I've read some Kohn over the years (I especially liked his article about homeschooling in Atlantic in 1987 or so), but there simply isn't an empirical defense to be made of "whole language." All the best readers I know started out with something like what would be called code-intensive, phonics-first reading instruction.
"All the best readers I know started out with something like what would be called code-intensive, phonics-first reading instruction."
That's exactly his point, that because less than 1% of schools adopted whole language instruction it is numerically impossible for whole language to be responsible for the decline in reading comprehension.
because less than 1% of schools adopted whole language instruction
How does he back up that claim? I encountered quite a few school districts that claimed to be providing "whole language" reading instruction (including my alma mater school district, then, where I had been taught to read with phonics three decades earlier) in the 1990s. I'm going to check what the current vogue is here, but I know it's not working well.
I don't remember offhand, but it comes from a chapter in his book The Schools Our Children Deserve. There is a whole chapter devoted to whole language, so the cite would be pretty easy to find.
I haven't done much research on teaching literacy, so I'm really just relaying his argument.
