Late Readers
[email protected]
I've started a collection of accounts of late reading and parents who rode it
out. I figure Carol Rice's article won't be the weekly essay forever at
www.unschooling.com <g> so I've put it on another site too, along with
Deborah Cunefare's account and a bit of mine (which I probably will expand
later). If you want to contribute or if you know of similar things I should
link to, let me know!
It's at
http://sandradodd.com/latereaders
Sandra
out. I figure Carol Rice's article won't be the weekly essay forever at
www.unschooling.com <g> so I've put it on another site too, along with
Deborah Cunefare's account and a bit of mine (which I probably will expand
later). If you want to contribute or if you know of similar things I should
link to, let me know!
It's at
http://sandradodd.com/latereaders
Sandra
[email protected]
Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10 or 12
as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
reading at 6 or 7.
Dar
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:47:54 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
reading at 6 or 7.
Dar
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:47:54 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
> I've started a collection of accounts of late reading and parents who
> rode it
> out. I figure Carol Rice's article won't be the weekly essay
> forever at
> www.unschooling.com <g> so I've put it on another site too, along
> with
> Deborah Cunefare's account and a bit of mine (which I probably will
> expand
> later). If you want to contribute or if you know of similar things
> I should
> link to, let me know!
>
> It's at
> http://sandradodd.com/latereaders
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/30/2002 4:48:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Subj:[AlwaysLearning] Late ReadersJocelyn and Dan -- that is your cue!!!
> Date:7/30/2002 4:48:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:SandraDodd@...">SandraDodd@...</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> I've started a collection of accounts of late reading and parents who rode
> it
> out. I figure Carol Rice's article won't be the weekly essay forever at
> www.unschooling.com <g> so I've put it on another site too, along with
> Deborah Cunefare's account and a bit of mine (which I probably will expand
> later). If you want to contribute or if you know of similar things I
> should
> link to, let me know!
>
> It's at
> http://sandradodd.com/latereaders
>
> Sandra
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/30/02 1:10:26 PM, freeform@... writes:
<< Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10 or 12
as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
reading at 6 or 7. >>
True.
What can we call it around here then? What can we encourage others to call
it?
Because those who need that article are the parents who are freaking because
a seven year old can't read.
Sandra
<< Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10 or 12
as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
reading at 6 or 7. >>
True.
What can we call it around here then? What can we encourage others to call
it?
Because those who need that article are the parents who are freaking because
a seven year old can't read.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/30/02 1:25:47 PM, PSoroosh@... writes:
<< Jocelyn and Dan -- that is your cue!!! >>
Hey, wasn't that already posted here? I didn't hunt through old posts. If
anyone remembers more or less when it was I could just just pull it and add
it.
Sandra
<< Jocelyn and Dan -- that is your cue!!! >>
Hey, wasn't that already posted here? I didn't hunt through old posts. If
anyone remembers more or less when it was I could just just pull it and add
it.
Sandra
Joylyn
Natural readers? Unforced reading?
Joylyn (who in typing this is realizing how far she has come--now if I
could just get Janene, age 4, to realize that it's OK, really, that she
can't read. She so wants to read.)
SandraDodd@... wrote:
Joylyn (who in typing this is realizing how far she has come--now if I
could just get Janene, age 4, to realize that it's OK, really, that she
can't read. She so wants to read.)
SandraDodd@... wrote:
>ADVERTISEMENT
> In a message dated 7/30/02 1:10:26 PM, freeform@... writes:
>
> << Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10
> or 12
> as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
> reading at 6 or 7. >>
>
> True.
>
> What can we call it around here then? What can we encourage others to
> call
> it?
>
> Because those who need that article are the parents who are freaking
> because
> a seven year old can't read.
>
> Sandra
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/30/02 1:35:41 PM, joylyn@... writes:
<< Natural readers? Unforced reading? >>
Maybe the ambiguous "When Reading Comes Naturally"
<< Natural readers? Unforced reading? >>
Maybe the ambiguous "When Reading Comes Naturally"
Jamie Lemon
A few ideas....
Opportune Readers
Seasonable Readers
(those are contrast words for "late", and to me kinda fitting)
;-)
Zan
Opportune Readers
Seasonable Readers
(those are contrast words for "late", and to me kinda fitting)
;-)
Zan
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Late Readers
In a message dated 7/30/02 1:10:26 PM, freeform@... writes:
<< Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10 or 12
as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
reading at 6 or 7. >>
True.
What can we call it around here then? What can we encourage others to call
it?
Because those who need that article are the parents who are freaking because
a seven year old can't read.
Sandra
carolyn
I'd suggest changing it to "later readers". If you get to the
Sacramento conference before I do, it doesn't make me late. I just get
there later. And it's clear enough so that if a parent is worried about
a child who isn't reading yet, they'll recognize the phrase. Besides
that, all it costs is an "r".
Carolyn
Sacramento conference before I do, it doesn't make me late. I just get
there later. And it's clear enough so that if a parent is worried about
a child who isn't reading yet, they'll recognize the phrase. Besides
that, all it costs is an "r".
Carolyn
>ADVERTISEMENT
> SandraDodd@... wrote:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 7/30/02 1:10:26 PM, freeform@... writes:
> >
> > << Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or
> 10
> > or 12
> > as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
> > reading at 6 or 7. >>
> >
> > True.
> >
> > What can we call it around here then? What can we encourage others
> to
> > call
> > it?
> >
> > Because those who need that article are the parents who are freaking
>
> > because
> > a seven year old can't read.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/30/2002 12:10:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
freeform@... writes:
as exactly what you said - or even worse - like it is somehow bad to be late
and good to be early. THAT is the notion I'd rather do away with.
It is just a fact - some kids learn to walk really young and some when they
are older -- that is, earlier and later than the average.
Well - I'm a statistician and lower and higher than average don't feel like
value judgements to me, just descriptions - but I do get your point, Dar.
I just told somebody in person (hi Roseanna <G>) that my two kids who were
really early readers were really late in developing the physical ability to
write (handwriting, I mean, not composition) comfortably.
I can't really think of a more descriptive way to say it. I didn't mean that
it was good they read early or bad they wrote later - it just was.
I could say they were really "young" when they read and "old" when they wrote
-- but that isn't really different.
I think we just have to take the variation in human development for granted
and not attach any judgement to whether they are early or later at anything.
It describes a kid's development - it is interesting for that reason only.
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
freeform@... writes:
> Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10 or 12Well - once we talk about earlier and later ANYTHING, some people take that
> as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
> reading at 6 or 7.
>
> Dar
as exactly what you said - or even worse - like it is somehow bad to be late
and good to be early. THAT is the notion I'd rather do away with.
It is just a fact - some kids learn to walk really young and some when they
are older -- that is, earlier and later than the average.
Well - I'm a statistician and lower and higher than average don't feel like
value judgements to me, just descriptions - but I do get your point, Dar.
I just told somebody in person (hi Roseanna <G>) that my two kids who were
really early readers were really late in developing the physical ability to
write (handwriting, I mean, not composition) comfortably.
I can't really think of a more descriptive way to say it. I didn't mean that
it was good they read early or bad they wrote later - it just was.
I could say they were really "young" when they read and "old" when they wrote
-- but that isn't really different.
I think we just have to take the variation in human development for granted
and not attach any judgement to whether they are early or later at anything.
It describes a kid's development - it is interesting for that reason only.
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
>I'd suggest changing it to "later readers". If you get to theHey! I just typed a post saying much the same thing. But you said it
>Sacramento conference before I do, it doesn't make me late. I just get
>there later. And it's clear enough so that if a parent is worried about
>a child who isn't reading yet, they'll recognize the phrase. Besides
>that, all it costs is an "r".
better than I did, so I'll just delete.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Lisa Hardiman
In Raymond Moore's latest book, "Homeschooling without Stress" (I think
this is the title), he talks at length about this. I was a late reader,
not until 11, and I was in Public school. They labeled me with a lot of
disabilities but really I have none just a different way of learning.
My son, Nate, is a late reader. He had to read in school but he did it
with lots of discomfort. I noticed the boys, mainly, are later. In
this town, kids have to read beginning in first grade, and if they are
behind they need to go to special jump start reading. The school
district takes it so seriously, they just implemented full day
kindergarten so that all 5 - 6 year old know how to read. The school
thing got to be so stressful that we just will not let Nate go, even if
he wanted to. Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Late Readers
In a message dated 7/30/02 1:10:26 PM, freeform@... writes:
<< Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10
or 12
as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
reading at 6 or 7. >>
True.
What can we call it around here then? What can we encourage others to
call
it?
Because those who need that article are the parents who are freaking
because
a seven year old can't read.
Sandra
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
542111:HM/A=1155066/R=0/*http:/adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-
302>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
this is the title), he talks at length about this. I was a late reader,
not until 11, and I was in Public school. They labeled me with a lot of
disabilities but really I have none just a different way of learning.
My son, Nate, is a late reader. He had to read in school but he did it
with lots of discomfort. I noticed the boys, mainly, are later. In
this town, kids have to read beginning in first grade, and if they are
behind they need to go to special jump start reading. The school
district takes it so seriously, they just implemented full day
kindergarten so that all 5 - 6 year old know how to read. The school
thing got to be so stressful that we just will not let Nate go, even if
he wanted to. Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Late Readers
In a message dated 7/30/02 1:10:26 PM, freeform@... writes:
<< Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10
or 12
as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
reading at 6 or 7. >>
True.
What can we call it around here then? What can we encourage others to
call
it?
Because those who need that article are the parents who are freaking
because
a seven year old can't read.
Sandra
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
542111:HM/A=1155066/R=0/*http:/adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-
302>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/30/02 4:09:20 PM, nielsonc@... writes:
<< I'd suggest changing it to "later readers". If you get to the
Sacramento conference before I do, it doesn't make me late. I just get
there later. And it's clear enough so that if a parent is worried about
a child who isn't reading yet, they'll recognize the phrase. Besides
that, all it costs is an "r". >>
That's an idea.
I could call it "How and When Kids Learn to Read Naturally." But then I'd
need all ages.
<< I'd suggest changing it to "later readers". If you get to the
Sacramento conference before I do, it doesn't make me late. I just get
there later. And it's clear enough so that if a parent is worried about
a child who isn't reading yet, they'll recognize the phrase. Besides
that, all it costs is an "r". >>
That's an idea.
I could call it "How and When Kids Learn to Read Naturally." But then I'd
need all ages.
[email protected]
I think I like "later" and "earlier" better than "late" and "early". They
sound more like comparisons to a mean than value judgements.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:57:16 -0600 "Lisa Hardiman"
<lisa-hardiman@...> writes:
other boys, rather than to average reading levels of X-aged kids as a
whole, something like 70% of kids formerly labeled learning disabled
because of reading (reading level 2 yrs or more below average) would no
longer qualify.
Dar
sound more like comparisons to a mean than value judgements.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:57:16 -0600 "Lisa Hardiman"
<lisa-hardiman@...> writes:
> My son, Nate, is a late reader. He had to read in school but he didit
> with lots of discomfort. I noticed the boys, mainly, are later.I read somewhere that if boys' reading abilities were compared only to
other boys, rather than to average reading levels of X-aged kids as a
whole, something like 70% of kids formerly labeled learning disabled
because of reading (reading level 2 yrs or more below average) would no
longer qualify.
Dar
[email protected]
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:10:24 EDT SandraDodd@... writes:
reading develops.
Dar
> I could call it "How and When Kids Learn to Read Naturally." ButI think that's a nice idea, actually, to show the whole continuum of how
> then I'd
> need all ages.
reading develops.
Dar
Betsy
*****************************************
that
as exactly what you said - or even worse - like it is somehow bad to be
late
and good to be early. THAT is the notion I'd rather do away with.
******************************************
Well... if one wanted to completely flip the connotation, we could talk
about "premature reading" and "mature reading".
Now which one sounds better?
Betsy
> Just MHO, but it seems to me that labeling kids who read at 9 or 10 or 12Well - once we talk about earlier and later ANYTHING, some people take
> as "late" just reinforces the societal notion that kids "should be"
> reading at 6 or 7.
>
> Dar
that
as exactly what you said - or even worse - like it is somehow bad to be
late
and good to be early. THAT is the notion I'd rather do away with.
******************************************
Well... if one wanted to completely flip the connotation, we could talk
about "premature reading" and "mature reading".
Now which one sounds better?
Betsy
[email protected]
I'm reading the discussion on what to label the site where Sandra's posted my
story, and I've gotta tell you, I'm laughing my head off. :)
There wasn't anything NATURAL about how my daughter learned to read. Please
please don't label the story Natural Reading or some such blather.
What's important about my story and Carol's is that they're about kids who
were trying to learn to read and not succeeding. Struggling with it.
Agonizing over it sometimes, and finally all the pieces fell into place. It's
a different story from those of kids who read later because they weren't
interested until later, for whom learning to read was fairly simple once they
decided to do it.
People have a problem with the word "late" in this context, fine. Don't use
it. I don't think she was particularly late, anyway. But I have a BIG problem
with the word natural in this context. There is nothing natural about
learning to read. Course, I realize a whole bunch of folks are not going to
like it if I say call it "When reading DOESN'T come naturally" - althought
frankly that's how I think of it in comparison to my other kids who just
seemed to learn to read like they learned to breathe.
So.... When reading doesn't come easily. That's what I'd like it posted
under, thank you.
Deborah
story, and I've gotta tell you, I'm laughing my head off. :)
There wasn't anything NATURAL about how my daughter learned to read. Please
please don't label the story Natural Reading or some such blather.
What's important about my story and Carol's is that they're about kids who
were trying to learn to read and not succeeding. Struggling with it.
Agonizing over it sometimes, and finally all the pieces fell into place. It's
a different story from those of kids who read later because they weren't
interested until later, for whom learning to read was fairly simple once they
decided to do it.
People have a problem with the word "late" in this context, fine. Don't use
it. I don't think she was particularly late, anyway. But I have a BIG problem
with the word natural in this context. There is nothing natural about
learning to read. Course, I realize a whole bunch of folks are not going to
like it if I say call it "When reading DOESN'T come naturally" - althought
frankly that's how I think of it in comparison to my other kids who just
seemed to learn to read like they learned to breathe.
So.... When reading doesn't come easily. That's what I'd like it posted
under, thank you.
Deborah
[email protected]
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:19:48 EDT PSoroosh@... writes:
for her.
I figured the messy handwriting was genetic, from my side of the family.
We all have messy writing, and my dad is the only one with a valid
excuse, being a doctor. ;-) Her dad, OTOH, has handwriting that looks
like calligraphy.
Dar
> It is just a fact - some kids learn to walk really young and someI do think the "r" makes a big difference in how it's perceived, though.
> when they are older -- that is, earlier and later than the average.
> I just told somebody in person (hi Roseanna <G>) that my two kids whowere
> really early readers were really late in developing the physicalability to
> write (handwriting, I mean, not composition) comfortably.Well, that's certainly true of my kid. Writing is still a physical strain
>
for her.
I figured the messy handwriting was genetic, from my side of the family.
We all have messy writing, and my dad is the only one with a valid
excuse, being a doctor. ;-) Her dad, OTOH, has handwriting that looks
like calligraphy.
Dar
Pam Hartley
> I just told somebody in person (hi Roseanna <G>) that my two kids whowere
> really early readers were really late in developing the physicalability to
> write (handwriting, I mean, not composition) comfortably.That's really interesting! Brit, who is showing all signs of being a "late"
reader (our foray into using a curriculum was sporadic and finally puttered
out entirely, for which I'm guiltily grateful <g>) and she has pretty good
handwriting (printing) and loves to write, using invented spelling or
copying pages out of her favorite books, plus dictating letters to me to
send off (fan mail, a lot of it. Her most recent one was a letter to the
producer of the Survivor reality series, asking him to please produce a
"Kids Survivor" <g>).
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
>My older son learned to read easily in school, though nobody there realized
>Well, that's certainly true of my kid. Writing is still a physical strain
>for her.
how good he was at it. But he couldn't write neatly to save his life
(still can't at 24) When I took him out of school in grade 2, I had him
tested at the neuropsych lab at the local university. They had never come
across a kid who could read so well but had such lousy fine motor control.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/30/02 9:39:21 PM, freeform@... writes:
<< I think I like "later" and "earlier" better than "late" and "early". They
sound more like comparisons to a mean than value judgements. >>
"Late" is just a sin in this culture.
If I say to Holly, "Wendy will be here later," that's okay. That's something
to look forward to.
If I say "Wendy will be late," Wendy is a bad person who didn't care Holly
was waiting for her.
(This happened last night. <g> Holly was waiting to go bike riding between
7:00 and 7:30, and Wendy showed up at 7:33. *LATE* and so Holly was miffed.)
<<I read somewhere that if boys' reading abilities were compared only to
other boys, rather than to average reading levels of X-aged kids as a
whole, something like 70% of kids formerly labeled learning disabled
because of reading (reading level 2 yrs or more below average) would no
longer qualify.>>
Yes. Boys fail first grade; girls don't. And so many researchers and
theorists have known for years and years that first grade is too soon for
boys, but they do it anyway.
Part of the mythology of the U.S., if not all the English speaking world, is
that all men are created equal. So "Fairness" means you treat people the
same, and give them the same opportunities. But kindergarten and first grade
are NOT fair and are NOT the same opportunity, because roughly half the kids
are "behind" the day they show up.
Then later, because of just-as-natural growth patterns, the boys reach a
point where they become competent and analytical and the girls get their own
pubescent realities, and THAT is when they choose to teach algebra, when the
boys just perked up and got sharp and the girls just got soggy and crampy.
And just even to SAY that is to open me to criticism of sexism and stupidity,
but there it is; I said it.
Sandra Dodd
former Jr. High School teacher who has seen lots of boys get tall and smart
in the same month, and lots of bright girls get puffy and confused, and even
if the confusion is temporary, it's a bad time of school-life to be
temporarily confused and distracted
<< I think I like "later" and "earlier" better than "late" and "early". They
sound more like comparisons to a mean than value judgements. >>
"Late" is just a sin in this culture.
If I say to Holly, "Wendy will be here later," that's okay. That's something
to look forward to.
If I say "Wendy will be late," Wendy is a bad person who didn't care Holly
was waiting for her.
(This happened last night. <g> Holly was waiting to go bike riding between
7:00 and 7:30, and Wendy showed up at 7:33. *LATE* and so Holly was miffed.)
<<I read somewhere that if boys' reading abilities were compared only to
other boys, rather than to average reading levels of X-aged kids as a
whole, something like 70% of kids formerly labeled learning disabled
because of reading (reading level 2 yrs or more below average) would no
longer qualify.>>
Yes. Boys fail first grade; girls don't. And so many researchers and
theorists have known for years and years that first grade is too soon for
boys, but they do it anyway.
Part of the mythology of the U.S., if not all the English speaking world, is
that all men are created equal. So "Fairness" means you treat people the
same, and give them the same opportunities. But kindergarten and first grade
are NOT fair and are NOT the same opportunity, because roughly half the kids
are "behind" the day they show up.
Then later, because of just-as-natural growth patterns, the boys reach a
point where they become competent and analytical and the girls get their own
pubescent realities, and THAT is when they choose to teach algebra, when the
boys just perked up and got sharp and the girls just got soggy and crampy.
And just even to SAY that is to open me to criticism of sexism and stupidity,
but there it is; I said it.
Sandra Dodd
former Jr. High School teacher who has seen lots of boys get tall and smart
in the same month, and lots of bright girls get puffy and confused, and even
if the confusion is temporary, it's a bad time of school-life to be
temporarily confused and distracted
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/30/02 9:40:03 PM, freeform@... writes:
<< I think that's a nice idea, actually, to show the whole continuum of how
reading develops. >>
That's somebody else's project. I just want some little bits about later
readers in one convenient location. I just have to name it something.
"Some kids who learned to read."
<< I think that's a nice idea, actually, to show the whole continuum of how
reading develops. >>
That's somebody else's project. I just want some little bits about later
readers in one convenient location. I just have to name it something.
"Some kids who learned to read."
Tia Leschke
>Well it's true, and it's never going to change as long as the education
>And just even to SAY that is to open me to criticism of sexism and stupidity,
>but there it is; I said it.
system stays one-size-fits-all.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Pam Hartley
----------
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Late Readers
Date: Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 7:33 AM
And just even to SAY that is to open me to criticism of sexism and
stupidity,
but there it is; I said it.
----------
No doubt I am unusually dense, but I never "got" the argument that women and
men are exactly alike and "it's all upbringing and societal expectations."
Hooey.
Pam, who is WAY too polite (this morning <g>) to say "bullshit".
P.S. I have to show off my husband's web page skills as well as our pets.
<g> This link will take you to our rabbit and cavy (guinea pig) website:
http://www.mizbookbiz.com/shortstack
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Late Readers
Date: Wed, Jul 31, 2002, 7:33 AM
And just even to SAY that is to open me to criticism of sexism and
stupidity,
but there it is; I said it.
----------
No doubt I am unusually dense, but I never "got" the argument that women and
men are exactly alike and "it's all upbringing and societal expectations."
Hooey.
Pam, who is WAY too polite (this morning <g>) to say "bullshit".
P.S. I have to show off my husband's web page skills as well as our pets.
<g> This link will take you to our rabbit and cavy (guinea pig) website:
http://www.mizbookbiz.com/shortstack
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kate Green
>So could they be the reading outliers perhaps?
> Well - I'm a statistician and lower and higher than average don't feel like
> value judgements to me, just descriptions - but I do get your point, Dar.
>
My first son basically taught himself to read at 3 and second son was about
9 before it clicked for him. They both fall outside the norm but now they
are teens it really doesn't matter. I think it's like any stage with kids
-- for some parents having a child who isn't within the developmental norms
is a huge stressor. But after they master whatever it is they struggled
with it becomes no big deal later on.
Kind of like the weaning and cosleeping fears some people have. Heck by
college age they are usually OK!
Kate
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/31/02 11:13:17 AM, karegree@... writes:
<< Kind of like the weaning and cosleeping fears some people have. Heck by
college age they are usually OK! >>
Usually weaned, but not always sleeping by themselves! ;-)
<< Kind of like the weaning and cosleeping fears some people have. Heck by
college age they are usually OK! >>
Usually weaned, but not always sleeping by themselves! ;-)
Kate Green
In a message dated 7/31/02 11:13:17 AM, karegree@... writes:
<< Kind of like the weaning and cosleeping fears some people have. Heck by
college age they are usually OK! >>
Usually weaned, but not always sleeping by themselves! ;-)
Well true -- but usually they can handle a few nights away without sobbing
uncontrollably:)
Interesting here because at the hospitals all have large family rooms as
family members and "sitters" stay around the clock with people who are
hospitalized. Apparantly most of the middle and older aged people cannot
handle sleeping with no one else in the room as alll their life they have
had people around them at all time.
Kate
<< Kind of like the weaning and cosleeping fears some people have. Heck by
college age they are usually OK! >>
Usually weaned, but not always sleeping by themselves! ;-)
Well true -- but usually they can handle a few nights away without sobbing
uncontrollably:)
Interesting here because at the hospitals all have large family rooms as
family members and "sitters" stay around the clock with people who are
hospitalized. Apparantly most of the middle and older aged people cannot
handle sleeping with no one else in the room as alll their life they have
had people around them at all time.
Kate
zenmomma *
>>Well... if one wanted to completely flip the connotation, we could talkI REALLY like this! :-D
>>about "premature reading" and "mature reading".>>
Sandra, how "late" did you want those "late" stories to be? You've read
Conor's story before. He finally learned to read when we stopped trying to
teach him and let him use his own natural strengths and abilities. He was 9,
I think. Doesn't sound all that late to me anymore. Would you want his
story?
Life is good.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/1/02 11:12:52 AM, zenmomma@... writes:
<< . He was 9,
I think. Doesn't sound all that late to me anymore. Would you want his
story? >>
Yes.
I really would like it.
Nine's not gloriously late <g> but Kirby was nine and I was freakin' whenever
the grandparents were going to come and visit when he was eight.
Anymore the grandparents visit at their own peril. <g>
Sandra
<< . He was 9,
I think. Doesn't sound all that late to me anymore. Would you want his
story? >>
Yes.
I really would like it.
Nine's not gloriously late <g> but Kirby was nine and I was freakin' whenever
the grandparents were going to come and visit when he was eight.
Anymore the grandparents visit at their own peril. <g>
Sandra
Jocelyn Vilter
We're not ignoring you Sandra, we had company over the early part of the
week and were going like 60. Dan says he thinks he wrote a little something
about it in passing, but doesn't think it was a whole post worth. I'll poke
around in the archives and see if I can find it. Or I'll write something
about how he didn't really read until he was 11, even though he was showing
all those early "reading readiness" signs at 3.
jocelyn
week and were going like 60. Dan says he thinks he wrote a little something
about it in passing, but doesn't think it was a whole post worth. I'll poke
around in the archives and see if I can find it. Or I'll write something
about how he didn't really read until he was 11, even though he was showing
all those early "reading readiness" signs at 3.
jocelyn
>
> In a message dated 7/30/02 1:25:47 PM, PSoroosh@... writes:
>
> << Jocelyn and Dan -- that is your cue!!! >>
>
> Hey, wasn't that already posted here? I didn't hunt through old posts. If
> anyone remembers more or less when it was I could just just pull it and add
> it.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>