Editing Whole language (section)

===Rise of whole language and reaction===
After its introduction by Goodman, whole language rose in popularity dramatically. It became a major educational paradigm of the late 1980s and the 1990s. Despite its popularity during this period, educators who believed that skill instruction was important for students' learning, and some researchers in education, were skeptical of whole-language claims. What followed were the "Reading Wars" of the 1980s and 1990s between advocates of phonics and those of whole-language methodology, which in turn led to several attempts to catalog research on the efficacy of phonics and whole language.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jameskim/files/bookch2.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jameskim/files/bookch2.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live|title=Research and the Reading Wars|last=Kim|first=James}}</ref>

New Zealand education researcher [[Marie Clay]] created the [[Reading Recovery]] program in 1976.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2022/10/20/sold-a-story-e2-the-idea|title=Transcript of ''Sold a Story E2: The Idea''|last1=Hanford|first1=Emily|date=20 October 2022|website=American Public Media}}</ref> After lengthy observations of early readers, Clay defined reading as a message-getting, problem-solving activity, and writing as a message-sending, problem-solving activity. Clay suggested that both activities involved linking invisible patterns of oral language with visible symbols.<ref>{{cite book |last= Clay|first=Marie |date= 1977|title=Reading: The Patterning of Complex Behaviour.|url= https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED166654 |location=Exeter, New Hampshire |publisher=Heinemann Educational Books }}</ref>

The [[United States Congress|US Congress]] commissioned reading expert [[Marilyn Jager Adams]] to write a definitive book on the topic. She determined that phonics was important but suggested that some elements of the whole language approach were helpful.<ref>{{cite book |author=Adams, Marilyn McCord |title=Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-262-51076-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/beginningtoread00mari }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/beginningtoread00mari |url-access=registration |quote=Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. |title=Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print |publisher=MIT Press |author=Marilyn Jager Adams|year=1994 |isbn=978-0-262-51076-9 }}</ref> Two large-scale efforts, in 1998 by the [[United States National Research Council]]'s Commission on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children<ref>{{cite book |author1=Griffin, Peg |author2=Snow, Catherine E. |author3=Burns, M. Susan |title=Preventing reading difficulties in young children |publisher=National Academy Press |location=Washington, D.C. |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-309-06418-7 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ggE9sixBdHEC&q=Preventing+reading+difficulties+in+young+children. |title=Preventing reading difficulties in young children |author=Catherine E. Snow |author2=Marie Susan Burns |author3=Peg Griffin  |year=1998 |publisher=National Academies Press |isbn=978-0-309-06418-7 }}</ref> and in 2000 by the [[National Reading Panel|United States National Reading Panel]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/pages/smallbook.aspx|title=National Reading Panel (NRP) – Publications and Materials – Summary Report|year=2000|work=National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Pages/report.aspx|title=National Reading Panel (NRP) – Publications and Materials – Reports of the Subgroups|year=2000|work=National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office}}</ref> catalogued the most important elements of a reading program. While proponents of whole language find the latter to be controversial, both panels found that phonics instruction of varying kinds, especially analytic and synthetic phonics, contributed positively to students' ability to read words on tests of reading words in isolation. Both panels also found that embedded phonics and no phonics contributed to lower rates of achievement for most populations of students when measured on tests of reading words in isolation. The panel recommended an approach it described as "scientifically based reading research" (SBRR), which cited five elements essential to effective reading instruction: explicit [[Systematic Phonics]] instruction, phonological awareness, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency.

Stephen Krashen criticized the evidence presented in the National Reading Panel's Report in 2004<ref>{{cite web |last1=Krashen |first1=Stephen |title=The Phonics Debate: 2004 |url=http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/phonics_debate_2004.pdf |publisher=Language Magazine}}</ref> as well as clarifying the role of reading in acquiring phonics<ref>{{cite web |last1=Krashen |first1=Stephen |title=The Unbearable Coolness of Phonemic Awareness |url=https://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/2003_unbearable_coolness_of_pa.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Krashen |first1=Stephen |title=Is Phonemic Awareness Training Necessary in Second Language Literacy Development? Is it Even Useful? |url=https://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/2011_krashen_hastings_phonemicawareness_ijflt_11-11.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Zammit |first1=Katina |title=Whole language approach: Reading is more than sounding out words and decoding |url=https://phys.org/news/2019-11-language-approach-words-decoding.html}}</ref> and the use of explicit phonics instruction at the beginner level in whole language.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Krashen |first1=Stephen |title=Beginning reading: The (huge) role of stories and the (limited) role of phonics |url=http://sdkrashen.com/content/articles/2019_stories_and_phonics_.pdf}}</ref>

In December 2005, the Australian government endorsed the teaching of synthetic phonics and discredited the whole language approach ("on its own"). Its Department of Education, Science and Training published a National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf |title=Archived copy |website=www.dest.gov.au |access-date=12 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110812024503/http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf |archive-date=12 August 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The report states: "The evidence is clear, whether from research, good practice observed in schools, advice from submissions to the Inquiry, consultations, or from Committee members' own individual experiences, that direct systematic instruction in phonics during the early years of schooling is an essential foundation for teaching children to read."<ref>Page 11.</ref> See {{format link|Synthetic phonics#Acceptance in Australia}}.

In 2006, the U.K. Department for Education and Skills undertook a review of early reading that came out in favor of [[Synthetic phonics]]. Subsequently, in March 2011, the U.K. Department of Education released a white paper entitled "The Importance of Teaching", which supported systematic synthetic phonics as the best method for teaching reading.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/schoolswhitepaper/b0068570/the-importance-of-teaching/executive-summary/curriculum |title=Curriculum, assessment and qualifications (2012) |work=UK Department of Education }}</ref>

On 23 April 2022, the Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the [[University of Delaware]] presented the results of a study of Marie Clay's Reading Recovery long-term effects, finding that the "long-term impact estimates were significant and negative".<ref name="udel report">{{cite report|url=https://www.cresp.udel.edu/research-project/efficacy-follow-study-long-term-effects-reading-recovery-i3-scale/|title=An Efficacy Follow-Up Study of the Long-Term Effects of Reading Recovery Under the i3 Scale-Up|publisher=Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware|date=23 April 2022}}</ref>