Paperback boogies
Gabrielle Ward
You are sooo right!
And because of school being what it is, kids who read novels are considered
GOOD kids, studious kids, bright kids. No matter that the novel is about sex
and drugs and murder, the vision of someone reading a book is soothing in
this culture. If the kid sitting next to the reader (the reader would have
been me) is drawing some REALLY cool pictures with details of WWII planes,
that is BAD, dumb, a waste of time and paper. If another kid is looking out
the window translating new things he's learned into Tewa (what they speak in
Santa Clara Pueblo), it looks like he's doing NOTHING. (But at least he's
not wasting paper). And if another kid is writing a note to a friend who
REALLY needs some friendship and support, that note will be confiscated and
torn up and they'll both be in trouble. But that kid who's reading about
hookers and the mafia is a GOOD KID!
Sandra
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
And because of school being what it is, kids who read novels are considered
GOOD kids, studious kids, bright kids. No matter that the novel is about sex
and drugs and murder, the vision of someone reading a book is soothing in
this culture. If the kid sitting next to the reader (the reader would have
been me) is drawing some REALLY cool pictures with details of WWII planes,
that is BAD, dumb, a waste of time and paper. If another kid is looking out
the window translating new things he's learned into Tewa (what they speak in
Santa Clara Pueblo), it looks like he's doing NOTHING. (But at least he's
not wasting paper). And if another kid is writing a note to a friend who
REALLY needs some friendship and support, that note will be confiscated and
torn up and they'll both be in trouble. But that kid who's reading about
hookers and the mafia is a GOOD KID!
Sandra
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
rumpleteasermom
You almost make it sound like you think reading is a bad thing. I
know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when I
first read it.
know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when I
first read it.
> And because of school being what it is, kids who read novels areconsidered
> GOOD kids, studious kids, bright kids. No matter that the novelis about sex
> and drugs and murder, the vision of someone reading a book issoothing in
> this culture.
Fetteroll
on 4/24/02 10:06 AM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:
and end all of learning. People don't (academically anyway) worry about
their kids learning to listen, to take things apart, to build things, to
move their bodies, to watch TV. They worry about reading as though kids
can't learn unless they can read.
Joyce
> You almost make it sound like you think reading is a bad thing. IShe's referring to the over praise of books and reading as being the be all
> know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when I
> first read it.
and end all of learning. People don't (academically anyway) worry about
their kids learning to listen, to take things apart, to build things, to
move their bodies, to watch TV. They worry about reading as though kids
can't learn unless they can read.
Joyce
Valerie Cifuentes
on 4/24/02 10:06 AM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:
and end all of learning. People don't (academically anyway) worry about
their kids learning to listen, to take things apart, to build things, to
move their bodies, to watch TV. They worry about reading as though kids
can't learn unless they can read<<<<<<<<<<<<
I was reading this and I wondered something too, what about spelling? I
liked my children to learn spelling rules. Spelling is proven to NOT be
natural and I really detest the "whole language" approach to spelling.
My children picked up on writing very easily and happily as they wrote
to their grandparents, friends or "Rule's for my Bedroom!" LOL! And
knowing how to break down syllables and knowing the rules with each
syllable. They were happy to not to have to ask for help in their
spelling as often and got a huge feeling of independence from it. That
was my observation.
They read, so they could tell if a word wasn't spelled correctly and my
son would get frustrated if he knew the word was spelled wrong but
didn't know the correct spelling. Now he has a method that works.
I like to use the Writing Road to Reading, there are no workbooks, but
the child develops a notebook on their own as they go along. It's a
pleasant pace and there are NO workpages or LESSONS. Only steps that one
takes to learn a spelling rule.
I would like to know what your thoughts are on this? Most of us learned
from ps, and maybe didn't remember all the rules, but learned the basic
i before e except after c, type thing.
How do you handle spelling?
Thank you for letting me share! :o)
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
081972:HM/A=1042587/R=0/*http:/service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=29150
849&siteid=39282504&bfpage=account>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705081972:HM/A=1042587/rand=960887477>
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
> You almost make it sound like you think reading is a bad thing. Ibeing the be all
> know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when I
> first read it.
>>>>>>>>>>She's referring to the over praise of books and reading as
and end all of learning. People don't (academically anyway) worry about
their kids learning to listen, to take things apart, to build things, to
move their bodies, to watch TV. They worry about reading as though kids
can't learn unless they can read<<<<<<<<<<<<
I was reading this and I wondered something too, what about spelling? I
liked my children to learn spelling rules. Spelling is proven to NOT be
natural and I really detest the "whole language" approach to spelling.
My children picked up on writing very easily and happily as they wrote
to their grandparents, friends or "Rule's for my Bedroom!" LOL! And
knowing how to break down syllables and knowing the rules with each
syllable. They were happy to not to have to ask for help in their
spelling as often and got a huge feeling of independence from it. That
was my observation.
They read, so they could tell if a word wasn't spelled correctly and my
son would get frustrated if he knew the word was spelled wrong but
didn't know the correct spelling. Now he has a method that works.
I like to use the Writing Road to Reading, there are no workbooks, but
the child develops a notebook on their own as they go along. It's a
pleasant pace and there are NO workpages or LESSONS. Only steps that one
takes to learn a spelling rule.
I would like to know what your thoughts are on this? Most of us learned
from ps, and maybe didn't remember all the rules, but learned the basic
i before e except after c, type thing.
How do you handle spelling?
Thank you for letting me share! :o)
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
081972:HM/A=1042587/R=0/*http:/service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=29150
849&siteid=39282504&bfpage=account>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705081972:HM/A=1042587/rand=960887477>
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
rumpleteasermom
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Valerie Cifuentes" <homeschool@c...>
wrote:
I'm not sure I believe this and here's why;
My dad was a high school drop out. My mom has a master's degree in
education. My dad could spell any word you asked him to (well,
except for the REALLY odd exceptions), my mom uses a dictionary all
the time. I too, learned all the spelling 'rules' in school. It
hasn't done near as much for my spelling as my love of reading has.
I suppose you could try to get them interested in playing hangman.
That might help.
Bridget
wrote:
>spelling? I
> I was reading this and I wondered something too, what about
> liked my children to learn spelling rules. Spelling is proven to NOTbe
> natural and I really detest the "whole language" approach tospelling.
I'm not sure I believe this and here's why;
My dad was a high school drop out. My mom has a master's degree in
education. My dad could spell any word you asked him to (well,
except for the REALLY odd exceptions), my mom uses a dictionary all
the time. I too, learned all the spelling 'rules' in school. It
hasn't done near as much for my spelling as my love of reading has.
I suppose you could try to get them interested in playing hangman.
That might help.
Bridget
gruvystarchild
>. "Spelling is proven to NOT be
>
>
natural and I really detest the "whole language" approach to spelling"
Proven is a very strong word. Who proved this and under what
circumstances? I don't agree.
And the only reason the "whole language" thing gets a bad rap, is
that it can't produce a measured result. Schools like testing
and "proving" a child knows something. Kind of hard to do when you
are letting them learn in a natural fashion....which is what whole
language is based on.
It claims that children learn written language the same way they
learn to speak...by being submersed in it.
My oldest ds is learning to spell better, a little at a time, mostly
by using the internet.
The other point to remember is that not all people are naturally good
at spelling...there are many adults that learned all the
spelling "rules" (let's also remember that every rule gets broken by
certain words), took all the tests, did all the damn worksheets and
still aren't very good spellers.
Being able to spell perfectly is not the pivotal hinge for success in
this life.
Ren
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
05
> 081972:HM/A=1042587/R=0/*http:/service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=29150
> 849&siteid=39282504&bfpage=account>M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egrou
>
>
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> pmail/S=1705081972:HM/A=1042587/rand=960887477>~~~
>
> ~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line!
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Unschooling-dotcom-unsubscribe@y...
>
> Visit the Unschooling website:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
>
>
> 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 4/24/02 8:13:08 AM, rumpleteasermom@... writes:
<< You almost make it sound like you think reading is a bad thing. I
know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when I
first read it. >>
I think reading isn't the only good thing. And the worship of reading over
other forms of learning can be a very, very bad thing for a child who is
bright but doesn't read well, or doesn't enjoy reading.
Sandra
<< You almost make it sound like you think reading is a bad thing. I
know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when I
first read it. >>
I think reading isn't the only good thing. And the worship of reading over
other forms of learning can be a very, very bad thing for a child who is
bright but doesn't read well, or doesn't enjoy reading.
Sandra
Valerie Cifuentes
>>>>>>>>>You almost make it sound like you think reading is a bad thing.I
know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when I
first read it.<<<<<<<<<<<
I understood it as; the material being read by the child is immoral but
because the child is "reading a book" he's considered "a good student."
Not taking into consideration the nature of the material no matter how
damaging it can be to the child's character. Sort of like, "Oh Johnny
has taught himself how to drive the family station wagon!" But ignoring
the fact he's driving on the wrong side of the highway!
Is that right?
>>>>>And because of school being what it is, kids who read novels areconsidered GOOD kids, studious kids, bright kids. No matter that the
novel
is about sex and drugs and murder, the vision of someone reading a book
is
soothing in this culture.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:-Valerie Cifuentes
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*
I CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT FORWARDS, CHAIN LETTERS AND PETITIONS. THEY ARE
FILLING UP MY BOX AND TAKING UP MY TIME. THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING!
http://nolen.home.texas.net/valerie/Cifuentes.html
I'm A Navy Brat & Wife of HM2 Cifuentes; Active Duty Navy, & Mother of
Three Young Navy Brats!
*~*PLEASE HAVE PATIENCE AS I CHECK EMAIL ONCE IN THE MORNING & EVENING
AFTER 3:00PM AND NOT ON SUNDAY (THE LORD'S DAY.)*~*
-----Original Message-----
From: rumpleteasermom [mailto:rumpleteasermom@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Paperback boogies
You almost make it sound like you think reading is a bad thing. I
know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when I
first read it.
> And because of school being what it is, kids who read novels areconsidered
> GOOD kids, studious kids, bright kids. No matter that the novelis about sex
> and drugs and murder, the vision of someone reading a book issoothing in
> this culture.Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=224280.1987947.3469346.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
081972:HM/A=1033459/R=0/*http:/www.ehealthinsurance.com/alliance=Yah1631
2> Click Here!
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=224280.1987947.3469346.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705081972:HM/A=1033459/rand=770935747>
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
Fetteroll
on 4/24/02 10:51 AM, Valerie Cifuentes at homeschool@... wrote:
have happened if you didn't teach them spelling rules.
pick it up through modeling. We don't need fork lessons ;-)
Communicating through speech may be natural, but English isn't. Wearing
clothes. Using a bathroom.
Yes, English is not a particularly regular language. But kids learn to speak
it without English lessons. Is learning to spell through and though and
thought any different than picking up how to conjugate "to be"? Kids may
stumble over conjugations when they become unconsciously aware of the
pattern (like reverting to "he runned") but do they need lessons to learn
it?
except the syllables. (Though she has a vague concept of them from writing
comic books and having to split lots of words to fit into the balloons she
insists on drawing first ;-) Her spelling is still occasionally creative at
10 but it's vastly improved to what she used at 9. She's never had a
spelling lesson and doesn't seem irritated at asking for spellings. To her
spelling is a big messy interesting puzzle.
Which is just saying that lessons weren't necessary for it to come about.
There are pros and cons to lessons and no lessons, but lessons are not
necessary. For me at least two of the pros are her realizing she's puzzled
out the intricacies of the English language without being taught, the
freedom to do other things during what would have been lesson time. The cons
are getting spelling later than some other kids. (But not all kids. Some
people never do learn to spell even with "expert" instruction.) Which is
only a problem if she is faced with some sort of comparison but that's never
happened so it's no big deal.
does this really well and my daughter wants to do stuff so I'll let someone
else handle this one. (Or I'll get back to it.)
It's just that I see a great deal more happening, not just with spelling,
but everything, as my daughter writes for her own pleasure and discovers
spelling on her own. It's more than about acquiring spelling rules.
And I've really got to go. I'm really sorry this isn't as thorough as I
could be.
Joyce
> I was reading this and I wondered something too, what about spelling? IBut why? Not an attacking question. Just ask yourself what you think would
> liked my children to learn spelling rules.
have happened if you didn't teach them spelling rules.
> Spelling is proven to NOT be naturalWhat does "not natural" mean? Eating with a fork is not natural but kids
pick it up through modeling. We don't need fork lessons ;-)
Communicating through speech may be natural, but English isn't. Wearing
clothes. Using a bathroom.
Yes, English is not a particularly regular language. But kids learn to speak
it without English lessons. Is learning to spell through and though and
thought any different than picking up how to conjugate "to be"? Kids may
stumble over conjugations when they become unconsciously aware of the
pattern (like reverting to "he runned") but do they need lessons to learn
it?
> and I really detest the "whole language" approach to spelling.And my daughter too picked up writing easily doing all the same things
> My children picked up on writing very easily and happily as they wrote
> to their grandparents, friends or "Rule's for my Bedroom!" LOL! And
> knowing how to break down syllables and knowing the rules with each
> syllable. They were happy to not to have to ask for help in their
> spelling as often and got a huge feeling of independence from it. That
> was my observation.
except the syllables. (Though she has a vague concept of them from writing
comic books and having to split lots of words to fit into the balloons she
insists on drawing first ;-) Her spelling is still occasionally creative at
10 but it's vastly improved to what she used at 9. She's never had a
spelling lesson and doesn't seem irritated at asking for spellings. To her
spelling is a big messy interesting puzzle.
Which is just saying that lessons weren't necessary for it to come about.
There are pros and cons to lessons and no lessons, but lessons are not
necessary. For me at least two of the pros are her realizing she's puzzled
out the intricacies of the English language without being taught, the
freedom to do other things during what would have been lesson time. The cons
are getting spelling later than some other kids. (But not all kids. Some
people never do learn to spell even with "expert" instruction.) Which is
only a problem if she is faced with some sort of comparison but that's never
happened so it's no big deal.
> They read, so they could tell if a word wasn't spelled correctly and myThere are advantages to teaching. But there are also trade offs. I think Pam
> son would get frustrated if he knew the word was spelled wrong but
> didn't know the correct spelling. Now he has a method that works.
does this really well and my daughter wants to do stuff so I'll let someone
else handle this one. (Or I'll get back to it.)
> I like to use the Writing Road to Reading, there are no workbooks, butI do pass on rules when she asks about a word that the rule applies to.
> the child develops a notebook on their own as they go along. It's a
> pleasant pace and there are NO workpages or LESSONS. Only steps that one
> takes to learn a spelling rule.
> I would like to know what your thoughts are on this? Most of us learned
> from ps, and maybe didn't remember all the rules, but learned the basic
> i before e except after c, type thing.
> How do you handle spelling?
> Thank you for letting me share! :o)
It's just that I see a great deal more happening, not just with spelling,
but everything, as my daughter writes for her own pleasure and discovers
spelling on her own. It's more than about acquiring spelling rules.
And I've really got to go. I'm really sorry this isn't as thorough as I
could be.
Joyce
rumpleteasermom
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Valerie Cifuentes" <homeschool@c...>
wrote:
Well, like I said, I knew that couldn't be what she meant. But I had
to read it twice to make sure.
And then we are into the subject of censoring what our kids read.
Jenni reads books most parent don't let their kids read. She has read
the entire Laurell K Hamilton, "Anita Blake" vampire series. (I'm
almost done with them - like I said she reads faster than anyone I
know.
So who gets to judge what is moral and good for your kids to read?
You? Them?
Bridget
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>You almost make it sound like you think reading is a badthing.
> II
> know you can't possibly mean that, but it came across that way when
> first read it.<<<<<<<<<<<but
>
> I understood it as; the material being read by the child is immoral
> because the child is "reading a book" he's considered "a goodstudent."
Well, like I said, I knew that couldn't be what she meant. But I had
to read it twice to make sure.
And then we are into the subject of censoring what our kids read.
Jenni reads books most parent don't let their kids read. She has read
the entire Laurell K Hamilton, "Anita Blake" vampire series. (I'm
almost done with them - like I said she reads faster than anyone I
know.
So who gets to judge what is moral and good for your kids to read?
You? Them?
Bridget
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/24/02 8:54:08 AM, homeschool@... writes:
<< Spelling is proven to NOT be natural >>
I'm guessing you read that on the cover of a spelling book!
Spelling, in English, is sometimes problematical, but lots of people learn to
spell visually, from seeing a word and knowing if it's right or wrong. The
same way some people can EXACTLY match a tune, even to someone's fancy vocal
ornamentation, without having a clue what that would look like written down
in notation.
And some people (I married one) despite all the formal spelling advice
Houghton & Mifflin could provide in twelve years, could NOT get it.
My husband's spelling improved the further he got from school. It improved
because he was writing REAL things, not doing spelling tests.
<<I would like to know what your thoughts are on this? Most of us learned
from ps, and maybe didn't remember all the rules, but learned the basic
i before e except after c, type thing. >>
Weird.
(another of many exceptions to that "rule")
There is no method to cover all of English's many exceptions. English has a
German grammatical base, with a TON of French words from 1000 years ago, VERY
many from Latin (biology, law) and Greek (math, sciences), and although
learning spelling rules for all those things might help some people, it's
more likely to really make the teacher feel good than to cover all bases for
the students. And why do some English words have "k" in them, like "ski" and
"skirt"? Norse. "Skirt" and "shirt" were the same word at one time, and it
came back into English in another form, so we kept both, separate, with
separate meanings. What spelling rule will explain why English is so weird?
It's not a simple, limited set of information.
I have more exposure to thinking about this than just what I've gathered in
ten years of unschooling and watching unschoolers learn to spell, either.
I've loved writing and words since I was nine, and I taught English for a few
years, and have collected and read books about the history of English for fun
for years. I helped my husband with his spelling the way he helped me with
math--mostly NOT by any lessons, but by answering questions like "how do you
spell committee?" by spelling it. By telling him a cool story every two or
three months about a word or how I learned to spell "separate" (from a
college boyfriend who had grown up in India and learned English as a teen in
Toronto and New Jersey, and whose rule was "There's a rat in 'separate'.")
Sandra
<< Spelling is proven to NOT be natural >>
I'm guessing you read that on the cover of a spelling book!
Spelling, in English, is sometimes problematical, but lots of people learn to
spell visually, from seeing a word and knowing if it's right or wrong. The
same way some people can EXACTLY match a tune, even to someone's fancy vocal
ornamentation, without having a clue what that would look like written down
in notation.
And some people (I married one) despite all the formal spelling advice
Houghton & Mifflin could provide in twelve years, could NOT get it.
My husband's spelling improved the further he got from school. It improved
because he was writing REAL things, not doing spelling tests.
<<I would like to know what your thoughts are on this? Most of us learned
from ps, and maybe didn't remember all the rules, but learned the basic
i before e except after c, type thing. >>
Weird.
(another of many exceptions to that "rule")
There is no method to cover all of English's many exceptions. English has a
German grammatical base, with a TON of French words from 1000 years ago, VERY
many from Latin (biology, law) and Greek (math, sciences), and although
learning spelling rules for all those things might help some people, it's
more likely to really make the teacher feel good than to cover all bases for
the students. And why do some English words have "k" in them, like "ski" and
"skirt"? Norse. "Skirt" and "shirt" were the same word at one time, and it
came back into English in another form, so we kept both, separate, with
separate meanings. What spelling rule will explain why English is so weird?
It's not a simple, limited set of information.
I have more exposure to thinking about this than just what I've gathered in
ten years of unschooling and watching unschoolers learn to spell, either.
I've loved writing and words since I was nine, and I taught English for a few
years, and have collected and read books about the history of English for fun
for years. I helped my husband with his spelling the way he helped me with
math--mostly NOT by any lessons, but by answering questions like "how do you
spell committee?" by spelling it. By telling him a cool story every two or
three months about a word or how I learned to spell "separate" (from a
college boyfriend who had grown up in India and learned English as a teen in
Toronto and New Jersey, and whose rule was "There's a rat in 'separate'.")
Sandra
Camille Bauer
<<Schools like testing
and "proving" a child knows something. >>
Yes! That's also the reason children are diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, or learning disabled :(
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
and "proving" a child knows something. >>
Yes! That's also the reason children are diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, or learning disabled :(
CamilleGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/24/02 10:14:32 AM, homeschool@... writes:
<<
I understood it as; the material being read by the child is immoral but
because the child is "reading a book" he's considered "a good student."
Not taking into consideration the nature of the material no matter how
damaging it can be to the child's character. Sort of like, "Oh Johnny
has taught himself how to drive the family station wagon!" But ignoring
the fact he's driving on the wrong side of the highway!
Is that right? >>
No. It's one facet, but not the form.
Many people call reading good no matter WHAT a child is reading (unless it's
a comic book or a magazine about skateboarding; those are still in the BAD
category, because they have pictures and the material won't be on the test).
Many people call call watching TV bad no matter WHAT wondrous thing a child
is learning.
Many people call looking out the window "doing nothing" without regard to
what the child is thinking.
For unschoolers, these prejudices can be insurmountable stumbling blocks. As
small as they seem, they create walls between people and the real world.
Sandra
<<
I understood it as; the material being read by the child is immoral but
because the child is "reading a book" he's considered "a good student."
Not taking into consideration the nature of the material no matter how
damaging it can be to the child's character. Sort of like, "Oh Johnny
has taught himself how to drive the family station wagon!" But ignoring
the fact he's driving on the wrong side of the highway!
Is that right? >>
No. It's one facet, but not the form.
Many people call reading good no matter WHAT a child is reading (unless it's
a comic book or a magazine about skateboarding; those are still in the BAD
category, because they have pictures and the material won't be on the test).
Many people call call watching TV bad no matter WHAT wondrous thing a child
is learning.
Many people call looking out the window "doing nothing" without regard to
what the child is thinking.
For unschoolers, these prejudices can be insurmountable stumbling blocks. As
small as they seem, they create walls between people and the real world.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/24/02 10:22:06 AM, rumpleteasermom@... writes:
<< So who gets to judge what is moral and good for your kids to read?
You? Them? >>
In our family, the kids can read what they want.
In schools, since most kids who are reading are reading on the sly under the
desk anyway, they can read what they want if they don't get caught. <g>
My point wasn't about the morality, but about the lack of judgement about
content in someone who says "reading is good" while saying "other input is
not as good."
Sandra
<< So who gets to judge what is moral and good for your kids to read?
You? Them? >>
In our family, the kids can read what they want.
In schools, since most kids who are reading are reading on the sly under the
desk anyway, they can read what they want if they don't get caught. <g>
My point wasn't about the morality, but about the lack of judgement about
content in someone who says "reading is good" while saying "other input is
not as good."
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/24/2002 7:53:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
homeschool@... writes:
to read "whole language" style and the older two are amazing - just
absolutely amazing spellers - far better spellers than almost any adults I
know. The younger one isn't, yet, and maybe she will be or won't be - no
guarantees, but I have tremendous confidence.
Spelling may not be natural <G> - but learning to spell certainly is for most
unschooled kids. (About 1 out of 5 people seem to NOT have the ability to
spell well - and all the formal lessons in the world don't seem to impact
that. There are some strategies they can learn to help them deal with
spelling problems, though.)
--pamS
Some of what is said here may challenge you, shock you, disturb you, or seem
harsh. But remember that people are offering it to be helpful and what feels
uncomfortable to you might be just what someone else needed to hear.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
homeschool@... writes:
> Spelling is proven to NOT beI don't believe this. My children never had a spelling lesson - they learned
> natural and I really detest the "whole language" approach to spelling.
>
to read "whole language" style and the older two are amazing - just
absolutely amazing spellers - far better spellers than almost any adults I
know. The younger one isn't, yet, and maybe she will be or won't be - no
guarantees, but I have tremendous confidence.
Spelling may not be natural <G> - but learning to spell certainly is for most
unschooled kids. (About 1 out of 5 people seem to NOT have the ability to
spell well - and all the formal lessons in the world don't seem to impact
that. There are some strategies they can learn to help them deal with
spelling problems, though.)
--pamS
Some of what is said here may challenge you, shock you, disturb you, or seem
harsh. But remember that people are offering it to be helpful and what feels
uncomfortable to you might be just what someone else needed to hear.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Valerie Cifuentes
>>>>>>My husband's spelling improved the further he got from school. Itimproved
because he was writing REAL things, not doing spelling tests.<<<<<<<
Hi Sandra,
Thanks for taking the time to help me mill this over! :O)
Well, maybe too, the method that was used on your husband didn't work in
school, and maybe early on he just plain burned out so learning stopped
and left a bad experience for him to remember. And writing things that
matter to the author is VERY important. Who wants to write about
something they aren't even interested in? I'm sure as an adult he finds
resources to help him spell better and help him with grammar.
>>>>>>Spelling, in English, is sometimes problematical, but lots ofpeople learn to
spell visually<<<<<<<<
With all do respect, many homeschoolers have turned from ps because of
"whole language" which diminishes the child's ability to sound out words
using phonics. Children were found to naturally try to connect the
sound, but without the "rules" they were unsuccessful, especially in the
area of spelling. The term "inventive spelling" or "phonetical spelling"
(what I call incorrect spelling) was birthed after "whole language" was
introduced into our school systems. Children that heard words that were
only spoken to them and not written down, (which they are exposed to
more audio than visual in a given day) were not able to spell the new
words spoken to them because they had no "plan of action" so to speak.
The American alphabet is phonetical. There are certain sounds and rules
that go together. Every "symbol" has a sound and a rule: like the "q"
will always be accompanied by the "u", and USUALLY the "e" ending will
make a vowel in a syllable "say its name sound."
The Chinese use "characters" to read, (not even the Chinese know the
extent of their written language! They tend to "max out.") I feel that
my children will be handicapped in the area of written language if I
don't take the time to gently introduce their language and its rules to
them. I prefer that they don't read the English language the way the
Chinese read the characters of their language. Eventually I will have to
end their frustration by giving them the rules anyway, they make perfect
sense and they are proven. So my children find them valuable.
I didn't get that "spelling is proven not to be natural" from a spelling
book :o). It was research done by, not an educator at all, but a
neurologist. Dr. Orton and his sidekick Gillingham researched that the
written language is best learned MULTISENSORILY. In other words, using
ALL the senses rather than just sight, or sound, but phonetics with even
saying sounds allowed to oneself while writing the letter symbols. His
work showed that the brain doesn't really ready "letters" but lines,
parts of lines, circles and part of circles and that those lines and
circles trigger the brain to retrieve sounds as the child remembers them
when creating a letter.
Look at the work of Noah Webster! What a great man, he took the time to
"format" our language so that the written word would be clearly
understood by all people. He, in essence, wrote a curriculum, the
reference book, the dictionary which is where we go for spelling rules
as well as sounds. He backed up his work with the renown "Blue Back
Speller." I don't care for this type of book really, but some parts of
it are redeemable, this particular book seems to be merely a "crash
course". In his day, those who were extremely literate understood why
words were formed the way that they were, including the Latin and Greek
roots. It was taught in some early educational institutions with zeal.
Unlike today, where spelling programs are wimpy and flat, no real
information at all to use for further guidance or to perk curiosity and
in fact create frustration.
Some phonograms have more that one sound, even the multiple letter ones
like "ch" which can be used as "ch" (hard sound) "k" and "sh". There is
a reason we pronounce "church" the way that we do, though I won't get
into it unless you want to. :o)<bg>
I think it's important for my children to know all the sounds of the
short "i" sound, and when to use a "y" and that there are only three
words in the English language that end in "u" impromptu, you and thou.
Knowing that helps them to spell better. The word "blue" can't be
spelled "b-l-u" because they now know that only those THREE words are
spelled with "u" so they must investigate one of the FIVE silent "e"
rules.
They have learned these rules over the space of just more than a year.
Only FIVE rules for "e" in a YEAR? Yes, we take if VERY easy and work as
we feel it's time to move on. They have learned that research and
referencing can produce great things for them when they want to expand
their abilities.
The world is full of illiterate people. People that WANT to learn to
read, but have to learn differently, maybe multisensorily? We are
virtually surrounded by the written word everywhere. If it were true
that "whole language" was successful then there should be NO illiteracy
at all, people would just pick up reading and spelling skills just by
walking down a very busy Market St. Remember, there are many different
learning types, not just visual. It has been reiterated over and again
that 80% of the population isn't visual, but AUDITORY.
And again, shows the failure of "whole language."
My husband didn't learn English until he was 12. He is Mexican, born in
South Texas. He is second generation born in America on his mother's
side, first on his father's side. He went to ps there. He really
struggles because when the dilapidated system that he was in decided to
teach him "whole language" instead of phonics and virtually NO grammar,
he became stumped as an adult. We have a CD Rom that he enjoys very much
and is excited about how much he has improved over a short couple of
months.
He struggled with spelling tremendously, but when we talk about new
words, I use my material to expose him to rules that now make sense, so
he gains knowledge and he is more comfortable with being able to write
and express himself the way he should. He has to do plenty of writing
being in the Navy!
In DC where our laws are made, legislation gets passed through that
effects ALL our lives due to the fact that the average American doesn't
understand the English language. When people don't understand what they
are reading, the average person avoids or ignores the material.
It's easier and "who has time anyway?" or "It's not my calling to know
it" and really what has happened is the skills were NEVER developed.
Does it matter that my children gain a systematic approach (one that
isn't overbearing or redundant)? I do think so. Just as I don't want my
children to think "Ebonics" is a language that will help them to succeed
in life, (maybe in a town that reads, writes and speaks Ebonics) but not
the rest of the world, I don't want them thinking that not having the
best written communication possible is essential for adult living.
Remember that I'm USing the "Ebonics" as merely an example of our school
system's caving in and not teaching the English language as it is, but a
crippling second rate form of expression, same applies to Tex-Mex that
my husband learned in ps. You will not see either of these language
expressions broadly based in our English speaking American culture,
causing those who learn these to be in essence, handicapped in
communication.
I just feel like having them read isn't enough. They must also write,
and spell and do those things very well.
These are MY convictions about the English language. I'm not trying to
offend anyone. Please excuse my passions as I think through the idea of
USing and language arts. Thank you for giving me a forum in which to
"think out loud." :o)
BLESSINGS
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:-Valerie Cifuentes
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*
I CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT FORWARDS, CHAIN LETTERS AND PETITIONS. THEY ARE
FILLING UP MY BOX AND TAKING UP MY TIME. THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING!
http://nolen.home.texas.net/valerie/Cifuentes.html
I'm A Navy Brat & Wife of HM2 Cifuentes; Active Duty Navy, & Mother of
Three Young Navy Brats!
*~*PLEASE HAVE PATIENCE AS I CHECK EMAIL ONCE IN THE MORNING & EVENING
AFTER 3:00PM AND NOT ON SUNDAY (THE LORD'S DAY.)*~*
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Paperback boogies JOYCE"S FEEDBACK
In a message dated 4/24/02 8:54:08 AM, homeschool@... writes:
<< Spelling is proven to NOT be natural >>
I'm guessing you read that on the cover of a spelling book!
from seeing a word and knowing if it's right or wrong. The
same way some people can EXACTLY match a tune, even to someone's fancy
vocal
ornamentation, without having a clue what that would look like written
down
in notation.
And some people (I married one) despite all the formal spelling advice
Houghton & Mifflin could provide in twelve years, could NOT get it.
My husband's spelling improved the further he got from school. It
improved
because he was writing REAL things, not doing spelling tests.
<<I would like to know what your thoughts are on this? Most of us
learned
from ps, and maybe didn't remember all the rules, but learned the basic
i before e except after c, type thing. >>
Weird.
(another of many exceptions to that "rule")
There is no method to cover all of English's many exceptions. English
has a
German grammatical base, with a TON of French words from 1000 years ago,
VERY
many from Latin (biology, law) and Greek (math, sciences), and although
learning spelling rules for all those things might help some people,
it's
more likely to really make the teacher feel good than to cover all bases
for
the students. And why do some English words have "k" in them, like
"ski" and
"skirt"? Norse. "Skirt" and "shirt" were the same word at one time,
and it
came back into English in another form, so we kept both, separate, with
separate meanings. What spelling rule will explain why English is so
weird?
It's not a simple, limited set of information.
I have more exposure to thinking about this than just what I've gathered
in
ten years of unschooling and watching unschoolers learn to spell,
either.
I've loved writing and words since I was nine, and I taught English for
a few
years, and have collected and read books about the history of English
for fun
for years. I helped my husband with his spelling the way he helped me
with
math--mostly NOT by any lessons, but by answering questions like "how do
you
spell committee?" by spelling it. By telling him a cool story every two
or
three months about a word or how I learned to spell "separate" (from a
college boyfriend who had grown up in India and learned English as a
teen in
Toronto and New Jersey, and whose rule was "There's a rat in
'separate'.")
Sandra
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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 4/24/02 12:45:19 PM, homeschool@... writes:
<< I'm sure as an adult he finds
resources to help him spell better and help him with grammar. >>
No. He just gets better from practicing and reading.
He has written formal opinions about things, letters, reports, announcements
and flyers, and I've proofread for him (and he for me), and he has never
"found a resource" to help him with anything in any school-looking way.
<<
With all do respect, many homeschoolers have turned from ps because of
"whole language" which diminishes the child's ability to sound out words
using phonics. >>
That would be "due respect."
Many homeschoolers have turned from public school for a LOT of reasons. That
doesn't make all the things they left to avoid wrong just because people used
that particular thing to blame when they left.
Phonics is just a tool. I learned by sight reading. We used to draw boxes
around the letters, following their shapes. Then I switched states and
schools and did phonics. I could already read at that point, and so spent
two years doing phonics exercises just because that's what we had to do to
"get a good grade in reading."
Whether a school uses look-say or phonics, each individual child learns to
read, somehow, in his own way, either with the assistance of or in spite of
the intervention of, the school's "method."
<<
The American alphabet is phonetical. There are certain sounds and rules
that go together.>>
You're preaching to a choir which has moved on beyond what you're saying, for
the most part.
<<Look at the work of Noah Webster! >>
Lots of the people here are former teachers, or current teachers, and some
are researchers, some are counselors who have studied development, etc.
We've looked at lots and tons of studies and theories.
And through all that, there is much practical belief and experience pointing
toward unschooling as a rich, viable plan of action.
<<Unlike today, where spelling programs are wimpy and flat, no real
information at all to use for further guidance or to perk curiosity and
in fact create frustration.>>
While unschooling, there is no need to use ANY spelling program.
<<There is a reason we pronounce "church" the way that we do, though I won't
get
into it unless you want to. :o)<bg>>>
There are lots of complex historical reasons that the same word became "kirk"
in Scotland. But the fact remains that kids learn to pronounce things in
their native dialect (and other dialects later, in many cases) and then to
spell in standard ways by various means.
<<I think it's important for my children to know all the sounds of the
short "i" sound, and when to use a "y" and that there are only three
words in the English language that end in "u" impromptu, you and thou.>>
Nobody needs to know those particular items in order to know how to read or
spell. If it's fascinating to you, that's great and I'm sure your kids will
pick up on your enthusiasm. But if you're telling yourself or your children
that that is the ONLY way they could have learned, that those things were
necessary, or that without you and your noble sacrifice to teach them they
could never have learned to read, you'll be setting you and them up to think
that now you'll have to find the perfect method for other subjects.
And if they meet my kids and see that they can spell no better and read no
faster than kids who learned by wilder, more everyday means, then what?
<<If it were true
that "whole language" was successful then there should be NO illiteracy
at all, people would just pick up reading and spelling skills >>
If you can find a population with leisure and no history of forced education
at an age before they're ready to understand reading, then maybe you'll have
a control group for your theory.
<<In DC where our laws are made, legislation gets passed through that
effects ALL our lives due to the fact that the average American doesn't
understand the English language.>>
I don't get the point. "Affects," not "effect," but I still don't understand
if you're saying that because not all Americans can read contract law or
legalese.... You lost me.
<<
Does it matter that my children gain a systematic approach (one that
isn't overbearing or redundant)? I do think so. Just as I don't want my
children to think "Ebonics" is a language that will help them to succeed
in life, (maybe in a town that reads, writes and speaks Ebonics) but not
th
Does it matter that my children gain a systematic approach (one that
isn't overbearing or redundant)? I do think so. Just as I don't want my
children to think "Ebonics" is a language that will help them to succeed
in life, (maybe in a town that reads, writes and speaks Ebonics) but not
the rest of the world, I don't want them thinking that not having the
best written communication possible is essential for adult living.e rest of
the world, I don't want them thinking that not having the
best written communication possible is essential for adult living.>>
This doesn't have anything to do with unschooling, does it?
<<a
crippling second rate form of expression, same applies to Tex-Mex that
my husband learned in ps>>
"Spanglish," it is in Northern New Mexico. People who use mixed phrases KNOW
it's just for speaking and not for writing.
<<
I just feel like having them read isn't enough. They must also write,
and spell and do those things very well. >>
If you feel you must HAVE them read, write and spell, then they are doing
what you decide to do, on your terms, to your standards.
I hope for your sake and theirs you'll lighten up before they're not having
any fun at all. That's just my conviction about how people learn in peace
and joy.
Sandra
<< I'm sure as an adult he finds
resources to help him spell better and help him with grammar. >>
No. He just gets better from practicing and reading.
He has written formal opinions about things, letters, reports, announcements
and flyers, and I've proofread for him (and he for me), and he has never
"found a resource" to help him with anything in any school-looking way.
<<
With all do respect, many homeschoolers have turned from ps because of
"whole language" which diminishes the child's ability to sound out words
using phonics. >>
That would be "due respect."
Many homeschoolers have turned from public school for a LOT of reasons. That
doesn't make all the things they left to avoid wrong just because people used
that particular thing to blame when they left.
Phonics is just a tool. I learned by sight reading. We used to draw boxes
around the letters, following their shapes. Then I switched states and
schools and did phonics. I could already read at that point, and so spent
two years doing phonics exercises just because that's what we had to do to
"get a good grade in reading."
Whether a school uses look-say or phonics, each individual child learns to
read, somehow, in his own way, either with the assistance of or in spite of
the intervention of, the school's "method."
<<
The American alphabet is phonetical. There are certain sounds and rules
that go together.>>
You're preaching to a choir which has moved on beyond what you're saying, for
the most part.
<<Look at the work of Noah Webster! >>
Lots of the people here are former teachers, or current teachers, and some
are researchers, some are counselors who have studied development, etc.
We've looked at lots and tons of studies and theories.
And through all that, there is much practical belief and experience pointing
toward unschooling as a rich, viable plan of action.
<<Unlike today, where spelling programs are wimpy and flat, no real
information at all to use for further guidance or to perk curiosity and
in fact create frustration.>>
While unschooling, there is no need to use ANY spelling program.
<<There is a reason we pronounce "church" the way that we do, though I won't
get
into it unless you want to. :o)<bg>>>
There are lots of complex historical reasons that the same word became "kirk"
in Scotland. But the fact remains that kids learn to pronounce things in
their native dialect (and other dialects later, in many cases) and then to
spell in standard ways by various means.
<<I think it's important for my children to know all the sounds of the
short "i" sound, and when to use a "y" and that there are only three
words in the English language that end in "u" impromptu, you and thou.>>
Nobody needs to know those particular items in order to know how to read or
spell. If it's fascinating to you, that's great and I'm sure your kids will
pick up on your enthusiasm. But if you're telling yourself or your children
that that is the ONLY way they could have learned, that those things were
necessary, or that without you and your noble sacrifice to teach them they
could never have learned to read, you'll be setting you and them up to think
that now you'll have to find the perfect method for other subjects.
And if they meet my kids and see that they can spell no better and read no
faster than kids who learned by wilder, more everyday means, then what?
<<If it were true
that "whole language" was successful then there should be NO illiteracy
at all, people would just pick up reading and spelling skills >>
If you can find a population with leisure and no history of forced education
at an age before they're ready to understand reading, then maybe you'll have
a control group for your theory.
<<In DC where our laws are made, legislation gets passed through that
effects ALL our lives due to the fact that the average American doesn't
understand the English language.>>
I don't get the point. "Affects," not "effect," but I still don't understand
if you're saying that because not all Americans can read contract law or
legalese.... You lost me.
<<
Does it matter that my children gain a systematic approach (one that
isn't overbearing or redundant)? I do think so. Just as I don't want my
children to think "Ebonics" is a language that will help them to succeed
in life, (maybe in a town that reads, writes and speaks Ebonics) but not
th
Does it matter that my children gain a systematic approach (one that
isn't overbearing or redundant)? I do think so. Just as I don't want my
children to think "Ebonics" is a language that will help them to succeed
in life, (maybe in a town that reads, writes and speaks Ebonics) but not
the rest of the world, I don't want them thinking that not having the
best written communication possible is essential for adult living.e rest of
the world, I don't want them thinking that not having the
best written communication possible is essential for adult living.>>
This doesn't have anything to do with unschooling, does it?
<<a
crippling second rate form of expression, same applies to Tex-Mex that
my husband learned in ps>>
"Spanglish," it is in Northern New Mexico. People who use mixed phrases KNOW
it's just for speaking and not for writing.
<<
I just feel like having them read isn't enough. They must also write,
and spell and do those things very well. >>
If you feel you must HAVE them read, write and spell, then they are doing
what you decide to do, on your terms, to your standards.
I hope for your sake and theirs you'll lighten up before they're not having
any fun at all. That's just my conviction about how people learn in peace
and joy.
Sandra
[email protected]
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:43:11 -0400 "Valerie Cifuentes"
<homeschool@...> writes:
Or the wooly undercoat of a musk ox, used in making fabrics, the qiviut.
There are a few more, like Qatar, which is the only one I'd personally
run into before checking the dictionary... but the world "always" when
applied to spelling is often wrong... and I only checked the words
beginning with a q.
My daughter learned to read mainly through sight reading, as far as I can
discern. When she first started reading, words she didn't recognize were
sort of acknowledged and skipped through - she knew that Tia Dolores was
Josefina's aunt, but when she wanted to tell me about her she called her
"tilldoris", and wasn't really concerned about how close or far that was
from the actual word.
I noticed that the more she read, the more she could pronounce things
correctly. I think she intuited the generalities of phonetic
pronounciation through being exposed to them - if you notice that every
word beginning with the letter "t" starts with the sound /t/, you can
begin to expect that to be true. Occasionally I've pointed out a phonetic
generality when she's asked about spelling, I remember telling her at one
point that the /ng/ sound was almost always spelled "ing"... but most of
those she's just figured out for herself.
It isn't foolproof - the other day she was telling me how she loved the
name she pronounced "Jack-wee-ess" for a boy, and as we talked it
eventually became clear that she had read the name "Jacques" and
mispronounced it... although he way would make perfect sense if it wasn't
a French word. So we talked some about French words and French phonetics.
I also remember that she knew how to spell Jacques from reading it...
And, sort of off the subject, but you seem to have a pretty skewed
understanding of the Whole Language theory. Whole Language certainly
includes seeing words, reading them, playing with them...when done
correctly, it even includes some basic phonics, although the phonics
knowledge usually comes after the word itself has meaning. Words are seen
more holistically, not as phonemes stuck together but as individual units
of meaning.
And no schools teach "Ebonics", at least none of which I'm aware. I
believe there's still a difference of opinion over whether it's a dialect
or a language. However, it is in no way inferior to what you or I speak.
I can't speak "Ebonics" (African-American Vernacular English is the
preferred term, or AAVE). Linguistic systems are not inferior or
superior, they just *are*. AAVE has its own unique grammar and
pronouciation rules, different than ours but just as definite and
complete, maybe more so. For example, standard english has no grammatical
way to differentiate actions done habitually with those done once, except
of course by adding "habitually" or some other awkward construction. In
AAVE, the word "be" denotes a habitual activity, so saying "She be
reading books" means "She habitually reads books", whereas "She reading
books" means "She's reading books right now". I wish I could speak AAVE,
although I'd probably look pretty dumb doing it as a white girl... kinda
like the old woman in the movie "Airplane" who spoke jive...;-)
I heard John McWhorter talking about this on NPR one day. I've read a
couple of his books, too, and they're fascinating...
And yes, it's nice to be fluent in standard english, especially when
you're applying for jobs and stuff, but I'm not worried about it, I know
it'll happen... but then, I worry very little anyway. ;-)
Dar
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<homeschool@...> writes:
> The American alphabet is phonetical. There are certain sounds andUnless you are talking about a monetary unit used in Albania, the qintar.
> rules that go together. Every "symbol" has a sound and a rule: like the
> "q" will always be accompanied by the "u",
Or the wooly undercoat of a musk ox, used in making fabrics, the qiviut.
There are a few more, like Qatar, which is the only one I'd personally
run into before checking the dictionary... but the world "always" when
applied to spelling is often wrong... and I only checked the words
beginning with a q.
My daughter learned to read mainly through sight reading, as far as I can
discern. When she first started reading, words she didn't recognize were
sort of acknowledged and skipped through - she knew that Tia Dolores was
Josefina's aunt, but when she wanted to tell me about her she called her
"tilldoris", and wasn't really concerned about how close or far that was
from the actual word.
I noticed that the more she read, the more she could pronounce things
correctly. I think she intuited the generalities of phonetic
pronounciation through being exposed to them - if you notice that every
word beginning with the letter "t" starts with the sound /t/, you can
begin to expect that to be true. Occasionally I've pointed out a phonetic
generality when she's asked about spelling, I remember telling her at one
point that the /ng/ sound was almost always spelled "ing"... but most of
those she's just figured out for herself.
It isn't foolproof - the other day she was telling me how she loved the
name she pronounced "Jack-wee-ess" for a boy, and as we talked it
eventually became clear that she had read the name "Jacques" and
mispronounced it... although he way would make perfect sense if it wasn't
a French word. So we talked some about French words and French phonetics.
I also remember that she knew how to spell Jacques from reading it...
And, sort of off the subject, but you seem to have a pretty skewed
understanding of the Whole Language theory. Whole Language certainly
includes seeing words, reading them, playing with them...when done
correctly, it even includes some basic phonics, although the phonics
knowledge usually comes after the word itself has meaning. Words are seen
more holistically, not as phonemes stuck together but as individual units
of meaning.
And no schools teach "Ebonics", at least none of which I'm aware. I
believe there's still a difference of opinion over whether it's a dialect
or a language. However, it is in no way inferior to what you or I speak.
I can't speak "Ebonics" (African-American Vernacular English is the
preferred term, or AAVE). Linguistic systems are not inferior or
superior, they just *are*. AAVE has its own unique grammar and
pronouciation rules, different than ours but just as definite and
complete, maybe more so. For example, standard english has no grammatical
way to differentiate actions done habitually with those done once, except
of course by adding "habitually" or some other awkward construction. In
AAVE, the word "be" denotes a habitual activity, so saying "She be
reading books" means "She habitually reads books", whereas "She reading
books" means "She's reading books right now". I wish I could speak AAVE,
although I'd probably look pretty dumb doing it as a white girl... kinda
like the old woman in the movie "Airplane" who spoke jive...;-)
I heard John McWhorter talking about this on NPR one day. I've read a
couple of his books, too, and they're fascinating...
And yes, it's nice to be fluent in standard english, especially when
you're applying for jobs and stuff, but I'm not worried about it, I know
it'll happen... but then, I worry very little anyway. ;-)
Dar
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Valerie Cifuentes
No time to "proofread" sorry.
announcements
and flyers, and I've proofread for him (and he for me), and he has never
"found a resource" to help him with anything in any school-looking way
In essence YOU were the resource by proofreading, and I'm sure
correcting things that may have needed it taught him. The reading of the
books is, in essence a resource, familiarizing oneself with the words
that are spelled consistently.
But what if he learned rules for spelling? Then you would no longer
needed to proofread for correctional purposes. Writing formal letters
require certain formats. Different letters need different formats.
I'm sure he had to learn what format was appropriate for what he was
writing. Not just anything would do. Did he learn by "trial and error"
or did you "teach it " to him? Or did he turn to a resource to find the
correct format? It couldn't have come naturally, letter writing and
documenting is way to complex, yet in some ways, standard.
doesn't make all the things they left to avoid wrong just because people
used
that particular thing to blame when they left.
I was writing only of "whole language" nothing else. It stands to reason
that there are many reasons to leave, crime is a huge motivator!
Phonics is just a tool. I learned by sight reading. We used to draw
boxes
around the letters, following their shapes. Then I switched states and
schools and did phonics. I could already read at that point, and so
spent
two years doing phonics exercises just because that's what we had to do
to
"get a good grade in reading."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,,
I like to think that Phonics is more for "spelling" purpose than
reading. Many children read wonderfully, but spelling is a different
matter entirely. Spelling is much more difficult to learn and I believe
more time consuming.
Whether a school uses look-say or phonics, each individual child learns
to
read, somehow, in his own way, either with the assistance of or in spite
of
the intervention of, the school's "method " <<<<<<<<
Spelling is a different matter, also, words that were unusual and had
many syllables were very hard to read correctly. Like my last name,
Cifuentes VERY FEW adults can read my last name correctly and usually
add a "qu" sound where the "f" is. But when I break down my name into
syllables (not a whole language thing to do), they get it fine! :O)
You're preaching to a choir which has moved on beyond what you're
saying, for
the most part. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
And I'm still thinking anyway.
<<Look at the work of Noah Webster! >>
Lots of the people here are former teachers, or current teachers, and
some
are researchers, some are counselors who have studied development, etc.
We've looked at lots and tons of studies and theories.<<<<<<<<<
I understood that to be so before I posted. :O)Thanks for the reminder.
But I was discussing Webster's work and how it helps us even today when
it comes to language arts. His work is FACT, not theory. It's a fact
that our spelling today is standard, where before, it was not.
And through all that, there is much practical belief and experience
pointing
toward unschooling as a rich, viable plan of action.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
But the whole point of my writing this is about SPELLLING. I still
haven't heard more on SPELLING that makes sense. Remember, there seems
to be an agreement here that folks that need a bit of walking through
and clicking with the idea slowly get that chance. Can't my questions be
simply answered as to a method when it comes to SPELLING?
While unschooling, there is no need to use ANY spelling program.
<<<<<<<<
Back to my original question, then how do they learn SPELLING RULES that
will help them SPELL?
There are lots of complex historical reasons that the same word became
"kirk"
in Scotland. But the fact remains that kids learn to pronounce things
in
their native dialect (and other dialects later, in many cases) and then
to
spell in standard ways by various means. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
My concern is with the ENGLISH language. What they will use to
communicate with in written form as adults which is STANDARD.
Nobody needs to know those particular items in order to know how to read
or
spell. If it's fascinating to you, that's great and I'm sure your kids
will
pick up on your enthusiasm. But if you're telling yourself or your
children
that that is the ONLY way they could have learned, that those things
were
necessary, or that without you and your noble sacrifice to teach them
they
could never have learned to read, you'll be setting you and them up to
think
that now you'll have to find the perfect method for other subjects.
<<<<<<<<<<<
Well, I wouldn't call it a "noble sacrifice" but I am glad that I do
keep them with me because we are a family. I was just saying in the
above, wouldn't it be neat to just "know" those things to make it
easier. Didn't you ever look at something and say "Oh! Now I get it, I
wish I'd known that a while ago!" Same thing...
And if they meet my kids and see that they can spell no better and read
no
faster than kids who learned by wilder, more everyday means, then what?
<<<<
No different than me meeting adult who learned any given subject
different than me. I'm inspired by them. :O)
Not that I know all that much either. But I'm merely exploring spelling
rules and their validity.
And I'm not comparing our children here, or anywhere. I don't care to
worry about comparisons, but what tools are beneficial for MY kids and
does anyone else feel the way I do.
If you can find a population with leisure and no history of forced
education
at an age before they're ready to understand reading, then maybe you'll
have
a control group for your theory.
I don't think that it's "my theory"
I don't get the point. "Affects," not "effect," but I still don't
understand
if you're saying that because not all Americans can read contract law or
legalese.... You lost me. <<<<<<<<<
I have a thought that those who do not read well or spell well have a
disadvantage. Only, that's how I feel right now. Maybe that might
change? I'm just exploring the idea right now.
"Spanglish," it is in Northern New Mexico. People who use mixed phrases
KNOW
it's just for speaking and not for writing. <<<<<<<<
Well, typically, where we are from, 45 mins from the border, it's
Tex-Mex on the American side.<<<<<<
Mexicans over the border just say "Spanish" as does the Mexicans in the
area of Texas I'm from. I'm not so sure about the entire state of Texas.
But either way, it's NOTHING like the Spanish that is spoken in
California, or Spain or Cuba or any other country. Dialects are rampant,
even with the same region. It's confusing to a "Gringa" (slang for white
person, where I'm from, but might be an insult to someone in another
region?) like me to learn, especially in NC! Where I may learn the
Spanish presented to me by the local of this area, but then again, when
I go home. They don't understand me and I'm still unfamiliar with what
some of their words are. (I really should remember more, but for some
reason, I just didn't get interested as a youngster.)
<<
I just feel like having them read isn't enough. They must also write,
and spell and do those things very well. >>
If you feel you must HAVE them read, write and spell, then they are
doing
what you decide to do, on your terms, to your standards.
I hope for your sake and theirs you'll lighten up before they're not
having
any fun at all. <<<<<<<<<<
I do not approach them the way I approach the list at all! I'm sure that
what I'm saying may be "wordy" or whatever one would dub it. My children
love to learn English, and SPANISH!
We just have to learn what is available and my husband's input is a help
too.
Please don't assume that those who get excited about learning methods
are burning out their children, I believe that I can have some really
good ideas and they help us come up with some good ones too. I haven't
been the "heavy" since we started looking closely at the English
language, and my children find it fascinating too. Why is it considered
"not fun" to learn about SPELLING?
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
>>>>>>>>>No. He just gets better from practicing and reading.He has written formal opinions about things, letters, reports,
announcements
and flyers, and I've proofread for him (and he for me), and he has never
"found a resource" to help him with anything in any school-looking way
In essence YOU were the resource by proofreading, and I'm sure
correcting things that may have needed it taught him. The reading of the
books is, in essence a resource, familiarizing oneself with the words
that are spelled consistently.
But what if he learned rules for spelling? Then you would no longer
needed to proofread for correctional purposes. Writing formal letters
require certain formats. Different letters need different formats.
I'm sure he had to learn what format was appropriate for what he was
writing. Not just anything would do. Did he learn by "trial and error"
or did you "teach it " to him? Or did he turn to a resource to find the
correct format? It couldn't have come naturally, letter writing and
documenting is way to complex, yet in some ways, standard.
>>>>>>>That would be "due respect.Thank you for the proof read! LOL!
>>>>>>>>Many homeschoolers have turned from public school for a LOT ofreasons. That
doesn't make all the things they left to avoid wrong just because people
used
that particular thing to blame when they left.
I was writing only of "whole language" nothing else. It stands to reason
that there are many reasons to leave, crime is a huge motivator!
Phonics is just a tool. I learned by sight reading. We used to draw
boxes
around the letters, following their shapes. Then I switched states and
schools and did phonics. I could already read at that point, and so
spent
two years doing phonics exercises just because that's what we had to do
to
"get a good grade in reading."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,,
I like to think that Phonics is more for "spelling" purpose than
reading. Many children read wonderfully, but spelling is a different
matter entirely. Spelling is much more difficult to learn and I believe
more time consuming.
Whether a school uses look-say or phonics, each individual child learns
to
read, somehow, in his own way, either with the assistance of or in spite
of
the intervention of, the school's "method " <<<<<<<<
Spelling is a different matter, also, words that were unusual and had
many syllables were very hard to read correctly. Like my last name,
Cifuentes VERY FEW adults can read my last name correctly and usually
add a "qu" sound where the "f" is. But when I break down my name into
syllables (not a whole language thing to do), they get it fine! :O)
You're preaching to a choir which has moved on beyond what you're
saying, for
the most part. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
And I'm still thinking anyway.
<<Look at the work of Noah Webster! >>
Lots of the people here are former teachers, or current teachers, and
some
are researchers, some are counselors who have studied development, etc.
We've looked at lots and tons of studies and theories.<<<<<<<<<
I understood that to be so before I posted. :O)Thanks for the reminder.
But I was discussing Webster's work and how it helps us even today when
it comes to language arts. His work is FACT, not theory. It's a fact
that our spelling today is standard, where before, it was not.
And through all that, there is much practical belief and experience
pointing
toward unschooling as a rich, viable plan of action.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
But the whole point of my writing this is about SPELLLING. I still
haven't heard more on SPELLING that makes sense. Remember, there seems
to be an agreement here that folks that need a bit of walking through
and clicking with the idea slowly get that chance. Can't my questions be
simply answered as to a method when it comes to SPELLING?
While unschooling, there is no need to use ANY spelling program.
<<<<<<<<
Back to my original question, then how do they learn SPELLING RULES that
will help them SPELL?
There are lots of complex historical reasons that the same word became
"kirk"
in Scotland. But the fact remains that kids learn to pronounce things
in
their native dialect (and other dialects later, in many cases) and then
to
spell in standard ways by various means. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
My concern is with the ENGLISH language. What they will use to
communicate with in written form as adults which is STANDARD.
Nobody needs to know those particular items in order to know how to read
or
spell. If it's fascinating to you, that's great and I'm sure your kids
will
pick up on your enthusiasm. But if you're telling yourself or your
children
that that is the ONLY way they could have learned, that those things
were
necessary, or that without you and your noble sacrifice to teach them
they
could never have learned to read, you'll be setting you and them up to
think
that now you'll have to find the perfect method for other subjects.
<<<<<<<<<<<
Well, I wouldn't call it a "noble sacrifice" but I am glad that I do
keep them with me because we are a family. I was just saying in the
above, wouldn't it be neat to just "know" those things to make it
easier. Didn't you ever look at something and say "Oh! Now I get it, I
wish I'd known that a while ago!" Same thing...
And if they meet my kids and see that they can spell no better and read
no
faster than kids who learned by wilder, more everyday means, then what?
<<<<
No different than me meeting adult who learned any given subject
different than me. I'm inspired by them. :O)
Not that I know all that much either. But I'm merely exploring spelling
rules and their validity.
And I'm not comparing our children here, or anywhere. I don't care to
worry about comparisons, but what tools are beneficial for MY kids and
does anyone else feel the way I do.
If you can find a population with leisure and no history of forced
education
at an age before they're ready to understand reading, then maybe you'll
have
a control group for your theory.
I don't think that it's "my theory"
I don't get the point. "Affects," not "effect," but I still don't
understand
if you're saying that because not all Americans can read contract law or
legalese.... You lost me. <<<<<<<<<
I have a thought that those who do not read well or spell well have a
disadvantage. Only, that's how I feel right now. Maybe that might
change? I'm just exploring the idea right now.
"Spanglish," it is in Northern New Mexico. People who use mixed phrases
KNOW
it's just for speaking and not for writing. <<<<<<<<
Well, typically, where we are from, 45 mins from the border, it's
Tex-Mex on the American side.<<<<<<
Mexicans over the border just say "Spanish" as does the Mexicans in the
area of Texas I'm from. I'm not so sure about the entire state of Texas.
But either way, it's NOTHING like the Spanish that is spoken in
California, or Spain or Cuba or any other country. Dialects are rampant,
even with the same region. It's confusing to a "Gringa" (slang for white
person, where I'm from, but might be an insult to someone in another
region?) like me to learn, especially in NC! Where I may learn the
Spanish presented to me by the local of this area, but then again, when
I go home. They don't understand me and I'm still unfamiliar with what
some of their words are. (I really should remember more, but for some
reason, I just didn't get interested as a youngster.)
<<
I just feel like having them read isn't enough. They must also write,
and spell and do those things very well. >>
If you feel you must HAVE them read, write and spell, then they are
doing
what you decide to do, on your terms, to your standards.
I hope for your sake and theirs you'll lighten up before they're not
having
any fun at all. <<<<<<<<<<
I do not approach them the way I approach the list at all! I'm sure that
what I'm saying may be "wordy" or whatever one would dub it. My children
love to learn English, and SPANISH!
We just have to learn what is available and my husband's input is a help
too.
Please don't assume that those who get excited about learning methods
are burning out their children, I believe that I can have some really
good ideas and they help us come up with some good ones too. I haven't
been the "heavy" since we started looking closely at the English
language, and my children find it fascinating too. Why is it considered
"not fun" to learn about SPELLING?
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
Tia Leschke
>I'm the same way because I'm quite visual. Reading lots doesn't seem to
>I, for one, am a very good speller and I believe that has come from being a
>voracious reader my whole life and constantly *seeing* the words in the
>context of
>whole language, *not* from taking a zillion spelling tests and learning
>"spelling
>rules" in school.
>If I'm unsure of how to spell a certain word, I'll sometimes write it down two
>different ways and go with the spelling that looks right and familiar to
>me, and I'm
>usually right.
work as well for someone who is more aural or kinesthetic. My sister and
my step-daughter both read voraciously, and both spell really badly.
I haven't figured out what might help someone like that to spell better,
other than just telling them how to spell words or offering to proof-read
for them. They don't *see* that it's wrong, the way we do, so they have a
really hard time proof-reading.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Tia Leschke
>I wonder if you hate the whole language approach because of the way it's
>I was reading this and I wondered something too, what about spelling? I
>liked my children to learn spelling rules. Spelling is proven to NOT be
>natural and I really detest the "whole language" approach to spelling.
been implemented in the schools. Originally the idea was to immerse the
kids in good literature and give them chances to begin writing down their
ideas before they had learned all the mechanics of writing (and before they
had learned to hate writing *because* of the mechanics). Along the way,
they were supposed to get some instruction in phonics related to what they
were trying to read or write, much the way an unschooling parent would
point out the appropriate spelling rule when it came up. Then a lot of
school districts outlawed the phonics component, turning the approach into
the look-say method, which helps some kids but not others.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Tia Leschke
>And this attitude is where I did the most damage to my son. It's
>I think reading isn't the only good thing. And the worship of reading over
>other forms of learning can be a very, very bad thing for a child who is
>bright but doesn't read well, or doesn't enjoy reading.
understandable, since I'm a book-a-holic, but I expected my son to learn by
reading, as I do. It made it hard to see the learning he *was* doing. (It
took the debates on this list to get me to finally see it.)
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Valerie Cifuentes
Unless you are talking about a monetary unit used in Albania, the
qintar.
Or the wooly undercoat of a musk ox, used in making fabrics, the qiviut.
There are a few more, like Qatar, which is the only one I'd personally
run into before checking the dictionary... but the world "always" when
applied to spelling is often wrong... and I only checked the words
beginning with a q.<<<<<<
These are not English words. I'm specifically talking about learning the
English language.
I can give a "guess-ta-mation" how to pronounce many of the words you
have mentioned though, because of phonics.
some inner city kids, much the same way schools get funding for teaching
Spanish, French or German. This was about a year ago. Even in Texas, I'm
appalled when Spanish children are taught only in Spanish and not
English. They still do that today in satellite programs. The thinking is
to not interfere with the child's native tongue. It's sad. There is so
much out there for them to learn. My mother in law lives like a
prisoner. She won't speak English. She has her reasons for it, but then
again, she can't begin to understand her bank or her doctor!
Oohy!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:-Valerie Cifuentes
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*
I CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT FORWARDS, CHAIN LETTERS AND PETITIONS. THEY ARE
FILLING UP MY BOX AND TAKING UP MY TIME. THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING!
http://nolen.home.texas.net/valerie/Cifuentes.html
I'm A Navy Brat & Wife of HM2 Cifuentes; Active Duty Navy, & Mother of
Three Young Navy Brats!
*~*PLEASE HAVE PATIENCE AS I CHECK EMAIL ONCE IN THE MORNING & EVENING
AFTER 3:00PM AND NOT ON SUNDAY (THE LORD'S DAY.)*~*
-----Original Message-----
From: freeform@... [mailto:freeform@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] IS A SPELLING PROGRAM IMPORTANT TO
SOME? THIS IS LONG BUT I HOPE INTERESTING
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:43:11 -0400 "Valerie Cifuentes"
<homeschool@...> writes:
qintar.
Or the wooly undercoat of a musk ox, used in making fabrics, the qiviut.
There are a few more, like Qatar, which is the only one I'd personally
run into before checking the dictionary... but the world "always" when
applied to spelling is often wrong... and I only checked the words
beginning with a q.
My daughter learned to read mainly through sight reading, as far as I
can
discern. When she first started reading, words she didn't recognize were
sort of acknowledged and skipped through - she knew that Tia Dolores was
Josefina's aunt, but when she wanted to tell me about her she called her
"tilldoris", and wasn't really concerned about how close or far that was
from the actual word.
I noticed that the more she read, the more she could pronounce things
correctly. I think she intuited the generalities of phonetic
pronounciation through being exposed to them - if you notice that every
word beginning with the letter "t" starts with the sound /t/, you can
begin to expect that to be true. Occasionally I've pointed out a
phonetic
generality when she's asked about spelling, I remember telling her at
one
point that the /ng/ sound was almost always spelled "ing"... but most of
those she's just figured out for herself.
It isn't foolproof - the other day she was telling me how she loved the
name she pronounced "Jack-wee-ess" for a boy, and as we talked it
eventually became clear that she had read the name "Jacques" and
mispronounced it... although he way would make perfect sense if it
wasn't
a French word. So we talked some about French words and French
phonetics.
I also remember that she knew how to spell Jacques from reading it...
And, sort of off the subject, but you seem to have a pretty skewed
understanding of the Whole Language theory. Whole Language certainly
includes seeing words, reading them, playing with them...when done
correctly, it even includes some basic phonics, although the phonics
knowledge usually comes after the word itself has meaning. Words are
seen
more holistically, not as phonemes stuck together but as individual
units
of meaning.
And no schools teach "Ebonics", at least none of which I'm aware. I
believe there's still a difference of opinion over whether it's a
dialect
or a language. However, it is in no way inferior to what you or I speak.
I can't speak "Ebonics" (African-American Vernacular English is the
preferred term, or AAVE). Linguistic systems are not inferior or
superior, they just *are*. AAVE has its own unique grammar and
pronouciation rules, different than ours but just as definite and
complete, maybe more so. For example, standard english has no
grammatical
way to differentiate actions done habitually with those done once,
except
of course by adding "habitually" or some other awkward construction. In
AAVE, the word "be" denotes a habitual activity, so saying "She be
reading books" means "She habitually reads books", whereas "She reading
books" means "She's reading books right now". I wish I could speak
AAVE,
although I'd probably look pretty dumb doing it as a white girl... kinda
like the old woman in the movie "Airplane" who spoke jive...;-)
I heard John McWhorter talking about this on NPR one day. I've read a
couple of his books, too, and they're fascinating...
And yes, it's nice to be fluent in standard english, especially when
you're applying for jobs and stuff, but I'm not worried about it, I know
it'll happen... but then, I worry very little anyway. ;-)
Dar
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
qintar.
Or the wooly undercoat of a musk ox, used in making fabrics, the qiviut.
There are a few more, like Qatar, which is the only one I'd personally
run into before checking the dictionary... but the world "always" when
applied to spelling is often wrong... and I only checked the words
beginning with a q.<<<<<<
These are not English words. I'm specifically talking about learning the
English language.
I can give a "guess-ta-mation" how to pronounce many of the words you
have mentioned though, because of phonics.
>>>And no schools teach "Ebonics", at least none of which I'm aware.<<<<Yes, we watched a documentary on TLC that showed Ebonics being taught to
some inner city kids, much the same way schools get funding for teaching
Spanish, French or German. This was about a year ago. Even in Texas, I'm
appalled when Spanish children are taught only in Spanish and not
English. They still do that today in satellite programs. The thinking is
to not interfere with the child's native tongue. It's sad. There is so
much out there for them to learn. My mother in law lives like a
prisoner. She won't speak English. She has her reasons for it, but then
again, she can't begin to understand her bank or her doctor!
Oohy!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ .·´ -:¦:-Valerie Cifuentes
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*
I CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT FORWARDS, CHAIN LETTERS AND PETITIONS. THEY ARE
FILLING UP MY BOX AND TAKING UP MY TIME. THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING!
http://nolen.home.texas.net/valerie/Cifuentes.html
I'm A Navy Brat & Wife of HM2 Cifuentes; Active Duty Navy, & Mother of
Three Young Navy Brats!
*~*PLEASE HAVE PATIENCE AS I CHECK EMAIL ONCE IN THE MORNING & EVENING
AFTER 3:00PM AND NOT ON SUNDAY (THE LORD'S DAY.)*~*
-----Original Message-----
From: freeform@... [mailto:freeform@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] IS A SPELLING PROGRAM IMPORTANT TO
SOME? THIS IS LONG BUT I HOPE INTERESTING
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:43:11 -0400 "Valerie Cifuentes"
<homeschool@...> writes:
> The American alphabet is phonetical. There are certain sounds andthe
> rules that go together. Every "symbol" has a sound and a rule: like
> "q" will always be accompanied by the "u",Unless you are talking about a monetary unit used in Albania, the
qintar.
Or the wooly undercoat of a musk ox, used in making fabrics, the qiviut.
There are a few more, like Qatar, which is the only one I'd personally
run into before checking the dictionary... but the world "always" when
applied to spelling is often wrong... and I only checked the words
beginning with a q.
My daughter learned to read mainly through sight reading, as far as I
can
discern. When she first started reading, words she didn't recognize were
sort of acknowledged and skipped through - she knew that Tia Dolores was
Josefina's aunt, but when she wanted to tell me about her she called her
"tilldoris", and wasn't really concerned about how close or far that was
from the actual word.
I noticed that the more she read, the more she could pronounce things
correctly. I think she intuited the generalities of phonetic
pronounciation through being exposed to them - if you notice that every
word beginning with the letter "t" starts with the sound /t/, you can
begin to expect that to be true. Occasionally I've pointed out a
phonetic
generality when she's asked about spelling, I remember telling her at
one
point that the /ng/ sound was almost always spelled "ing"... but most of
those she's just figured out for herself.
It isn't foolproof - the other day she was telling me how she loved the
name she pronounced "Jack-wee-ess" for a boy, and as we talked it
eventually became clear that she had read the name "Jacques" and
mispronounced it... although he way would make perfect sense if it
wasn't
a French word. So we talked some about French words and French
phonetics.
I also remember that she knew how to spell Jacques from reading it...
And, sort of off the subject, but you seem to have a pretty skewed
understanding of the Whole Language theory. Whole Language certainly
includes seeing words, reading them, playing with them...when done
correctly, it even includes some basic phonics, although the phonics
knowledge usually comes after the word itself has meaning. Words are
seen
more holistically, not as phonemes stuck together but as individual
units
of meaning.
And no schools teach "Ebonics", at least none of which I'm aware. I
believe there's still a difference of opinion over whether it's a
dialect
or a language. However, it is in no way inferior to what you or I speak.
I can't speak "Ebonics" (African-American Vernacular English is the
preferred term, or AAVE). Linguistic systems are not inferior or
superior, they just *are*. AAVE has its own unique grammar and
pronouciation rules, different than ours but just as definite and
complete, maybe more so. For example, standard english has no
grammatical
way to differentiate actions done habitually with those done once,
except
of course by adding "habitually" or some other awkward construction. In
AAVE, the word "be" denotes a habitual activity, so saying "She be
reading books" means "She habitually reads books", whereas "She reading
books" means "She's reading books right now". I wish I could speak
AAVE,
although I'd probably look pretty dumb doing it as a white girl... kinda
like the old woman in the movie "Airplane" who spoke jive...;-)
I heard John McWhorter talking about this on NPR one day. I've read a
couple of his books, too, and they're fascinating...
And yes, it's nice to be fluent in standard english, especially when
you're applying for jobs and stuff, but I'm not worried about it, I know
it'll happen... but then, I worry very little anyway. ;-)
Dar
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
Valerie Cifuentes
on 4/24/02 10:51 AM, Valerie Cifuentes at homeschool@... wrote:
But why? Not an attacking question. Just ask yourself what you think
would
have happened if you didn't teach them spelling rules. <<<<<<
I saw what happened before we started learning rules, they questioned me
about why certain words needed correcting. It was a relief to be able to
systematically show them. We find it interesting around here. Believe
me, my kids would sound the gong if something wasn't interesting to them
and I've given up "forced learning."
What does "not natural" mean? Eating with a fork is not natural but kids
pick it up through modeling. We don't need fork lessons ;-)
[Valerie Cifuentes] Actually, my children did get fork lessons! Well, I
would just show them how to hold it. My son, until recently "scooped"
and held his elbow way out. His sister didn't appreciate the whacking!
So, I INSISTED that he hold his fork correctly to prevent the whacking.
He did. He wasn't one to really care.
Also, he didn't like sitting up at the table. He would stoop over. it's
comical really! But I insist that he sit up and straight with good
posture.
Communicating through speech may be natural, but English isn't. Wearing
clothes. Using a bathroom.
[Valerie Cifuentes]
I read the rest, but didn't respond. I like what you've written and
your pleasant
Thank you! I've gotta go!
Yes, English is not a particularly regular language. But kids learn to
speak
it without English lessons. Is learning to spell through and though and
thought any different than picking up how to conjugate "to be"? Kids may
stumble over conjugations when they become unconsciously aware of the
pattern (like reverting to "he runned") but do they need lessons to
learn
it?
except the syllables. (Though she has a vague concept of them from
writing
comic books and having to split lots of words to fit into the balloons
she
insists on drawing first ;-) Her spelling is still occasionally creative
at
10 but it's vastly improved to what she used at 9. She's never had a
spelling lesson and doesn't seem irritated at asking for spellings. To
her
spelling is a big messy interesting puzzle.
Which is just saying that lessons weren't necessary for it to come
about.
There are pros and cons to lessons and no lessons, but lessons are not
necessary. For me at least two of the pros are her realizing she's
puzzled
out the intricacies of the English language without being taught, the
freedom to do other things during what would have been lesson time. The
cons
are getting spelling later than some other kids. (But not all kids. Some
people never do learn to spell even with "expert" instruction.) Which is
only a problem if she is faced with some sort of comparison but that's
never
happened so it's no big deal.
Pam
does this really well and my daughter wants to do stuff so I'll let
someone
else handle this one. (Or I'll get back to it.)
It's just that I see a great deal more happening, not just with
spelling,
but everything, as my daughter writes for her own pleasure and discovers
spelling on her own. It's more than about acquiring spelling rules.
And I've really got to go. I'm really sorry this isn't as thorough as I
could be.
Joyce
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
But why? Not an attacking question. Just ask yourself what you think
would
have happened if you didn't teach them spelling rules. <<<<<<
I saw what happened before we started learning rules, they questioned me
about why certain words needed correcting. It was a relief to be able to
systematically show them. We find it interesting around here. Believe
me, my kids would sound the gong if something wasn't interesting to them
and I've given up "forced learning."
What does "not natural" mean? Eating with a fork is not natural but kids
pick it up through modeling. We don't need fork lessons ;-)
[Valerie Cifuentes] Actually, my children did get fork lessons! Well, I
would just show them how to hold it. My son, until recently "scooped"
and held his elbow way out. His sister didn't appreciate the whacking!
So, I INSISTED that he hold his fork correctly to prevent the whacking.
He did. He wasn't one to really care.
Also, he didn't like sitting up at the table. He would stoop over. it's
comical really! But I insist that he sit up and straight with good
posture.
Communicating through speech may be natural, but English isn't. Wearing
clothes. Using a bathroom.
[Valerie Cifuentes]
I read the rest, but didn't respond. I like what you've written and
your pleasant
Thank you! I've gotta go!
Yes, English is not a particularly regular language. But kids learn to
speak
it without English lessons. Is learning to spell through and though and
thought any different than picking up how to conjugate "to be"? Kids may
stumble over conjugations when they become unconsciously aware of the
pattern (like reverting to "he runned") but do they need lessons to
learn
it?
> and I really detest the "whole language" approach to spelling.And my daughter too picked up writing easily doing all the same things
> My children picked up on writing very easily and happily as they wrote
> to their grandparents, friends or "Rule's for my Bedroom!" LOL! And
> knowing how to break down syllables and knowing the rules with each
> syllable. They were happy to not to have to ask for help in their
> spelling as often and got a huge feeling of independence from it. That
> was my observation.
except the syllables. (Though she has a vague concept of them from
writing
comic books and having to split lots of words to fit into the balloons
she
insists on drawing first ;-) Her spelling is still occasionally creative
at
10 but it's vastly improved to what she used at 9. She's never had a
spelling lesson and doesn't seem irritated at asking for spellings. To
her
spelling is a big messy interesting puzzle.
Which is just saying that lessons weren't necessary for it to come
about.
There are pros and cons to lessons and no lessons, but lessons are not
necessary. For me at least two of the pros are her realizing she's
puzzled
out the intricacies of the English language without being taught, the
freedom to do other things during what would have been lesson time. The
cons
are getting spelling later than some other kids. (But not all kids. Some
people never do learn to spell even with "expert" instruction.) Which is
only a problem if she is faced with some sort of comparison but that's
never
happened so it's no big deal.
> They read, so they could tell if a word wasn't spelled correctly andmy
> son would get frustrated if he knew the word was spelled wrong butThere are advantages to teaching. But there are also trade offs. I think
> didn't know the correct spelling. Now he has a method that works.
Pam
does this really well and my daughter wants to do stuff so I'll let
someone
else handle this one. (Or I'll get back to it.)
> I like to use the Writing Road to Reading, there are no workbooks, butone
> the child develops a notebook on their own as they go along. It's a
> pleasant pace and there are NO workpages or LESSONS. Only steps that
> takes to learn a spelling rule.learned
> I would like to know what your thoughts are on this? Most of us
> from ps, and maybe didn't remember all the rules, but learned thebasic
> i before e except after c, type thing.I do pass on rules when she asks about a word that the rule applies to.
> How do you handle spelling?
> Thank you for letting me share! :o)
It's just that I see a great deal more happening, not just with
spelling,
but everything, as my daughter writes for her own pleasure and discovers
spelling on her own. It's more than about acquiring spelling rules.
And I've really got to go. I'm really sorry this isn't as thorough as I
could be.
Joyce
~~~ Don't forget! If you change the topic, change the subject line! ~~~
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website:
http://www.unschooling.com
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]
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:14:18 -0400 "Valerie Cifuentes"
<homeschool@...> writes:
They were borrowed, without much change, from other languages - in the
case of qiviut, the language is Inuit, an interesting tidbit - but are
now part of our language.
The English language is made up of words from many languages - Greek,
Latin, Spanish, Magyar, etc.... which is a big part of why it's not
phonetically regular.
native language? There's a big difference. The whole ebonics controversy
in Oakland centered on labeling who spoke AAVE as ESL/BLE (English as a
Second Language/Bi-Lingual Education) students, which allowed them to get
federal funding for programs that allow them to be taught in AAVE (much
as monolingual Spanish-speaking children are sometimes taught academics
in Spanish while they learn English).
The thinking is not so much not to interfere with their "native tongue",
but to ensure that they are actually learning, rather than just being
"immersed" in a langauge they don't understand. Becoming truly English
proficient often takes years, even for children. Good bi-lingual
education classes result in children who are learning new things, as well
as learning another language. My personal opinion is that AAVE is a
dialect, not a language, so BLE classes aren't necessary - but it's an
interesting thought.
From an unschooling perspective, an ESL class is somewhat analogous to
taking a young child who wants to learn about, say, genetics, and giving
him some standard college textbooks on it, and maybe having him attend
some lectures. He is "immersed", but he doesn't understand what's going
on, what it's all about, and he won't understand a lot of it for a long
time....A BLE class, as it's supposed to work, includes a teacher who can
"translate" the book for him, put it into words he can understand, help
him read the text or else read it herself and share the information.
This may be stretching it a bit. ;-) I'm trying to be relevant but I love
this topic...
Dar
<homeschool@...> writes:
> These are not English words. I'm specifically talking about learningThey are English words. They're in the English dictionary.
> the
> English language.
They were borrowed, without much change, from other languages - in the
case of qiviut, the language is Inuit, an interesting tidbit - but are
now part of our language.
The English language is made up of words from many languages - Greek,
Latin, Spanish, Magyar, etc.... which is a big part of why it's not
phonetically regular.
>for
> >>>And no schools teach "Ebonics", at least none of which I'm
> aware.<<<<
> Yes, we watched a documentary on TLC that showed Ebonics being
> taught to some inner city kids, much the same way schools get funding
> teaching Spanish, French or German. This was about a year ago. Even inTexas,
> I'm appalled when Spanish children are taught only in Spanish and notThey taught them the language, or they taught them academics using their
> English. They still do that today in satellite programs. The
> thinking is to not interfere with the child's native tongue. It's sad.
native language? There's a big difference. The whole ebonics controversy
in Oakland centered on labeling who spoke AAVE as ESL/BLE (English as a
Second Language/Bi-Lingual Education) students, which allowed them to get
federal funding for programs that allow them to be taught in AAVE (much
as monolingual Spanish-speaking children are sometimes taught academics
in Spanish while they learn English).
The thinking is not so much not to interfere with their "native tongue",
but to ensure that they are actually learning, rather than just being
"immersed" in a langauge they don't understand. Becoming truly English
proficient often takes years, even for children. Good bi-lingual
education classes result in children who are learning new things, as well
as learning another language. My personal opinion is that AAVE is a
dialect, not a language, so BLE classes aren't necessary - but it's an
interesting thought.
From an unschooling perspective, an ESL class is somewhat analogous to
taking a young child who wants to learn about, say, genetics, and giving
him some standard college textbooks on it, and maybe having him attend
some lectures. He is "immersed", but he doesn't understand what's going
on, what it's all about, and he won't understand a lot of it for a long
time....A BLE class, as it's supposed to work, includes a teacher who can
"translate" the book for him, put it into words he can understand, help
him read the text or else read it herself and share the information.
This may be stretching it a bit. ;-) I'm trying to be relevant but I love
this topic...
Dar
Elizabeth Hill
**<< So who gets to judge what is moral and good for your kids to read?
You? Them? >>
In our family, the kids can read what they want.
In schools, since most kids who are reading are reading on the sly under
the
desk anyway, they can read what they want if they don't get caught. <g>
My point wasn't about the morality, but about the lack of judgement
about
content in someone who says "reading is good" while saying "other input
is
not as good."**
I still think Bridget's question about whether or not to censor reading
is one that's worth discussing.
Also, do people feel differently about censoring TV/video images than
they do about censoring reading choices?
Betsy
You? Them? >>
In our family, the kids can read what they want.
In schools, since most kids who are reading are reading on the sly under
the
desk anyway, they can read what they want if they don't get caught. <g>
My point wasn't about the morality, but about the lack of judgement
about
content in someone who says "reading is good" while saying "other input
is
not as good."**
I still think Bridget's question about whether or not to censor reading
is one that's worth discussing.
Also, do people feel differently about censoring TV/video images than
they do about censoring reading choices?
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/24/02 3:04:49 PM, homeschool@... writes:
<< But what if he learned rules for spelling? Then you would no longer
needed to proofread for correctional purposes. >>
There are not enough rules to cover all of English's exceptions. He knows
rules. He's not missing easy words.
<<Writing formal letters
require certain formats. Different letters need different formats.
I'm sure he had to learn what format was appropriate for what he was
writing. Not just anything would do. Did he learn by "trial and error"
or did you "teach it " to him?>>
Letters are everywhere. He went to public school, he took a typing class, he
gets letters in the mail every day. He knows what letters look like by
sight, not by memorized rules. Don't you?
<<It couldn't have come naturally, letter writing and
documenting is way to complex, yet in some ways, standard.
Why wouldn't a person who had seen several business letter formats (and there
are several standard acceptable variations) be able to copy one? Holly
copies other letter formats when she writes letters.
I think to some extent it is like music by ear. A package came here the
other day addressed to my husband, from a blacksmith in another state. The
address was put in the upper lefthand corner. There was no return address.
It got here. I wondered how someone who had grown up in the U.S. and was
smart enough to take something to the post office to mail it could TOTALLY
mis-address (as to format, I mean) a package!
But my dad could not carry a tune whatsoever, and it wasn't for lack of
opportunity, nor for lack of hearing music, nor for lack of genetic
opportunity. His parents could sing. His brother was a music director at a
church. My sister and I can sing. My dad could not sing.
That guy had seen lots of packages, no doubt, but somehow did not process
where on a box the address should go. I'm sure he went to public school and
was "taught a rule," too.
Rules are overrated.
<<Many children read wonderfully, but spelling is a different
matter entirely. Spelling is much more difficult to learn and I believe
more time consuming. >>
And less important! There's no reason for it to be learned in two years
instead of over twenty years. What's the big rush?
<<Spelling is a different matter, also, words that were unusual and had
many syllables were very hard to read correctly.>>
Not for everyone. Holly, who's a fearful reader, read "responsibilities" the
other day, because it made sense in the context of what she was reading and
she knows the word already. Learning to read before one has a large
vocabulary might be part of the whole reading problem in schools.
<<Like my last name,
Cifuentes VERY FEW adults can read my last name correctly and usually
add a "qu" sound where the "f" is.>>
But no English phonics rules will help one bit.
I could read it, but I grew up in a 70% Hispanic area, surrounded by
Ceballeses and Maldonados and Maestases and Abeytas and lots and LOTS of
Trujillos and Martinezes. Fresquez and Gonzales were easy reading for us
early on. Not because of English rules, but from recognition and repetition.
<<But the whole point of my writing this is about SPELLLING. I still
haven't heard more on SPELLING that makes sense. Remember, there seems
to be an agreement here that folks that need a bit of walking through
and clicking with the idea slowly get that chance. Can't my questions be
simply answered as to a method when it comes to SPELLING?>>
I think what people are saying is that unschooled kids can and do learn to
spell well without a method.
<<Back to my original question, then how do they learn SPELLING RULES that
will help them SPELL?>>
They learn rules gradually, if at all, and if they don't need help spelling,
they wouldn't have needed the rules anyway. Some people don't know the rules
and spell well. Some people passed many tests in school on the rules, and
yet don't spell well.
<<There are lots of complex historical reasons that the same word became
"kirk" in Scotland. But the fact remains that kids learn to pronounce things
in their native dialect (and other dialects later, in many cases) and then
to spell in standard ways by various means. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<My concern is with the ENGLISH language. >>
They speak English in Scotland.
So what is your spelling-rules explanation for the pronunciation of "church"?
And is it going to tie into the history of the word and the splitting off of
the major medieval English dialects to account for "kirk" (a variant of the
same word)?
<<Didn't you ever look at something and say "Oh! Now I get it, I
wish I'd known that a while ago!" Same thing...>>
Sure. Do you think you can teach them every thing that they might want to
know ten years hence? In so doing, might you not teach them a few thousand
things they do NOT want to know and might never need?
WHEN they need it is the time to learn it. That's what unschooling's about.
Sandra
<< But what if he learned rules for spelling? Then you would no longer
needed to proofread for correctional purposes. >>
There are not enough rules to cover all of English's exceptions. He knows
rules. He's not missing easy words.
<<Writing formal letters
require certain formats. Different letters need different formats.
I'm sure he had to learn what format was appropriate for what he was
writing. Not just anything would do. Did he learn by "trial and error"
or did you "teach it " to him?>>
Letters are everywhere. He went to public school, he took a typing class, he
gets letters in the mail every day. He knows what letters look like by
sight, not by memorized rules. Don't you?
<<It couldn't have come naturally, letter writing and
documenting is way to complex, yet in some ways, standard.
>>That would be "too" complex, not "to."
Why wouldn't a person who had seen several business letter formats (and there
are several standard acceptable variations) be able to copy one? Holly
copies other letter formats when she writes letters.
I think to some extent it is like music by ear. A package came here the
other day addressed to my husband, from a blacksmith in another state. The
address was put in the upper lefthand corner. There was no return address.
It got here. I wondered how someone who had grown up in the U.S. and was
smart enough to take something to the post office to mail it could TOTALLY
mis-address (as to format, I mean) a package!
But my dad could not carry a tune whatsoever, and it wasn't for lack of
opportunity, nor for lack of hearing music, nor for lack of genetic
opportunity. His parents could sing. His brother was a music director at a
church. My sister and I can sing. My dad could not sing.
That guy had seen lots of packages, no doubt, but somehow did not process
where on a box the address should go. I'm sure he went to public school and
was "taught a rule," too.
Rules are overrated.
<<Many children read wonderfully, but spelling is a different
matter entirely. Spelling is much more difficult to learn and I believe
more time consuming. >>
And less important! There's no reason for it to be learned in two years
instead of over twenty years. What's the big rush?
<<Spelling is a different matter, also, words that were unusual and had
many syllables were very hard to read correctly.>>
Not for everyone. Holly, who's a fearful reader, read "responsibilities" the
other day, because it made sense in the context of what she was reading and
she knows the word already. Learning to read before one has a large
vocabulary might be part of the whole reading problem in schools.
<<Like my last name,
Cifuentes VERY FEW adults can read my last name correctly and usually
add a "qu" sound where the "f" is.>>
But no English phonics rules will help one bit.
I could read it, but I grew up in a 70% Hispanic area, surrounded by
Ceballeses and Maldonados and Maestases and Abeytas and lots and LOTS of
Trujillos and Martinezes. Fresquez and Gonzales were easy reading for us
early on. Not because of English rules, but from recognition and repetition.
<<But the whole point of my writing this is about SPELLLING. I still
haven't heard more on SPELLING that makes sense. Remember, there seems
to be an agreement here that folks that need a bit of walking through
and clicking with the idea slowly get that chance. Can't my questions be
simply answered as to a method when it comes to SPELLING?>>
I think what people are saying is that unschooled kids can and do learn to
spell well without a method.
<<Back to my original question, then how do they learn SPELLING RULES that
will help them SPELL?>>
They learn rules gradually, if at all, and if they don't need help spelling,
they wouldn't have needed the rules anyway. Some people don't know the rules
and spell well. Some people passed many tests in school on the rules, and
yet don't spell well.
<<There are lots of complex historical reasons that the same word became
"kirk" in Scotland. But the fact remains that kids learn to pronounce things
in their native dialect (and other dialects later, in many cases) and then
to spell in standard ways by various means. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<My concern is with the ENGLISH language. >>
They speak English in Scotland.
So what is your spelling-rules explanation for the pronunciation of "church"?
And is it going to tie into the history of the word and the splitting off of
the major medieval English dialects to account for "kirk" (a variant of the
same word)?
<<Didn't you ever look at something and say "Oh! Now I get it, I
wish I'd known that a while ago!" Same thing...>>
Sure. Do you think you can teach them every thing that they might want to
know ten years hence? In so doing, might you not teach them a few thousand
things they do NOT want to know and might never need?
WHEN they need it is the time to learn it. That's what unschooling's about.
Sandra
[email protected]
Valerie, I'm curious. Have you used this program yourself? Are you learning
along with your children?
**These are MY convictions about the English language. I'm not trying to
offend anyone. Please excuse my passions as I think through the idea of
USing and language arts. Thank you for giving me a forum in which to
"think out loud." :o)**
Thanks,
Deborah
along with your children?
**These are MY convictions about the English language. I'm not trying to
offend anyone. Please excuse my passions as I think through the idea of
USing and language arts. Thank you for giving me a forum in which to
"think out loud." :o)**
Thanks,
Deborah
Patti
> > I was reading this and I wondered something too, what aboutI, for one, am a very good speller and I believe that has come from being a
> spelling? I
> > liked my children to learn spelling rules. Spelling is proven to NOT
> be
> > natural and I really detest the "whole language" approach to
> spelling.
voracious reader my whole life and constantly *seeing* the words in the context of
whole language, *not* from taking a zillion spelling tests and learning "spelling
rules" in school.
If I'm unsure of how to spell a certain word, I'll sometimes write it down two
different ways and go with the spelling that looks right and familiar to me, and I'm
usually right.
Spelling rules (like "i before e except after c") seem to have so many exceptions
that they aren't all that useful anyway.
Patti
Patti
> I like to think that Phonics is more for "spelling" purpose thanHmmm. I always thought phonics, while helpful in puzzling out new reading words, was detrimental when it came to spelling.
> reading. Many children read wonderfully, but spelling is a different
> matter entirely. Spelling is much more difficult to learn and I believe
> more time consuming.
(I'm thinking of those t-shirts that say something like "hukt on fonix werkt fer me.")
When my eight year old (who is a very good reader) writes me a note he writes completely phonetically which leads to poor spelling... for example he might write something like "wuts for dinr?"
We recently played a game where I made a list of words in two columns with one spelled correctly and one spelled incorrectly, and he guessed which was right.
He guessed something like 10 out of 12 correctly. We did this following a conversation about spelling and the fact that it becomes easier the more experience you have with what correctly spelled words look like.
I have no doubt that he eventually will spell just fine without reading lessons or "programs."
Patti