Did you ever listen to two people fight and think, “this argument is so frickin’ stupid. This has to be about something else.”

In New York City, the mayor, the board of education, the teachers, and the teaching experts/professionals have their panties all in a twist over the best method to teach kids how to read: whole language v. phonics. It’s also a nation-wide fight; Bush made it a component of No Child Left Behind. But in the city, the war is especially fierce. (Thanks, Amy)

Whole language is a multi-system approach to reading that involves taking cues from the text and reinforcing reading lessons in other subjects. The other reading approach that has been set up as its polar opposition is Phonics, where students learn to read by memorizing rules to decode words.

The whole language operates on the presumption that breaking down words distracts kids, even discourages them, from growing up to become devoted readers. Instead, students in a Balanced Literacy program get their pick of books almost right away—real books, not Dick and Jane readers, with narratives that are meant to speak to what kids relate to, whether it’s dogs or baseball or friendship or baby sisters. Over time, the theory goes, kids learn the technical aspects of reading—like contractions, or tricky letter combinations painlessly—almost by osmosis. The joy of reading is meant to be the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine of spelling and grammar go down.

Ask any parent what they are doing to teach their kids how to read, and they’ll describe a mixture of methods. Most of us are reading to the kids before bed, providing them with fun books, pointing out words on signs, and occasionally making them sound things out. I’m probably doing more whole language at home, because I know that they do some phonics at school. Because I never learned phonics and, thus, can’t spell, I know that my kids need a little of it. As long as there is some mixture of methods, most parents aren’t losing any sleep over reading methods.

It may be because pedagogy bores me, but I think that this major fight is all about politics. Now you look who is on what side of this fight. On the phonics side, you have Diane Ravitch, Bush, and the City Journal people. On the other, you have the Teachers College experts and the Board of Education. Each side has a fundamentally different picture of schools.

The pro-phonics people believe that teachers are directionless. Many are slackers, protected by their union brethren. Phonics will force the teachers to conform to a uniform approach to teaching, one that proven results. Test scores improve after using phonics. This method has been especially useful working with kids on the lower end. key words — proven, uniform, tested, science, rules

The whole language people believe that teachers and students shouldn’t be cramped by rules or testing. Both will blossom when given the opportunity to choose their own course. If the whole language approach works well in upper income schools, then it should also be used in lower income areas. key words — self-directed, creative, natural, holistic, intuition

One approach has faith in teachers, the other doesn’t. One approach puts value in test scores, the other doesn’t. One approach sees education as a science, the other sees it as an art. One puts value on the educational experts, the other sees them as quacks and prefers control by elected officials. One thinks schools should be fun, the other thinks that schools should be structured.

And these two sides are locked into a mortal fight that goes beyond this silly reading war. Those opposing views of schools and teachers are at the bottom of the educational fight from voucher and charter schools to testing debate to standards.