The "PH"undamentalism of "F"onics

This is very interesting, and I'm going to talk with two of my professors (one who will be my faculty advisor in the fall) about this subject. My advisor is specifically a linguistic anthropologist.

I am immediately suspicious if the fundamentalists strongly support something and are gathered to oppose a different view. I'm also going to print the topic and think about it (from a linguistic anthropology standpoint).

Bob,

I would be very interested in what your research in linguistic anthropology indicates about this issue.

I generally agree with Dr. Prescott's thoughtful assessment.

One point of interest, however, is how U.S. fundamentalists continually refuse to take their own medicine.

A clear example: "Ruah", the biblical Hebrew expression for the Holy Spirit is a feminine noun. Fundamentalist translations, however, desire a more politically-correct masculine noun instead.

Thus, even at the sentence level, fundamentalists refuse to walk their own talk.

I learned to read, in a government school, using phonics. I read well and understand what I read well.

Prescott's objection to phonics is closely tied to his objection to reading the Bible as it was written and taking literally those parts that God intended to be taken literally. Prescott, like all unbelieving liberals, would prefer that the Bible mean something different than what it says.

I say go for it Prescott! Interpret the Bible as you will. Read it as you will. Or better yet, don't read it at all. Whether you read the Bible or not won't make any difference in how you think and live, or what you believe.

Dr. Prescott, "I think fundamentalists promote extensive phonics because it is the most likely method to produce minds that will automatically accept a literal interpretation of scripture."

How cunning! How nefarious of them!

Again, "They fear that a mind that actively searches for meaning, as whole language encourages, might see beyond the letter of the law to its spirit."

A funny thing just happened. I'd thought to post a snippet from the account of the woman caught in adultery, how Jesus advised her after setting her free from certain death by stoning, to "Go and sin no more," the point being to ask how a "whole language" interpretation of this passage from John 8 would contrast with a strictly phonical, i.e., "literal" interpretation, but then I found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm that this entire story is probably a forgery, a later addition that is not in the earliest manuscripts (even though the Jesus Seminar believes that it was something that Jesus might have said).

Finally, "Public education has no business developing theories to favor any method of scriptural interpretation. A mind actively searching for meaning is as free to interpret scripture literally as it is to interpret it metaphorically."

I agree wholeheartedly. We are free to interpret Scripture as we please, but the real question is whether in using a "whole language" approach or a "literal" approach we have even interpreted the passage correctly, and not substituted one approach for the other when so doing suits our immediate purposes and political agendas.

BTW, at a non-denominational (read: fundamentalist) Bible school that I attended briefly to broaden my horizons, to discover how Calvinistically oriented evangelicals operated, my favorite instructor took pains to explain that taking Scripture out of context was a no-no, that it had to be read as a whole, and to quit being so piecemeal and literal about any passage.

P.S. I learned to read in Catholic schools (Oh God! That explains everything!) but my favorite book at home was "Hop on Pop."

I believe the Bible expresses truth, however
everything cannot be taken literally. We must
realize that scripture taken out of context can
be spun to reflect private opions. Reading the
Bible with the whole reading method is more likely
to produce the true meaning of the
word.

Wow! That is the first time I have heard phonics related to literal Bible interpretation. Could it really be possible that the real reason some educators tried (unsuccessfully) to replace phonics with sight reading and other programs, was due to the fear that if someone learned to read, they might just read (and believe) the Bible? I have honestly never heard that before. I have known for some time that there is a diabolical attack on effective communication in general. Young people, especially, do not know how to read, write, spell, or in any effective way, articulate their thoughts. Following simple instruction is becoming a lost art. The quickest way to totally disable someone -- to 'dumb' them down -- is to hinder their abilities for two-way communication (i.e. the tower of Babel).
Whatever the reason behind past attempts to do away with the phonics method; it has always come back -- because it works. My children were homeschooled and learned 'how' to read by phonics, but they learned 'to' read by responsible teaching methods along with a lot of practice. By the time my daughter was 17, her favorite book (next to the Bible) was "Quo Vadis" -- which she read at least three times. Not only my kids, but the average homeschooled child in America today are far superior in their education than the average public (government) schooled child. And by far, the most used method for teaching reading, is phonics.
Come on... There were a lot of things people did not know 50 or 100 years ago that we know today -- but how to read and write are not among them. Find any old writings from people, young or old, professional or nonprofessional; and they put this generation to shame. To insinuate that the only reason someone would defend phonics is because they are trying to condition children to be 'fundamentalists' is silly. Even Bible believing Christians want their children to be well taught, and able to read.
EH

Taught well?

The nonsense pushed by fundamentalists as "science" is in no way teaching a child well. Indeed, it is teaching them lies, hypocracy, and unquestioning obedience to authority. That is part of the reason we have to put people's souls back together when they finally realize just how much lies they were told by the fundamentalists.

The same goes for history!

The book I've been reading has a lot about creationism and the extent that fundamentalists will go to in lying and fabricating evidence (another form of lying). The title: Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries by Kenneth L. Feder- 5th edition.

The same physics that disprove the literal reading of the flood narrative are the physics used in aircraft design and automobile design. Unlike the Bible, you cannot say "this physics is wrong" and "this physics is correct". The Bible- some parts are meant to be historical (and it can be argued that they are not always correct, or are only partially correct), some parts are MEANT to be read as parables- but the majority is poetry.

Fundamentalism is just plain WRONG. Irregardless of the religion, fundamentalism is a response when the cultural system is perceived as failing by the "have-nots". I think there is one thing we can agree on- the cultural system in the US is a failure.

Fundamentalism regards "spiritual failure" as the cause of people's misery and tries to correct it by enacting or enforcing more rules and regulations (thereby making the people MORE miserable). The proponents don't see that the differential treatment of people and the cultural structure itself is at fault.

For instance, when the rich keep most of the resources to themselves, and the poor have to struggle to just get by. The poor tend to turn to fundamentalist religion, and the rich towards a distorted form of spirituality.

Bob, you just used the word "fundamentalist" (or a form thereof) seven times in your last post. A 'fundamental' doctrine is simply a basis or foundation for a belief system. 'Fundamentals' of Christianity are -- the inerrency of the Scriptures (which you clearly do not believe), Biblical miracles, the virgin birth of Jesus, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the coming resurrection of the righteous to eternal life, the resurrection of the unrighteous to eternal judgment, and the bodily return of the Lord Jesus. I assume you do not believe in any of those Christian 'fundamental' doctrines, since you make a point to separate yourself so much from 'fundamentalists'. If that is the case, why do you not just be up front about it. Why call yourself Christian if you do not believe the ONLY complete documented evidence of the historical reality of Christ?
And adding the word "progressive" doesn't even make sense, when your doctrine is exactly 'digressive' from the faith that defines a Christian. There is no such thing as "progressive" Christianity. None of the changes you and your organization have made to Biblical Christian doctrine could in any way be considered "progress". God's Word can stand on it's own, without your 'improvements'.
If you would direct your disdain to "believers" instead of "fundamentalists", would it not be less confusing to those who may not be up on all the 'progressive' buzzwords? Or if you simply say the Bible is "wrong" or full of "lies" or "spiritual failure"; then certainly it would be more evident that you were not trying to give yourself credibility by attempting to discredit Bible believers, with mere insults and negative sounding terminology.
EH

Eddie,

Great post!!! I agree completely.

You know, I am past sick of your threadjacking.

I admit that I let myself be led into departing the subject. In this I was wrong.

To the real Christians (and the trolls do not fit that catagory), I apologize.

I've posted it before, but it's worth posting again.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion."

It happens on occasion that one of the "existing members" may unconsciously exhibit troll-like behavior, like beating the word "fundamentalist(or a form thereof)" to death, for example, but recovering their wits, they apologize only to the ones that they truly care about. You'll have that. It goes with the territory.

For all have trolled, and fallen short of the glory of Blog.

As my first post was, this will be 100 percent on subject (sorry I was distracted by the 'threadjacking')...
The Elden-Gray primers (Dick & Jane series) were not associated with the teaching of phonics. If you are in the neighborhood of my age, you were probably, as I was, taught phonics in spite of the Dick & Jane readers.
From the 30s through the 60s these primers were widely used in public schools based on the idea that they would present more realistic situations and stories for average children. Beginning in the 50's however, leading educators were already beginning to blame the primers for the growing failure of teachers to properly teach children how to read.
Prior to the Dick & Jane primers, children were taught how to read using the Bible and other literature, i.e., "McGuffey's Readers" (which taught proper elocution, articulation, inflection, emphasis, as well as phonics) and children actually learned how to read, write, and spell. The problem with all of the adequate reading material in those days (not only the Bible) was that all of it included lessons or examples in common decency, manners, and good morals... Something had to be done! So along comes Dick, Jane, Sally, Spot, and Puff and their absolutely boring life of 'sitting, running, looking, etc., etc.,'. Nevermind that while the teacher was forced to come up with her own phonics curriculum and somehow meld it with the primer's "look/say, sight reading" course.
What a shame it is, that the communication skills of America's children have been, and are being sacrificed in fear of any possible godly influence.
EH

I learned to read from those "Primers" and they worked quite well for me. When I entered High School I was reading at the level of someone who had graduated from a university.

As to before the '30's... Well, that was the time of Jim Crowe, it was against the law for my people to just EXIST in the southeast, and women didn't have the vote (until 1920). It was also the time of the eugenics movement (discredited, but culminating in Hitler's Germany- although it still exists today). It was the time of the Robber Baron and abuse of the working people.

It was a time where a person was only valued for their vote, but their life could be thrown away by the rich for a pittance.

That time wasn't a moral or good time, except for white anglo-saxon males (the richer- the better the time was for them).

I'll check into the methods used for learning language (and reading)- I think that the method previous to 1930 was NOT based upon "phonics", but much closer to whole language, although the bible was used.

It may take a few days... I have a number of other priorities that are higher (such as finishing and graduating).

I will say this about the education of years ago (and I've read some of the tests and texts used)- they DID base almost everything upon rote memorization- and a lot of the stuff that was pumped into the kids was political indoctrination.

The idea for more modern methods was to get people to think for themselves- and that is a GOOD idea!

Also, scientists are finding out new things about humans all the time- about the way we learn, the way we remember, and so on. For instance, a very recent finding indicates sleep is a critical component in the learning process. (Last issue of American Scientist).

still remembering see spot run; 1946 Dick and Jane I asume are the same ones that used to excite me; haveing read countles books I can honestly say Phonics never hehped me read a book But for spelling most english words they can not be beat; but every one should have spell check and if you click on the word you get a definition as being a mostly deaf person i still try to use phonics but it don't help much I am a bad speller a bad typist and I am a Bible Plagiarist.

I agree with Bruce's first comment that I prefer to led educators teach rather than dictate method. Yes, I was bored with Dick and Jane. Thankfully, my mother had taught me to read before Kindergarten and I used my spare time to read 3-4 grade levels above. My kids do the same and part of that is due to "whole context" methods.

But I find that children taught by these methods, including mine, have trouble learning to spell. They have a very difficult time sounding out words. Now, granted that phonetics can lead to mispellings--especially with English which, incorporating so much from so many different languages, is highly illogical in structure. (This is why English is so very difficult to learn as a second language. Spanish, French, Greek, even GERMAN as hard as it is, are all easier to learn than English.) But kids taught without much phonics really seem to have a harder time later learning to spell.

My wife is not bothered by this. In an age of computers and spell-check programs, she argues, spelling will not be the necessary skill it used to be. I'm not sure. In my experience as a Southern boy looked down upon when I swam in the heavy waters of academia at the U of Chicago (or later at professional meetings of the American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature, or Society of Christian Ethics), I found out quickly that people mentally deduct IQ points for Southern accents. It seems to me that this attitude extends to spelling. If one has spelling problems, it doesn't matter how brilliant one is. One is ASSUMED to be illiterate.

So, I'm not sure what method should be used--don't care who has what theory of Biblical inspiration attached to their advocacy--but I want my kids (and everyone's kids) to be able to read and write and SPELL well. It's a survival tool.

They can learn literary interpretation, rhetoric, structuralism, etc. later.

Monte, I'm a two finger hunter/killer typer myself. Problem here is you can't go back and edit the darn thing once it's posted, and there is no built-in spell checker, so I confess to obsessing over what I type and using Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, but even then the goofups slip past here and there. It would be nice to be able to post active links instead of "dead" URL's. Sometimes the Verification code doesn't take, or so it seems, so you enter a different one, and then get a double entry.

My guess is that it's probably OK to be a Bible Plagiarist. It's a common practice, something about it being Public Domain and not copywrited. Footnotes, on the other hand? Probably OK to use if they are properly attributed and kept in "quotation marks."

Hi Michael,

English is a melting pot mess. "Ough" is a nightmare. It can be pronounced in 7 different ways. It's even been put to music, here: http://suzyred.com/oughsong.html

You should hear the snickering here!! OUGH!!!

Other languages don't have a fraction of the problem English speakers have with spelling.

I really have to hand it to George Gist (aka Sequoyah)... his syllabary for the Cherokee worked out beautifully- some Cherokees could learn to read and write in a few hours.

English- I remember quite well diagramming, and all of the other things we did to learn to use the language properly. I know I'm not nearly as precise as I was back then- but I generally write more like I think and talk (screwups, stumbles, and all) these days. In school, that is something I have to watch out for!

Regarding the spell checkers- my professor has a thing that he's passed around a few times showing the weaknesses that they have. You've probably seen them- where the spelling for similar sounding words is used.

If the Right's plan in teaching phonics is to raise people who can't think for themselves (automatons) they failed miserably on me. I am open-minded, inquisitive reader. My phonics training served me well when I got to Vet School and had to learn all the Latin names for organisms and other "big words", the context of which were unknown to me.. I could sound them out. My roomate, who was taught by some word recognition technique, was lost. I ended up teaching her phonics. So if that's their plan let them have it; it would seem to me to be a bad one.

This discussion reminds me of the Celtic studies of a friend of mine. He was especialy interested in Ogham, an ancient Celtic alphabet that was based on trees. It has to be seen to be appreciated, here: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ogham.htm

Whether or not the ancient Celts used a whole tree (metaphorical) approach or a phonetic tree(literal) approach may be lost to history, but it does make me wonder if when a tree falls in the woods, the sound it makes is in Ogham.

quote: "Whether or not the ancient Celts used a whole tree (metaphorical) approach or a phonetic tree(literal) approach may be lost to history, but it does make me wonder if when a tree falls in the woods, the sound it makes is in Ogham."

ROFLMAO!!! I didn't know that about Ogham. Thanks for that information!!!!!

Seriously, knowing the importance of trees in the early celtic traditions/religions, I am really not all that surprised!!!

...I just checked it out. It rather reminds me of what I've heard (but I've not actually read) about the early heiroglyphics- that they had multiple meanings and the Egyptian scribes (and literate people) were taught to write on multiple levels (physical, allagorical, spiritual, etc), possibly all at the same time.

And then there is the Peruvian (Incan) Khipu- records keeping based upon knotted strings. They haven't begun to figure them out yet, but the latest analysis (not fully accepted yet) is that the written language is rather like a computer language- instead of binary, I think theirs is based upon several factors including type of knot, direction of the twist in the string, and the color of the string.

At least one historical report indicates that the Khipu were used for more than accounting- stories and so forth were recorded.

Communication systems- all VERY interesting stuff.

When the Christian Coalition wants phonics taught or in a strangle-hold position, it's alarming enough to question your choice of it & make for a quick retreat & removal entirely. The public schools have enough to contend with already without bringing objections to methods into the fore.

It's a simple reality, however, that if phonics is the method to the exclusion of everything else, that child will grow up a non-speller. The notion that technology can fix this is just not true. A 'spell-check' corrects from the specimen provided, & some bizarre results can occur: it is a machine without cognitive capability. The supreme example of this is Kenneth Starr, who got a large dose of his own medicine. After an exhaustive final hands-on proofreading & correction, the spell-check button was pushed, and it accounted for more errors in the final version than had existed before: poetic justice. The technological tools available now, in the hands of ESL or 'second language' users, is a disaster in the making. English being not only a look/see/say proposition but non-phonetic makes it very hard to learn language as a "second" language. But much of the same inhibits those from 1968 on where mistakes were not corrected & so-called content graded only [I don't know how to do that, but I do know that it didn't work].

"Whole language" as a system with its modus operandi is either much loved or much hated. This is different than "whole context" or reading for ideas/etc. I know of one usage of it by Maurice [pronounced Marse] River S.D. in Port Elizabeth, NJ, an underprivileged area with much adult illiteracy, poverty & welfare recipients. The children of these parents would have problems and be non-learners no matter the system, but it did not get acolades.

The problem of loss of language post-1968 to the present with lagging & sagging test results, both when compared to other countries and within our country to results of pre-1968, is a phenomenon called "social promotion." All pass but are "graded" at their own "grade level." So a kid who is in 6th grade but is marked on a 3rd grade level gets a B: does his parent see the B at 3rd grade level or just a B and assume normal chronology is at work? Continue that, and you get 18-and-illiterate, which we have been experiencing for at least two decades now. The same method is used for Special Ed, where most will never reach grade level.....OK there, but inappropriate for regular students. It is also a non-challenging matter so that mediocre students become less, never more. The end result is such that the inflating of grades over 4 decades has affected & effected the national psyche quite negatively. Look at Harvard where the weeding out progress from the front side gives more potential, but the used-to-be C+ has become an A-. We know that the students are not better by a long shot, but the grades indicate a lowering of standards that is now a generation and a half, if not two full generations. Can anyone put Humpty Dumpty back together again? The resistance to proper grading & standards that are more stringent is multigenerational since the parents, from the late 60s through the 80s, are the first ones for whom the standards were lowered so we get NO support from them for their offspring being asked more! Giving an encouraging comment in the margin now & then without any language being assessed or outright errors being noted has led to a loss of language. This is where SocioLinguistics and PsychoLinguists comes into play, but it is undeniable that language loss has taken its toll. Fundamentalist literalism is so dogmatic & intolerant in its ignorance, but juxtapose that with poor to nonexistant language skills and you have a scenario that you could not write fictionally. Add paraphrase editing into the mix, and it's downright hilarious, altho' tragic.

Contextual reading may seek a "wholeness" where variants may be accessed, but that's not the pedagogical material being sold as "whole language" over the last decade. Statistics from entering Freshman classes across the U.S. shows that more than a third of entrants have to take remedial courses, notably English, Reading and Math. It's a chicken-egg mishmash, but ANY other course taken concurrently with remedial ones can only guarantee grade inflation in those areas. But does --or has -- it stopped? Or does a college degree now not even equal a high school diploma of 4 decades ago? Is it snobbery to suggest that too many are attempting college [when we know the levels of lacking preparation]? Other EU nations have experienced something of the same, only lesser, but it has reared its ugly head there already. My cousin's husband in Hamburg retired a decade of more ago, and his stories from the classroom in Germany match mine here. With more & more dependance on technology to do the heavy lifting for you, the term student no longer means 'schloar'. But we are deep into Sociolinguistics now!

I was never a fan of phonics: now even less so. I can see how it would facilitate a literalism, something which the U.S.' strangeness already cannot endure. Exegesis is a casualty to Eisegesis: politics, religion, all, and newspapers are merging & disappearing daily. Here we are: what will we do about it? What can we do about it? I am glad my four decades are over, but I cannot help but be concerned.

This article does not help the argument between teaching phonics and whole language. What it does do, is further cloud the issue. Having been in education for over thirty years, I can tell you that a blend of both phonics and whole language is the most effective way to teach reading. Beginning readers need to know sounds of letters, blends, etc automaticlly. They also need the creative aspect of whole language. Ultimately we want a generation of readers who have the ability to read fluently and think critically. Children need the tools from both methods to fill their tool box to be a successful reader. "See Dick run. See Jane run. See Spot run?" was NOT phonics. It was the "look-say" method and was more closely related to what became whole language.