz left the podium, the board proceedings were then interrupted by London Director of Education Darrel Skidmore, who then proceeded to accuse Freedom Party's information bulletin of being "inaccurate and unfounded." Skidmore charged that the definition of "whole language" as used by Freedom Party was "not a definition of 'whole language' as it's defined by this board." Ironically, Freedom Party's definition of "whole language" is entirely based on the London board's verbatim description of the term, which the party reprinted in its own 'Just Say 'Know' To 'Whole Language' publication.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
