Re; Phonics, Key to reading
Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
Yes, I'll admit it. Twenty years ago, I was not as confident about
UNschooling as I am today, but I still have a long way to go.
I really liked pamS's post. I'm happy for you that you "played with words
for the fun of it." That's what I was trying to do with my kid.
If it ain't fun, don't do it. However, people come to this egroup (and to
Luz and me privately) with anxiety and confusion about how to get their kids
to learn things they believe are important. The answers are not easy. Many
people, no matter what we say, still believe there are things that they need
to teach their kids since they don't seem to know certain stuff, and the
parents feel (naturally) responsible.
I was one of those people years ago. I believed that it was important for my
kid to know the connection between letters and sounds -- a simple fact, but
not obvious to all. It was (is) also my conviction that public schools teach
reading by the totally ridiculous and harmful nonsense known as "Whole
Language" that creates exactly the wrong concept for learning to read, and
causes most of the "learning disabilities" that kids in those schools have.
In my defense, I believe that parents teach their children, even when and if
they are trying their darnedest NOT to teach them. I wanted NOT to be my
kid's teacher, but I wanted to be sure that he knew the principle behind the
English language -- phonics. What to do...?
My experiment with teaching phonics -- using the regrigerator as a
blackboard -- lasted about four days (in actual time, about 38 seconds
total) and no more than twenty short words were ever put up before my kid
(who already could read) asked me to stop messing with his head by thinking
it was some sort of fun game for him because it insulted his intelligence.
That was enough. I quit doing it. He didn't like it. He didn't participate,
but it was because he already knew what I was doing. My failure was not
knowing that he already knew the principles. I'm still sorry twenty years
later :,<(. Kids can KNOW principles without being taught them.
Maybe it's OK (or even important) for parents to know/learn phonics. But
don't teach it to your kids. Is it the same for horseback riding, or
sailing?
Am I getting it now?
So can we talk about not teaching/learning arithmetic? :)
Ned Vare
PS to Sandra who wrote:
school graduates "read," using their Whole Language "training" -- memorizing
"shapes of words" and guessing instead of phonetic decoding, and it is
painful to hear the mistakes caused by the inability to analyse words
phonetically. Unless a person knows the connection between letters and
sounds, they simply do not know how to read well.
Obviously, as you say, reading takes practice. But like other things, it
takes correct practice.
UNschooling as I am today, but I still have a long way to go.
I really liked pamS's post. I'm happy for you that you "played with words
for the fun of it." That's what I was trying to do with my kid.
If it ain't fun, don't do it. However, people come to this egroup (and to
Luz and me privately) with anxiety and confusion about how to get their kids
to learn things they believe are important. The answers are not easy. Many
people, no matter what we say, still believe there are things that they need
to teach their kids since they don't seem to know certain stuff, and the
parents feel (naturally) responsible.
I was one of those people years ago. I believed that it was important for my
kid to know the connection between letters and sounds -- a simple fact, but
not obvious to all. It was (is) also my conviction that public schools teach
reading by the totally ridiculous and harmful nonsense known as "Whole
Language" that creates exactly the wrong concept for learning to read, and
causes most of the "learning disabilities" that kids in those schools have.
In my defense, I believe that parents teach their children, even when and if
they are trying their darnedest NOT to teach them. I wanted NOT to be my
kid's teacher, but I wanted to be sure that he knew the principle behind the
English language -- phonics. What to do...?
My experiment with teaching phonics -- using the regrigerator as a
blackboard -- lasted about four days (in actual time, about 38 seconds
total) and no more than twenty short words were ever put up before my kid
(who already could read) asked me to stop messing with his head by thinking
it was some sort of fun game for him because it insulted his intelligence.
That was enough. I quit doing it. He didn't like it. He didn't participate,
but it was because he already knew what I was doing. My failure was not
knowing that he already knew the principles. I'm still sorry twenty years
later :,<(. Kids can KNOW principles without being taught them.
Maybe it's OK (or even important) for parents to know/learn phonics. But
don't teach it to your kids. Is it the same for horseback riding, or
sailing?
Am I getting it now?
So can we talk about not teaching/learning arithmetic? :)
Ned Vare
PS to Sandra who wrote:
>>Once a child is reading, it doesn't matter how he learned.<<I say that is true only if s/he reads accurately. I've listened to high
school graduates "read," using their Whole Language "training" -- memorizing
"shapes of words" and guessing instead of phonetic decoding, and it is
painful to hear the mistakes caused by the inability to analyse words
phonetically. Unless a person knows the connection between letters and
sounds, they simply do not know how to read well.
Obviously, as you say, reading takes practice. But like other things, it
takes correct practice.
zenmomma *
>>Yes, I'll admit it. Twenty years ago, I was not as confident aboutUNschooling as I am today, but I still have a long way to go.>>
Ahh but Ned, you are such an inspiration here! We're all learning right
along with you. :o)
>>I really liked pamS's post.>>I really like all of PamS's posts. ;-)
>>I've listened to high school graduates "read," using their Whole LanguageBut what is the purpose of reading really? Is it to make it sound accurate
>>"training" -- memorizing "shapes of words" and guessing instead of
>>phonetic decoding, and it is painful to hear the mistakes caused by the
>>inability to analyse words phonetically.>>
to the person you're reading aloud to? Sometimes. Is it to understand the
content of what you're reading, whether for pleasure or whatever? Most times
I think.
Reading aloud and reading to yourself for compehension are two very
different skills. Conor doesn't always get every word right when he tries to
decode aloud, most often when the words are out of context. But he can give
you the most minute detail of anything he has ever read to himself. And
phonics to this day, at age 13, will still screw him up. It's not worth it
for me, or him.
Life is good.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/26/2002 12:11:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
phonics instruction in her small private school.
I think Whole Language was one of the best things that ever happened to
schools - it is as close to creating a print-rich, playful environment as
much like an unschooling home as they are going to probably get to in most
public schools. It is wrong to say "Whole Language" as if it is an
alternative to phonics instruction. Whole Language, as we experienced it
first-hand (and I was VERY interested in how it was implemented and how well
it worked and did a LOT of direct observation as well as lots of reading on
the subject) always included phonics information - especially in the form of
games, but also just in constant informal communication between kids and
teachers and, in small amounts, in direct instruction.
My older two daughters went to school for a while. These are my two who
learned to read really really well BEFORE starting school (they were tested
at high school reading level in first grade - whatever the heck that really
means <G>), so they didn't learn to read there. But they were there and I was
there (a lot, as you can imagine).
We were lucky that their schools were at that time very very much whole
language based and these were just absolutely marvelous stimulating
interesting alive classrooms - they were just filled to the brim with a
b'zillion different things - including wonderful gorgeous picture books,
fantastic nonfiction books about animals, electrons, space, dinosaurs --
anything and everything, building materials, a whole corner set up with
beanbag chairs and tape players and headphones with books on tape and the
books themselves. The walls were covered with beautiful posters. They had a
mail area - where each kid had their own little mailbox and they had all
kinds of lovely writing materials - pens and ink, markers, stickers,
stationary, stamps and stamp pads, etc. They could write to kids in their own
classroom or any other kid or teacher or administrator in the school. There
was mail pickup and delivery once a day. They had a piano and other musical
instruments - they had lots of tape players and tapes. They had counters with
lots of animals - and signs all around them telling interesting things about
them and printed instructions about their care. The kids took turns taking
them home - with the instructions. There were lots of games -- there were
boxes of card games that involved words, there were traditional kids' games
like Monopoly, etc., and there were special phonics games - phonics Bingo was
very popular. There were art supplies and there was gardening inside and
outside - all these things had printed instructions and ideas and
information. There was reading-aloud time, there was drama - kids put on
short plays. The kids made up games - board games, card games.
These kids learned to read because there was huge motivation and interest.
They had very little required work - each child had a file folder in a box
and the teacher would leave them notes, each day, about things they wanted
the child to choose to do, sometime throughout the day. Some would just be
suggestions - usually offered to get the child started - others would be
actual times that the teacher was going to do something with the child - it
might say, "Come play Bingo with me at 11:15," for example. They had a page
in their file, for the week, that was a grid - different areas of the room
listed across the top and the days of the week down the left side. They would
color in the square if they spent time in a certain area on a certain day. So
if they spent time in the "Writing Workshop Area" on Tuesday - they'd color
in the square on the grid corresponding to that. The teacher also kept an eye
on what the kids were doing and had a page for each kid in a notebook and,
throughout the day, jotted down her observations on post-it notes that she
stuck on her notebook and at the end of the day stuck onto each kids page for
that day. The kids grid and her postit notes were what she used to write the
narrative description of what the child had been working on and learning -
that they used instead of any kind of grades or report cards.
The kids who didn't seem to be learning - the ones the teachers thought
needed more direct instruction - were given that more direct instruction -
mostly by the teacher organizing groups of kids to play the more
phonics-based games or singing the songs or whatever, togethe. In these
classrooms - about 5 percent of kids didn't seem to be able to "catch"
reading by the time they were 9 or so. So they tried to identify who those
kids were likely to be and give them more direct help. But why put ALL the
kids through all that direct phonics instruction when they could be having
FUN and reading great stuff and just learning?
I took my kids out of school when one was 9 and one was 6 - my third never
went. But thank GOODNESS while they were there they had whole language -
they'd have been bored out of their minds without that. Whole Language let
them mostly work at their own chosen levels - mostly on things they were
interested in - within the constraints of what was available in the school,
of course.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nedvare@... writes:
> It was (is) also my conviction that public schools teachNed, what I think caused my niece's reading disabilities was the intense
> reading by the totally ridiculous and harmful nonsense known as "Whole
> Language" that creates exactly the wrong concept for learning to read, and
> causes most of the "learning disabilities" that kids in those schools have.
phonics instruction in her small private school.
I think Whole Language was one of the best things that ever happened to
schools - it is as close to creating a print-rich, playful environment as
much like an unschooling home as they are going to probably get to in most
public schools. It is wrong to say "Whole Language" as if it is an
alternative to phonics instruction. Whole Language, as we experienced it
first-hand (and I was VERY interested in how it was implemented and how well
it worked and did a LOT of direct observation as well as lots of reading on
the subject) always included phonics information - especially in the form of
games, but also just in constant informal communication between kids and
teachers and, in small amounts, in direct instruction.
My older two daughters went to school for a while. These are my two who
learned to read really really well BEFORE starting school (they were tested
at high school reading level in first grade - whatever the heck that really
means <G>), so they didn't learn to read there. But they were there and I was
there (a lot, as you can imagine).
We were lucky that their schools were at that time very very much whole
language based and these were just absolutely marvelous stimulating
interesting alive classrooms - they were just filled to the brim with a
b'zillion different things - including wonderful gorgeous picture books,
fantastic nonfiction books about animals, electrons, space, dinosaurs --
anything and everything, building materials, a whole corner set up with
beanbag chairs and tape players and headphones with books on tape and the
books themselves. The walls were covered with beautiful posters. They had a
mail area - where each kid had their own little mailbox and they had all
kinds of lovely writing materials - pens and ink, markers, stickers,
stationary, stamps and stamp pads, etc. They could write to kids in their own
classroom or any other kid or teacher or administrator in the school. There
was mail pickup and delivery once a day. They had a piano and other musical
instruments - they had lots of tape players and tapes. They had counters with
lots of animals - and signs all around them telling interesting things about
them and printed instructions about their care. The kids took turns taking
them home - with the instructions. There were lots of games -- there were
boxes of card games that involved words, there were traditional kids' games
like Monopoly, etc., and there were special phonics games - phonics Bingo was
very popular. There were art supplies and there was gardening inside and
outside - all these things had printed instructions and ideas and
information. There was reading-aloud time, there was drama - kids put on
short plays. The kids made up games - board games, card games.
These kids learned to read because there was huge motivation and interest.
They had very little required work - each child had a file folder in a box
and the teacher would leave them notes, each day, about things they wanted
the child to choose to do, sometime throughout the day. Some would just be
suggestions - usually offered to get the child started - others would be
actual times that the teacher was going to do something with the child - it
might say, "Come play Bingo with me at 11:15," for example. They had a page
in their file, for the week, that was a grid - different areas of the room
listed across the top and the days of the week down the left side. They would
color in the square if they spent time in a certain area on a certain day. So
if they spent time in the "Writing Workshop Area" on Tuesday - they'd color
in the square on the grid corresponding to that. The teacher also kept an eye
on what the kids were doing and had a page for each kid in a notebook and,
throughout the day, jotted down her observations on post-it notes that she
stuck on her notebook and at the end of the day stuck onto each kids page for
that day. The kids grid and her postit notes were what she used to write the
narrative description of what the child had been working on and learning -
that they used instead of any kind of grades or report cards.
The kids who didn't seem to be learning - the ones the teachers thought
needed more direct instruction - were given that more direct instruction -
mostly by the teacher organizing groups of kids to play the more
phonics-based games or singing the songs or whatever, togethe. In these
classrooms - about 5 percent of kids didn't seem to be able to "catch"
reading by the time they were 9 or so. So they tried to identify who those
kids were likely to be and give them more direct help. But why put ALL the
kids through all that direct phonics instruction when they could be having
FUN and reading great stuff and just learning?
I took my kids out of school when one was 9 and one was 6 - my third never
went. But thank GOODNESS while they were there they had whole language -
they'd have been bored out of their minds without that. Whole Language let
them mostly work at their own chosen levels - mostly on things they were
interested in - within the constraints of what was available in the school,
of course.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/26/2002 12:11:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
some systematic way, in phonics, before they will be able to learn to read.
You often sound like that is what you are promoting when you say kids have to
be taught phonics.
Yes - our kids learn from us all the time - whether we want them to or not.
That's for sure.
But fooling around "for fun" and answering questions and offering information
because a kid is interested - that is so different from deciding it is time
for a kid to learn to read and engaging in direct instruction of phonics
because the adult has decided it is time and that that is what the kid needs
to know and how they need to learn it. It just is not necessary - we've seen
it over and over and over now - unschooled kids, raised in homes where
learning is inseperable from life and where books and other print materials
are engaging and a constant presence, just learn to read. Parents are
sometimes even astounded - one of mine learned really truly on her own
without me even seeing any signs that she was doing it.
I did not teach my kids to read.
I helped them learn, though.
We could (and have, ad nauseum) argued about whether helping someone learn is
the same as teaching --- the point here is that it is good to spend time
thinking about the distinction since it helps clarify the difference between
what is USUALLY thought of as teaching (adult decides what, when, how, and
where a kid should learn and gives direct instruction to the kid and assesses
whether or how much the kid has learned) vs unschooling (kid decides what,
when, how, and where to learn - or often just learns without even "deciding"
to do so - adult is there to encourage, support, offer information, ideas,
and resources).
And, yes, I could write almost the exact same thing about arithmetic. In
fact, I'm giving a couple of talks about that at the conference in August in
Sacramento.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nedvare@... writes:
> Maybe it's OK (or even important) for parents to know/learn phonics. ButNed - I think most people think, still, that kids need direct instruction in
> don't teach it to your kids. Is it the same for horseback riding, or
> sailing?
>
> Am I getting it now?
>
> So can we talk about not teaching/learning arithmetic? :)
some systematic way, in phonics, before they will be able to learn to read.
You often sound like that is what you are promoting when you say kids have to
be taught phonics.
Yes - our kids learn from us all the time - whether we want them to or not.
That's for sure.
But fooling around "for fun" and answering questions and offering information
because a kid is interested - that is so different from deciding it is time
for a kid to learn to read and engaging in direct instruction of phonics
because the adult has decided it is time and that that is what the kid needs
to know and how they need to learn it. It just is not necessary - we've seen
it over and over and over now - unschooled kids, raised in homes where
learning is inseperable from life and where books and other print materials
are engaging and a constant presence, just learn to read. Parents are
sometimes even astounded - one of mine learned really truly on her own
without me even seeing any signs that she was doing it.
I did not teach my kids to read.
I helped them learn, though.
We could (and have, ad nauseum) argued about whether helping someone learn is
the same as teaching --- the point here is that it is good to spend time
thinking about the distinction since it helps clarify the difference between
what is USUALLY thought of as teaching (adult decides what, when, how, and
where a kid should learn and gives direct instruction to the kid and assesses
whether or how much the kid has learned) vs unschooling (kid decides what,
when, how, and where to learn - or often just learns without even "deciding"
to do so - adult is there to encourage, support, offer information, ideas,
and resources).
And, yes, I could write almost the exact same thing about arithmetic. In
fact, I'm giving a couple of talks about that at the conference in August in
Sacramento.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/26/2002 12:36:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:
That was part of the old "Look-Say" method - from my own early school days. I
never once saw a teacher, in a whole language classroom in the 1990's, do
that word shape thing where they have the kids outline the word, etc. And
whole language involves FAR more than the Dick and Jane style big books with
the teacher reading and pointing to words. That is why it was called "WHOLE"
language. Look-Say was boring - the books were silly and there was nothing to
do but watch and then try to read yourself. That was replaced with
incremental phonics instruction and that was boring too - the books had to
all be written so that they'd lead in a nice little progressive systematic
way from one sound to another. Whole Language was a response to the boredom -
it relied on kids being interested in real literature - fiction, nonficiton,
poetry, drama, and utilitarian stuff - as opposed to contrived "readers." It
came from New Zealand which has one of the highest literacy rates in the
world.
Whole Language involved a number of "strands" - or what teachers like to call
"word attack skills" (Don't you HATE that expression?). Phonics was one of
the strands, in fact.
Also - although it is just one of the strands, guessing IS a good word attack
skill - if there is a picture of a hat and there is a word that starts with
"h" and ends with "t" and you're not confident in your short-vowel sounds -
it makes much more sense to "guess" that the word is "hat" rather than "hot"
or "hit" or "hut".
Guessing is another word for trial and error - which is one really good
learning technique. Nothing wrong with that. A few good guesses like that and
the kid will "know" that an "a" between two consonants usually has that
short-a sound.
Whole Language is what unschoolers do in their homes. I don't think teachers
could keep it up effectively in classrooms. I was involved with some of the
very first introduction of it into schools - helping put on workshops by New
Zealand educators - and the teachers were very enthusiastic and just loved
it. But - it was exhausting - they had too many kids in too-small a space,
and they had to keep enough eye on them all to be able to offer what they
might need and to be able to write accurate assessments. And - since kids
were able and allowed to learn at VERY different rates - some kids didn't
learn fast enough to satisfy the administrators or parents.
As unschoolers we KNOW that it is okay - that kids do learn to read - some
very early and some very late and lots in between. Schools couldn't handle
that reality and whole language relied on giving kids much of the same
freedom - while promising that they'd all learn to read on schedule.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
zenmomma@... writes:
> >>I've listened to high school graduates "read," using their Whole LanguageWhole Language doesn't have anything to do with memorizing shapes of words.
> >>"training" -- memorizing "shapes of words" and guessing instead of
> >>phonetic decoding, and it is painful to hear the mistakes caused by the
> >>inability to analyse words phonetically.>>
That was part of the old "Look-Say" method - from my own early school days. I
never once saw a teacher, in a whole language classroom in the 1990's, do
that word shape thing where they have the kids outline the word, etc. And
whole language involves FAR more than the Dick and Jane style big books with
the teacher reading and pointing to words. That is why it was called "WHOLE"
language. Look-Say was boring - the books were silly and there was nothing to
do but watch and then try to read yourself. That was replaced with
incremental phonics instruction and that was boring too - the books had to
all be written so that they'd lead in a nice little progressive systematic
way from one sound to another. Whole Language was a response to the boredom -
it relied on kids being interested in real literature - fiction, nonficiton,
poetry, drama, and utilitarian stuff - as opposed to contrived "readers." It
came from New Zealand which has one of the highest literacy rates in the
world.
Whole Language involved a number of "strands" - or what teachers like to call
"word attack skills" (Don't you HATE that expression?). Phonics was one of
the strands, in fact.
Also - although it is just one of the strands, guessing IS a good word attack
skill - if there is a picture of a hat and there is a word that starts with
"h" and ends with "t" and you're not confident in your short-vowel sounds -
it makes much more sense to "guess" that the word is "hat" rather than "hot"
or "hit" or "hut".
Guessing is another word for trial and error - which is one really good
learning technique. Nothing wrong with that. A few good guesses like that and
the kid will "know" that an "a" between two consonants usually has that
short-a sound.
Whole Language is what unschoolers do in their homes. I don't think teachers
could keep it up effectively in classrooms. I was involved with some of the
very first introduction of it into schools - helping put on workshops by New
Zealand educators - and the teachers were very enthusiastic and just loved
it. But - it was exhausting - they had too many kids in too-small a space,
and they had to keep enough eye on them all to be able to offer what they
might need and to be able to write accurate assessments. And - since kids
were able and allowed to learn at VERY different rates - some kids didn't
learn fast enough to satisfy the administrators or parents.
As unschoolers we KNOW that it is okay - that kids do learn to read - some
very early and some very late and lots in between. Schools couldn't handle
that reality and whole language relied on giving kids much of the same
freedom - while promising that they'd all learn to read on schedule.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
zenmomma *
>>In a message dated 7/26/2002 12:36:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,zenmomma@... writes:
>Just for the record, I didn't write the above paragraph. I was just quoting
>
> > >>I've listened to high school graduates "read," using their Whole
>Language "training" -- memorizing "shapes of words" and guessing instead of
>phonetic decoding, and it is painful to hear the mistakes caused by the
>inability to analyse words phonetically.>>
from it. :o)
Life is good.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Cathy Hilde
Pam,
I really enjoyed reading your post here.
While my kids were still in public school one of them had a teacher who
taught from a whole language approach. I got curious about what whole
language was and was somehow invited to join an email loop list for teachers
who used whole language. It was a great list with lots of fascinating
discussion. I learned a lot about learning. The teachers on that list talked
a lot about the things you covered in this post.
Thanks!
Cathy
-----Original Message-----
From: PSoroosh@... [mailto:PSoroosh@...]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re; Phonics, Key to reading
In a message dated 7/26/2002 12:36:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:
words.
That was part of the old "Look-Say" method - from my own early school
days. I
never once saw a teacher, in a whole language classroom in the 1990's, do
that word shape thing where they have the kids outline the word, etc. And
whole language involves FAR more than the Dick and Jane style big books
with
the teacher reading and pointing to words. That is why it was called
"WHOLE"
language. Look-Say was boring - the books were silly and there was nothing
to
do but watch and then try to read yourself. That was replaced with
incremental phonics instruction and that was boring too - the books had to
all be written so that they'd lead in a nice little progressive systematic
way from one sound to another. Whole Language was a response to the
boredom -
it relied on kids being interested in real literature - fiction,
nonficiton,
poetry, drama, and utilitarian stuff - as opposed to contrived "readers."
It
came from New Zealand which has one of the highest literacy rates in the
world.
Whole Language involved a number of "strands" - or what teachers like to
call
"word attack skills" (Don't you HATE that expression?). Phonics was one of
the strands, in fact.
Also - although it is just one of the strands, guessing IS a good word
attack
skill - if there is a picture of a hat and there is a word that starts
with
"h" and ends with "t" and you're not confident in your short-vowel
sounds -
it makes much more sense to "guess" that the word is "hat" rather than
"hot"
or "hit" or "hut".
Guessing is another word for trial and error - which is one really good
learning technique. Nothing wrong with that. A few good guesses like that
and
the kid will "know" that an "a" between two consonants usually has that
short-a sound.
Whole Language is what unschoolers do in their homes. I don't think
teachers
could keep it up effectively in classrooms. I was involved with some of
the
very first introduction of it into schools - helping put on workshops by
New
Zealand educators - and the teachers were very enthusiastic and just loved
it. But - it was exhausting - they had too many kids in too-small a space,
and they had to keep enough eye on them all to be able to offer what they
might need and to be able to write accurate assessments. And - since kids
were able and allowed to learn at VERY different rates - some kids didn't
learn fast enough to satisfy the administrators or parents.
As unschoolers we KNOW that it is okay - that kids do learn to read - some
very early and some very late and lots in between. Schools couldn't handle
that reality and whole language relied on giving kids much of the same
freedom - while promising that they'd all learn to read on schedule.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
the Moderator, Joyce Fetteroll, at fetteroll@...
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]
I really enjoyed reading your post here.
While my kids were still in public school one of them had a teacher who
taught from a whole language approach. I got curious about what whole
language was and was somehow invited to join an email loop list for teachers
who used whole language. It was a great list with lots of fascinating
discussion. I learned a lot about learning. The teachers on that list talked
a lot about the things you covered in this post.
Thanks!
Cathy
-----Original Message-----
From: PSoroosh@... [mailto:PSoroosh@...]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re; Phonics, Key to reading
In a message dated 7/26/2002 12:36:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:
> >>I've listened to high school graduates "read," using their WholeLanguage
> >>"training" -- memorizing "shapes of words" and guessing instead ofthe
> >>phonetic decoding, and it is painful to hear the mistakes caused by
> >>inability to analyse words phonetically.>>Whole Language doesn't have anything to do with memorizing shapes of
words.
That was part of the old "Look-Say" method - from my own early school
days. I
never once saw a teacher, in a whole language classroom in the 1990's, do
that word shape thing where they have the kids outline the word, etc. And
whole language involves FAR more than the Dick and Jane style big books
with
the teacher reading and pointing to words. That is why it was called
"WHOLE"
language. Look-Say was boring - the books were silly and there was nothing
to
do but watch and then try to read yourself. That was replaced with
incremental phonics instruction and that was boring too - the books had to
all be written so that they'd lead in a nice little progressive systematic
way from one sound to another. Whole Language was a response to the
boredom -
it relied on kids being interested in real literature - fiction,
nonficiton,
poetry, drama, and utilitarian stuff - as opposed to contrived "readers."
It
came from New Zealand which has one of the highest literacy rates in the
world.
Whole Language involved a number of "strands" - or what teachers like to
call
"word attack skills" (Don't you HATE that expression?). Phonics was one of
the strands, in fact.
Also - although it is just one of the strands, guessing IS a good word
attack
skill - if there is a picture of a hat and there is a word that starts
with
"h" and ends with "t" and you're not confident in your short-vowel
sounds -
it makes much more sense to "guess" that the word is "hat" rather than
"hot"
or "hit" or "hut".
Guessing is another word for trial and error - which is one really good
learning technique. Nothing wrong with that. A few good guesses like that
and
the kid will "know" that an "a" between two consonants usually has that
short-a sound.
Whole Language is what unschoolers do in their homes. I don't think
teachers
could keep it up effectively in classrooms. I was involved with some of
the
very first introduction of it into schools - helping put on workshops by
New
Zealand educators - and the teachers were very enthusiastic and just loved
it. But - it was exhausting - they had too many kids in too-small a space,
and they had to keep enough eye on them all to be able to offer what they
might need and to be able to write accurate assessments. And - since kids
were able and allowed to learn at VERY different rates - some kids didn't
learn fast enough to satisfy the administrators or parents.
As unschoolers we KNOW that it is okay - that kids do learn to read - some
very early and some very late and lots in between. Schools couldn't handle
that reality and whole language relied on giving kids much of the same
freedom - while promising that they'd all learn to read on schedule.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
the Moderator, Joyce Fetteroll, at fetteroll@...
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]
debi watson
Does New Zealand still recognize Sylvia Ashton-Warner and *her* contributions (ie, organic reading)? (She did the bulk of her work in New Zealand and one disastrous stint in a Free School in the States). I really liked her theories that children were often interested in sex and fear (a word like "ambulance" "ghost" "knife" or "kiss" was more likely to be important to them than "bag", "cat" or "sit") and that simply giving them *their* words (written for each child on a card every day based on conversations they had, and not contrived conversations to extrapolate the word SHE wanted them to have) would stimulate in them a desire for more. If the child did not recognize the word later, she reasoned it was not a word they really wanted and moved on to something else. She got really great results! Also, phonics is only the decoding part of reading. I have worked a lot with people of all ages (from toddlers to 80 year olds) who are learning English as a second language, and while their "decoding" skills are excellent (ie, they can sound out most words competently), they often have very little "comprehension". That's where guessing based on context comes in. It is just as valuable as phonics, and both are needed to read fluently -- it's the whole "connotative as well as denotative" thing. Just my humble contribution. I am finding this whole thing really interesting! Debi
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>[Whole Language]came from New Zealand which has one of the highest literacy rates in theworld.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/26/02 8:04:35 PM, debiwatson@... writes:
<< that simply giving them *their* words (written for each child on a card
every day based on conversations they had, and not contrived conversations to
extrapolate the word SHE wanted them to have) would stimulate in them a
desire for more. >>
I used to make lists of words when they were little, like the names of all
the dogs in our neighborhood, or all the kids. And once they recognized or
figured out what the list was it was elimination and multiple choice. So
they could use whatever clues they wanted to. Sometimes it was just initial
letter.
I remember with Kirby, listing all the characters in Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles.
It was just a game.
Sandra
<< that simply giving them *their* words (written for each child on a card
every day based on conversations they had, and not contrived conversations to
extrapolate the word SHE wanted them to have) would stimulate in them a
desire for more. >>
I used to make lists of words when they were little, like the names of all
the dogs in our neighborhood, or all the kids. And once they recognized or
figured out what the list was it was elimination and multiple choice. So
they could use whatever clues they wanted to. Sometimes it was just initial
letter.
I remember with Kirby, listing all the characters in Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles.
It was just a game.
Sandra
Suzie & Wayne Woods
debi watson wrote:
Does New Zealand still recognize Sylvia Ashton-Warner and *her* contributions (ie, organic reading)? [Whole Language]came from New Zealand which has one of the highest literacy rates in the world.
I reply:
We don't now, as the whole language approach - as someone else
suggested, does not work in the classroom over a long period of time. We
now have hundreds of illiterate children leaving school, and
Universities having to do pre-requisite classes in simple spelling, how
to write sentences etc. Virtually none of us homeschooling in this
country have had a good experience with our children being taught from
the whole language approach, and there has been mounting pressure to
return to a phonics based learning system - which thankfully, is
starting to happen again. Cheers, from SUZIE in NZ (New Zealand).
Does New Zealand still recognize Sylvia Ashton-Warner and *her* contributions (ie, organic reading)? [Whole Language]came from New Zealand which has one of the highest literacy rates in the world.
I reply:
We don't now, as the whole language approach - as someone else
suggested, does not work in the classroom over a long period of time. We
now have hundreds of illiterate children leaving school, and
Universities having to do pre-requisite classes in simple spelling, how
to write sentences etc. Virtually none of us homeschooling in this
country have had a good experience with our children being taught from
the whole language approach, and there has been mounting pressure to
return to a phonics based learning system - which thankfully, is
starting to happen again. Cheers, from SUZIE in NZ (New Zealand).
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/26/2002 5:10:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
childe@... writes:
reading about whole language. What I learned included the fact that carrying
it out in schools is very very difficult and, really, too much to expect of
most teachers. I worked HARD to get my kids into classrooms with great
teachers who were excited and energetic about it. But I couldn't sustain it -
it was easier for ME to just get them out of school and live a "whole life"
than to manipulate the system so as to get them into really good whole
language programs every year. Plus - they didn't DO whole language/integrated
curriculum anymore in the later elementary school years or secondary schools,
of course. AND, I read John Gatto and ALL those "hidden lessons of compulsory
schooling" -- that I'd tried so hard to deny even to myself - were all layed
bare before my eyes and I couldn't ignore them anymore.
---pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
childe@... writes:
> Pam,Thanks.
> I really enjoyed reading your post here.
> While my kids were still in public school one of them had a teacher whoI also learned a lot from spending a lot of time talking, observing, and
> taught from a whole language approach. I got curious about what whole
> language was and was somehow invited to join an email loop list for
> teachers
> who used whole language. It was a great list with lots of fascinating
> discussion. I learned a lot about learning. The teachers on that list
> talked
> a lot about the things you covered in this post.
reading about whole language. What I learned included the fact that carrying
it out in schools is very very difficult and, really, too much to expect of
most teachers. I worked HARD to get my kids into classrooms with great
teachers who were excited and energetic about it. But I couldn't sustain it -
it was easier for ME to just get them out of school and live a "whole life"
than to manipulate the system so as to get them into really good whole
language programs every year. Plus - they didn't DO whole language/integrated
curriculum anymore in the later elementary school years or secondary schools,
of course. AND, I read John Gatto and ALL those "hidden lessons of compulsory
schooling" -- that I'd tried so hard to deny even to myself - were all layed
bare before my eyes and I couldn't ignore them anymore.
---pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
There are people on this email list who've been writing and reading online at
the same places I have long enough to have read some of this the first time I
wrote about it, when it was happening, unlike now when it's mostly history
and reflection.
My first child learned to read just after he started school. We played games,
answered questions, read together. I left love notes on his pillow and tucked
encouraging quips into his pockets. He copied his favorite book on the
typewriter, and learned to use whiteout. He went to school and he learned to
read and we gave them the credit for teaching him.
My first unschooled child learned to read while I was researching how to
teach her to read. We played a lot of games - bought games, homemade games,
made up on the spot verbal games. I read aloud for hours while she looked at
the pages. She asked questions and I answered. I pointed out interesting
signs. She pointed out interesting signs. Her dad recorded tapes of him
reading her favorite bedtime books so she could listen to them while he was
away at sea. I wrote love notes to her and she wrote back. She copied her
favorite book on the computer (Commodore 64!). She labeled the house with my
help. She learned to read easily and we gave her the credit.
My third unschooled child learned to read in much the same way his older
sister had. I read aloud for hours, but he didn't look at the pages very much
because he was usually rolling around on the floor. We played games, but not
as intensely as I had with his older sister. He asked questions and I
answered. He loved to help me make the shopping list, going through the
weekly ads looking for the best deals. He played phonics games on our new
Macintosh computer. He liked getting love notes but wasn't much interested in
writing his own back until much later. He spent months compulsively reading
aloud EVERY SINGLE sign we passed in our travels. He learned to read easily
and we gave him the credit.
My fourth unschooled child learned to read unlike any of her siblings. In
spite of the fact that she intensely wanted to learn to read very young, and
the fact that we have a family culture that values games and word play, where
phonics awareness sometimes seems to permeate the very air, she had a very
hard time learning to read. She couldn't "get" phonics. She was well over
eight years old before she understood rhyming. She had an awesome vocabulary
and precise pronunciation of the words in that vocabulary - and she was
utterly unable to break those words down into their constituent sounds. The
games that her siblings so enjoyed, frustrated her beyond measure. She tried
and tried and tried and still she couldn't get it. It was truly horrible for
a while when she was about five or six. Her twin, who she'd been competing
with since they'd been conceived, was learning to read without her! She would
insist on trying to read something, insist that I tell her when she made a
mistake and then collapse into a screaming heap of frustration when I
corrected her, or cry in great gasping sobs when I didn't correct her because
she knew she wasn't getting it. She'd pull out one of our homemade reading
games and beg everyone in the house to play with her, running away in tears
after a few minutes because she was unable to "get it." After many many weeks
of torture I finally took the drastic step of HIDING all the phonics and
reading materials in the house. I hid the games and the magnetic letters, the
easy reader books and the BOB books, our homemade letter strips and the tiles
and every single book she could even begin to imagine she might be able to
read. I stopped reading with her twin when she was around and I put the
computer games out of her reach. (Then I went online and whined about it all.
<g>)
I then set about gently persuading her that she simply wasn't ready yet to
learn to read, that she WOULD be ready someday and while we couldn't know
when that would be that it wouldn't be forever, and that since she had skills
and talents that her reading brother didn't have maybe they could share with
each other instead of competing. It wasn't an easy sell. And let me tell you,
if sheer will power could have done it she'd have read earlier than any of my
children because she is one stubbornly persistent child and by gum she
desired it more strongly than any of them. I researched and considered and
worried and then decided that if she wasn't progressing at nine I'd start
looking for outside help for her. I worried because almost all the stories
I'd heard about late readers were about kids who hadn't WANTED to read until
they got older, who learned to read when they decided they were ready. I
hadn't ever read about a kid who was trying to read and not succeeding who
later learned to read without "special education". And I'd never heard of a
kid coming through "special education" who liked to read.
So she wasn't reading at six and seven and eight and nine. She drew
increasingly fantastic scenes and labeled them with words she solicited from
us, sometimes written in perfect mirror imaging from right to left. (Nope,
she's not the leftie. <g>) She sometimes sat for an hour or more looking
through books, pretending to read. Not looking at pictures or recalling
previously read text, just playacting for herself that she was a grown up
reader - her favorite book to "read" for over a year was a pocket Bible,
densely packed minuscule text printed on tissue thin vellum. She "wrote" long
stories and kept a diary, all in long scribbles without so much as a single
real letter on the page. She went to the library once a week and brought home
stacks of books about whatever topic she was currently fascinated by, usually
some animal species. She looked through every book by herself over and over
and sometimes let me read them to her. She told people she loved reading, and
none of us pointed out that she wasn't reading. I tried not to worry that she
just couldn't remember sounds. Every few months she asked for Lessons, and
we'd work together on sound combinations a little bit (mostly playing games)
several times a day for a week or so until the frustration grew again and
she'd agree to wait some more. Always I watched (and worried a lot) to make
sure I wasn't ignoring some real problem, that it truly was just a matter of
time till her brain grew enough connections to allow her to learn to read.
Meanwhile she could read Mom, Dad, Sarah, Love, and very little else. She
couldn't even read STOP signs!
At nine and a half she very suddenly started to "get it". She was reading.
She was playing the games and usually getting it all right the first time.
She started reading fiction. The first book she read completely on her own
was agonizingly slow, half an hour or more per 3rd grade level page. She
didn't care. She was SO happy to be finally reading. I couldn't believe that
anyone could take that long to read so little and not be totally losing the
sense of the story, but darned if she wasn't able to narrate the book in
detail after finishing it. At ten she is this week reading a book published
for adults (Raptor Red) with full comprehension, slowly, but her speed is
picking up. Harry Potter is still elusive - he's come down off the shelf
several times now for a try out and been put back each time with a sigh.
She had more intensive and focused phonics instruction than any of my other
children, and none of it was any use to her till her brain was ready for it.
Had she been in school she'd have been remediated and tested and special
grouped for the last three years. It's unlikely she'd have been able to keep
thinking of herself as a reader long enough for her brain to catch up to her
desire. She would probably have learned to read about the same time, possibly
even later, but she wouldn't have cared about it anymore. She'd have been
convinced of her stupidity long before that.
This has gotten much longer than I intended when I started, and it's gotten
very late. Sorry. :)
Deborah in IL
the same places I have long enough to have read some of this the first time I
wrote about it, when it was happening, unlike now when it's mostly history
and reflection.
My first child learned to read just after he started school. We played games,
answered questions, read together. I left love notes on his pillow and tucked
encouraging quips into his pockets. He copied his favorite book on the
typewriter, and learned to use whiteout. He went to school and he learned to
read and we gave them the credit for teaching him.
My first unschooled child learned to read while I was researching how to
teach her to read. We played a lot of games - bought games, homemade games,
made up on the spot verbal games. I read aloud for hours while she looked at
the pages. She asked questions and I answered. I pointed out interesting
signs. She pointed out interesting signs. Her dad recorded tapes of him
reading her favorite bedtime books so she could listen to them while he was
away at sea. I wrote love notes to her and she wrote back. She copied her
favorite book on the computer (Commodore 64!). She labeled the house with my
help. She learned to read easily and we gave her the credit.
My third unschooled child learned to read in much the same way his older
sister had. I read aloud for hours, but he didn't look at the pages very much
because he was usually rolling around on the floor. We played games, but not
as intensely as I had with his older sister. He asked questions and I
answered. He loved to help me make the shopping list, going through the
weekly ads looking for the best deals. He played phonics games on our new
Macintosh computer. He liked getting love notes but wasn't much interested in
writing his own back until much later. He spent months compulsively reading
aloud EVERY SINGLE sign we passed in our travels. He learned to read easily
and we gave him the credit.
My fourth unschooled child learned to read unlike any of her siblings. In
spite of the fact that she intensely wanted to learn to read very young, and
the fact that we have a family culture that values games and word play, where
phonics awareness sometimes seems to permeate the very air, she had a very
hard time learning to read. She couldn't "get" phonics. She was well over
eight years old before she understood rhyming. She had an awesome vocabulary
and precise pronunciation of the words in that vocabulary - and she was
utterly unable to break those words down into their constituent sounds. The
games that her siblings so enjoyed, frustrated her beyond measure. She tried
and tried and tried and still she couldn't get it. It was truly horrible for
a while when she was about five or six. Her twin, who she'd been competing
with since they'd been conceived, was learning to read without her! She would
insist on trying to read something, insist that I tell her when she made a
mistake and then collapse into a screaming heap of frustration when I
corrected her, or cry in great gasping sobs when I didn't correct her because
she knew she wasn't getting it. She'd pull out one of our homemade reading
games and beg everyone in the house to play with her, running away in tears
after a few minutes because she was unable to "get it." After many many weeks
of torture I finally took the drastic step of HIDING all the phonics and
reading materials in the house. I hid the games and the magnetic letters, the
easy reader books and the BOB books, our homemade letter strips and the tiles
and every single book she could even begin to imagine she might be able to
read. I stopped reading with her twin when she was around and I put the
computer games out of her reach. (Then I went online and whined about it all.
<g>)
I then set about gently persuading her that she simply wasn't ready yet to
learn to read, that she WOULD be ready someday and while we couldn't know
when that would be that it wouldn't be forever, and that since she had skills
and talents that her reading brother didn't have maybe they could share with
each other instead of competing. It wasn't an easy sell. And let me tell you,
if sheer will power could have done it she'd have read earlier than any of my
children because she is one stubbornly persistent child and by gum she
desired it more strongly than any of them. I researched and considered and
worried and then decided that if she wasn't progressing at nine I'd start
looking for outside help for her. I worried because almost all the stories
I'd heard about late readers were about kids who hadn't WANTED to read until
they got older, who learned to read when they decided they were ready. I
hadn't ever read about a kid who was trying to read and not succeeding who
later learned to read without "special education". And I'd never heard of a
kid coming through "special education" who liked to read.
So she wasn't reading at six and seven and eight and nine. She drew
increasingly fantastic scenes and labeled them with words she solicited from
us, sometimes written in perfect mirror imaging from right to left. (Nope,
she's not the leftie. <g>) She sometimes sat for an hour or more looking
through books, pretending to read. Not looking at pictures or recalling
previously read text, just playacting for herself that she was a grown up
reader - her favorite book to "read" for over a year was a pocket Bible,
densely packed minuscule text printed on tissue thin vellum. She "wrote" long
stories and kept a diary, all in long scribbles without so much as a single
real letter on the page. She went to the library once a week and brought home
stacks of books about whatever topic she was currently fascinated by, usually
some animal species. She looked through every book by herself over and over
and sometimes let me read them to her. She told people she loved reading, and
none of us pointed out that she wasn't reading. I tried not to worry that she
just couldn't remember sounds. Every few months she asked for Lessons, and
we'd work together on sound combinations a little bit (mostly playing games)
several times a day for a week or so until the frustration grew again and
she'd agree to wait some more. Always I watched (and worried a lot) to make
sure I wasn't ignoring some real problem, that it truly was just a matter of
time till her brain grew enough connections to allow her to learn to read.
Meanwhile she could read Mom, Dad, Sarah, Love, and very little else. She
couldn't even read STOP signs!
At nine and a half she very suddenly started to "get it". She was reading.
She was playing the games and usually getting it all right the first time.
She started reading fiction. The first book she read completely on her own
was agonizingly slow, half an hour or more per 3rd grade level page. She
didn't care. She was SO happy to be finally reading. I couldn't believe that
anyone could take that long to read so little and not be totally losing the
sense of the story, but darned if she wasn't able to narrate the book in
detail after finishing it. At ten she is this week reading a book published
for adults (Raptor Red) with full comprehension, slowly, but her speed is
picking up. Harry Potter is still elusive - he's come down off the shelf
several times now for a try out and been put back each time with a sigh.
She had more intensive and focused phonics instruction than any of my other
children, and none of it was any use to her till her brain was ready for it.
Had she been in school she'd have been remediated and tested and special
grouped for the last three years. It's unlikely she'd have been able to keep
thinking of herself as a reader long enough for her brain to catch up to her
desire. She would probably have learned to read about the same time, possibly
even later, but she wouldn't have cared about it anymore. She'd have been
convinced of her stupidity long before that.
This has gotten much longer than I intended when I started, and it's gotten
very late. Sorry. :)
Deborah in IL
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/26/2002 7:04:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
debiwatson@... writes:
I gave my kids card files and they would bring me cards and ask me to writer
words on them and we'd keep them in their "special words" file box - and
every once in a while they'd take them out and "read" them.
ALso wrote a lot on post-it notes - they would draw, write, or scribble and
ask an adult or other kid to write, too. They each, in turn, LOVED to stick
post-notes with funny things written on them in weird places where I would
stumble on them unsuspectingly - like the inside of the refrigerator. They
did that at my mom's house too - put "I love you, Grandma" notes inside her
closet and kitchen cubboards, etc.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
debiwatson@... writes:
> Does New Zealand still recognize Sylvia Ashton-Warner and *her*I don't know about New Zealand - but I do <G>.
> contributions (ie, organic reading)?
I gave my kids card files and they would bring me cards and ask me to writer
words on them and we'd keep them in their "special words" file box - and
every once in a while they'd take them out and "read" them.
ALso wrote a lot on post-it notes - they would draw, write, or scribble and
ask an adult or other kid to write, too. They each, in turn, LOVED to stick
post-notes with funny things written on them in weird places where I would
stumble on them unsuspectingly - like the inside of the refrigerator. They
did that at my mom's house too - put "I love you, Grandma" notes inside her
closet and kitchen cubboards, etc.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 7/27/02 2:16 AM, dacunefare@... at dacunefare@... wrote:
Joyce
> This has gotten much longer than I intended when I started, and it's gottenBut it was wonderful Deb! I think you should put it up at Unschooling.com!
> very late. Sorry. :)
Joyce
Fetteroll
on 7/26/02 3:12 PM, Luz Shosie and Ned Vare at nedvare@... wrote:
being made to read in an artificial environment.
in school is that the motive to reading is to get good reading grades, not
to glean information from the words.
reading is self-correcting. They want to know how the story turns out or how
to get past a stuck place in a video game so they figure out what the words
are telling them. There isn't that motive when reading in school where kids
read what someone else tells them to read for someone else's purposes.
which allows them use it more and therefore get even better at it. They
learn how numbers work by "seeing" them work and messing around with them
and seeing them in appropriate contexts. Understanding comes from using and
seeing rather than the other way around as it is in school.
Kids seem to often work at the fringe of understanding, pushing their
envelope.
Though this isn't about math, it's about how people learn: There's a novel
where the narrator begins the story by proudly saying that the town clock
frequently told the correct time. Now Kathryn in 11 years has certainly
(frequently ;-) heard the word "frequently" but in order to get the joke she
needed to know exactly what it meant so she asked "Does it mean all the time
or most of the time or ...?" Obviously she's picked up from the context over
the years that frequently had to do with how often something happened but
she didn't know exactly.
Eventually she would have developed a clearer idea of what frequently means
by hearing it used in various contexts. And she's undoubtedly full of words
with varying degrees of fuzzy definitions. (Me too!) (It also makes me
realize that though kids appear to understand what we're saying, they're
understanding can often be piecemeal with them filling in the gaps with best
guesses -- that may not always be right.)
It's the same with math. Kathryn uses the concept of percetages correctly
more often than not now, not because she's been taught better (I haven't at
all) but because she's had more everyday exposure in ways that make sense to
her.
Joyce
> I've listened to highBut poor reading skills are not caused by whole language. They're caused by
> school graduates "read," using their Whole Language "training" -- memorizing
> "shapes of words" and guessing instead of phonetic decoding, and it is
> painful to hear the mistakes caused by the inability to analyse words
> phonetically.
being made to read in an artificial environment.
> Unless a person knows the connection between letters andOr manages to figure out the connection. The problem with learning to read
> sounds, they simply do not know how to read well.
in school is that the motive to reading is to get good reading grades, not
to glean information from the words.
> Obviously, as you say, reading takes practice. But like other things, itWhen kids learn to read on their own, reading for their own purposes,
> takes correct practice.
reading is self-correcting. They want to know how the story turns out or how
to get past a stuck place in a video game so they figure out what the words
are telling them. There isn't that motive when reading in school where kids
read what someone else tells them to read for someone else's purposes.
> So can we talk about not teaching/learning arithmetic? :)As someone said, it's the same process. Kids use math and get better at it
which allows them use it more and therefore get even better at it. They
learn how numbers work by "seeing" them work and messing around with them
and seeing them in appropriate contexts. Understanding comes from using and
seeing rather than the other way around as it is in school.
Kids seem to often work at the fringe of understanding, pushing their
envelope.
Though this isn't about math, it's about how people learn: There's a novel
where the narrator begins the story by proudly saying that the town clock
frequently told the correct time. Now Kathryn in 11 years has certainly
(frequently ;-) heard the word "frequently" but in order to get the joke she
needed to know exactly what it meant so she asked "Does it mean all the time
or most of the time or ...?" Obviously she's picked up from the context over
the years that frequently had to do with how often something happened but
she didn't know exactly.
Eventually she would have developed a clearer idea of what frequently means
by hearing it used in various contexts. And she's undoubtedly full of words
with varying degrees of fuzzy definitions. (Me too!) (It also makes me
realize that though kids appear to understand what we're saying, they're
understanding can often be piecemeal with them filling in the gaps with best
guesses -- that may not always be right.)
It's the same with math. Kathryn uses the concept of percetages correctly
more often than not now, not because she's been taught better (I haven't at
all) but because she's had more everyday exposure in ways that make sense to
her.
Joyce
[email protected]
Dear Friends,
In reply to the subject about reading, I have a 16 year old boy who is
finally doing okay with reading. I am so glad that I never went to a
remedial therapist. We were able to work everything out at home. He can
write everything, but the spelling is wrong (though phonetically correct).
Yet he has enjoyed and excelled in so many areas over the years. Ski racing,
motocross racing, motorcycle mechanics, bmx bike racing, bicycle mechanics.
We just used his interests to pursue anything that could make him grow. We
bought a rototiller so he could plow up the backyard and build bicycle jumps.
He is now intensely interested in remote control airplanes, and flies them so
nicely. The mechanics part of it fascinates him.
I think that what I appreciate with my son is that he takes the time to do
everything the right way, without wrecking it.
Had I know then what I know now I just wouldn't have worried as much.
Regards.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In reply to the subject about reading, I have a 16 year old boy who is
finally doing okay with reading. I am so glad that I never went to a
remedial therapist. We were able to work everything out at home. He can
write everything, but the spelling is wrong (though phonetically correct).
Yet he has enjoyed and excelled in so many areas over the years. Ski racing,
motocross racing, motorcycle mechanics, bmx bike racing, bicycle mechanics.
We just used his interests to pursue anything that could make him grow. We
bought a rototiller so he could plow up the backyard and build bicycle jumps.
He is now intensely interested in remote control airplanes, and flies them so
nicely. The mechanics part of it fascinates him.
I think that what I appreciate with my son is that he takes the time to do
everything the right way, without wrecking it.
Had I know then what I know now I just wouldn't have worried as much.
Regards.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
>Unfortunately, in some places, Whole Language got pretty perverted, to the
>Whole Language involved a number of "strands" - or what teachers like to call
>"word attack skills" (Don't you HATE that expression?). Phonics was one of
>the strands, in fact.
point where teachers were not *allowed* to teach any phonics. I wonder if
this could be where its bad rep came from. The original idea seems pretty
good to me.
>Also - although it is just one of the strands, guessing IS a good word attackThere's a great book that goes into this as well as other ways to help
>skill - if there is a picture of a hat and there is a word that starts with
>"h" and ends with "t" and you're not confident in your short-vowel sounds -
>it makes much more sense to "guess" that the word is "hat" rather than "hot"
>or "hit" or "hut".
emergent readers called Reading is More Than Phonics. I can't remember the
author's name.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Tia Leschke
>She couldn't "get" phonics. She was well overThis sounds like Lars. He still didn't "get" rhyming when he was 12,
>eight years old before she understood rhyming.
believe it or not. That was the last time I tried to do any rhyming with
him, so I don't know if he gets it now at 14.
>She had an awesome vocabularyAgain, this is like Lars. I read to him so much, lots of it way above his
>and precise pronunciation of the words in that vocabulary - and she was
>utterly unable to break those words down into their constituent sounds.
"grade level". He could tell really wonderful stories. I remember his
sister and brother in law being surprised because he used the word "steed"
in one of his dictated stories. It didn't surprise me at all. He was
right in the middle of his King Arthur phase at the time. <g> His
vocabulary matched all the stuff I'd been reading. But he too couldn't
break words down into their parts.
>I worried because almost all the storiesThis was the same fear I had with Lars, and the reason why I finally pushed
>I'd heard about late readers were about kids who hadn't WANTED to read until
>they got older, who learned to read when they decided they were ready. I
>hadn't ever read about a kid who was trying to read and not succeeding who
>later learned to read without "special education". And I'd never heard of a
>kid coming through "special education" who liked to read.
the phonics on him at 12.
>This has gotten much longer than I intended when I started, and it's gottenBut very interesting. I wish I'd read it before I pushed the phonics on Lars.
>very late. Sorry. :)
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Tia Leschke
>In reply to the subject about reading, I have a 16 year old boy who isYour boy sounds a lot like Lars. Where are you? <g>
>finally doing okay with reading. I am so glad that I never went to a
>remedial therapist. We were able to work everything out at home. He can
>write everything, but the spelling is wrong (though phonetically correct).
He can read whatever he wants now, but it's *very* slow. For that reason
he doesn't attempt novels yet. I'm collecting short story titles he might
like. Suggestions accepted.
>Yet he has enjoyed and excelled in so many areas over the years. Ski racing,Lars would love it if we did this. Luckily, there's lots of bush around
>motocross racing, motorcycle mechanics, bmx bike racing, bicycle mechanics.
>We just used his interests to pursue anything that could make him grow. We
>bought a rototiller so he could plow up the backyard and build bicycle jumps.
here, and his friends build all kinds of jumps and ramps for mountain
biking. (Actually, I'm glad I can't get to where they are. I'd probably
shut him down if I could see what he's actually attempting. <g> Some of
those ramps are apparently *way* off the ground.)
We've really encouraged the biking and bike mechanic stuff. That and team
sports (and more recently music and MP3's, are what his life revolves
around, and I'm getting pretty good at recognizing all the learning that
goes on with them now.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/27/2002 10:09:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
leschke@... writes:
came before it -- that is the history of education reform. And there were
teachers who really resented the whole whole-language, etc. approach - they
didn't want to work that hard, put that much thought into what was happening
in their classroom, develop that MUCH interesting stimulating stuff to do,
pay attention to each child individually and notice what each one was REALLY
doing. They just wanted to give out standard assignments and grade them and
be done with it. And, being resentful of having whole language forced on them
- they sabotaged it - they needed to prove it wouldn't really work. They were
right, of course. It was doomed from the start -- I feel really lucky my kids
got into some of the experimental first tries at it - with teachers who had
fallen in love with the idea and wanted, badly, to make it work. None of them
are doing it anymore - the return to the old kind of standardized testing and
the amount of huge time that is now required to be spent on systematic
phonics programs and back-to-basics math programs - usurped much of the time
they had for all the cool stuff they used to do. There were two of those
teachers who really stood out - I talked to both of them in the last 6
months. One is out of teaching - is running a program for kids with reading
disabilities in which she uses whole-language ideas. The other is still there
- but very very discouraged about her career choice now.
I really do think that whole language and integrated curriculum and basing
everything on Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences was a HUGE step in the
right direction - in theory and in having a lot of beneficial side results.
However, in practice, in schools where kids are compelled to be there and
mostly confined to spending their time in their classroom with only the
resources available there and with 20 to 40 other kids and one adult, it
isn't reasonable to expect whole language/integrated curriculum/multiple
intelligence theory/authentic assessment, etc. to really work out all that
well. I think it made classrooms MUCH MUCH better places - in the sense that
the teachers who really put their heart into trying to do all that are
undoubtedly better teachers and their classrooms way way better places to
serve time in now. But I think it was way too much to expect from most
teachers and they either were just no good at it or didn't try or tried
really hard and burned out. AND - the level of chaos in most classrooms -
with 20 to 40 kids all "doing their own thing" and many of them coming to
school with major personal issues and not wanting to be there anyway and
needing WAY more outside big-play time and so on -- the idea that whole
language, etc., could "work" starts to kind of seem silly.
WHole Earth Education --- WHEE? <G>
That is what we do - gives away my age, of course, since it refers to the
Whole Earth Catalog (which actually still sort of exists as the Whole Earth
Review but isn't the mind-boggling exciting catalog of wonderful
stuff-of-all-kinds that opened our minds and expanded our consciousnesses in
the late 60's and early 70's).
Look at some of the terminology used here from the Whole Earth people -
doesn't it just WORK so well for how so many of us view what we are doing
instead of sending our kids to school?
Independence. Community. Living fearlessly. Principles. Tools and ideas.
Whole Earth shows you ways to take back your power and put it to use. <<
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
leschke@... writes:
> >Whole Language involved a number of "strands" - or what teachers like toYes -- there are people who always see the next "thing" as REPLACING what
> call
> >"word attack skills" (Don't you HATE that expression?). Phonics was one of
> >the strands, in fact.
>
> Unfortunately, in some places, Whole Language got pretty perverted, to the
> point where teachers were not *allowed* to teach any phonics. I wonder if
> this could be where its bad rep came from. The original idea seems pretty
> good to me.
came before it -- that is the history of education reform. And there were
teachers who really resented the whole whole-language, etc. approach - they
didn't want to work that hard, put that much thought into what was happening
in their classroom, develop that MUCH interesting stimulating stuff to do,
pay attention to each child individually and notice what each one was REALLY
doing. They just wanted to give out standard assignments and grade them and
be done with it. And, being resentful of having whole language forced on them
- they sabotaged it - they needed to prove it wouldn't really work. They were
right, of course. It was doomed from the start -- I feel really lucky my kids
got into some of the experimental first tries at it - with teachers who had
fallen in love with the idea and wanted, badly, to make it work. None of them
are doing it anymore - the return to the old kind of standardized testing and
the amount of huge time that is now required to be spent on systematic
phonics programs and back-to-basics math programs - usurped much of the time
they had for all the cool stuff they used to do. There were two of those
teachers who really stood out - I talked to both of them in the last 6
months. One is out of teaching - is running a program for kids with reading
disabilities in which she uses whole-language ideas. The other is still there
- but very very discouraged about her career choice now.
I really do think that whole language and integrated curriculum and basing
everything on Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences was a HUGE step in the
right direction - in theory and in having a lot of beneficial side results.
However, in practice, in schools where kids are compelled to be there and
mostly confined to spending their time in their classroom with only the
resources available there and with 20 to 40 other kids and one adult, it
isn't reasonable to expect whole language/integrated curriculum/multiple
intelligence theory/authentic assessment, etc. to really work out all that
well. I think it made classrooms MUCH MUCH better places - in the sense that
the teachers who really put their heart into trying to do all that are
undoubtedly better teachers and their classrooms way way better places to
serve time in now. But I think it was way too much to expect from most
teachers and they either were just no good at it or didn't try or tried
really hard and burned out. AND - the level of chaos in most classrooms -
with 20 to 40 kids all "doing their own thing" and many of them coming to
school with major personal issues and not wanting to be there anyway and
needing WAY more outside big-play time and so on -- the idea that whole
language, etc., could "work" starts to kind of seem silly.
WHole Earth Education --- WHEE? <G>
That is what we do - gives away my age, of course, since it refers to the
Whole Earth Catalog (which actually still sort of exists as the Whole Earth
Review but isn't the mind-boggling exciting catalog of wonderful
stuff-of-all-kinds that opened our minds and expanded our consciousnesses in
the late 60's and early 70's).
Look at some of the terminology used here from the Whole Earth people -
doesn't it just WORK so well for how so many of us view what we are doing
instead of sending our kids to school?
>>Whole Earth is committed to a vision of what's needed to challengeingrained patterns and stale assumptions. Curiosity. Exploration.
Independence. Community. Living fearlessly. Principles. Tools and ideas.
Whole Earth shows you ways to take back your power and put it to use. <<
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:58:12 -0600 debi watson <debiwatson@...>
writes:
Dar
writes:
>I really liked her theories that children were oftenAll the kids in Rain's Montessori kindergarten knew how to spell butt.
> interested in sex and fear (a word like "ambulance" "ghost" "knife"
> or "kiss" was more likely to be important to them than "bag", "cat"
> or "sit")
Dar
djuanafish
Deborah,
Thank you so much for taking the time to write the post about your
kids' learning-to-read experiences. I usually lurk here, but I had
to respond to your post. I have a 9 year old daughter who doesn't
want to learn to read at all, and I'm starting to panic - again! She
seems to know all the letter sounds and a lot of the "rules" for
reading but it just hasn't clicked for her yet. My 7 year old
daughter is starting to read fairly well, but that doesn't seem to
bother the Kaitlin (my oldest).
I checked this group tonight for moral support and found it in your
post and in the rest of this thread as well. I'll hang in there and
wait 'til she's ready. Whenever I feel anxious about it again I'll
come to this group instead of pressuring Kaitlin. Djuana
Thank you so much for taking the time to write the post about your
kids' learning-to-read experiences. I usually lurk here, but I had
to respond to your post. I have a 9 year old daughter who doesn't
want to learn to read at all, and I'm starting to panic - again! She
seems to know all the letter sounds and a lot of the "rules" for
reading but it just hasn't clicked for her yet. My 7 year old
daughter is starting to read fairly well, but that doesn't seem to
bother the Kaitlin (my oldest).
I checked this group tonight for moral support and found it in your
post and in the rest of this thread as well. I'll hang in there and
wait 'til she's ready. Whenever I feel anxious about it again I'll
come to this group instead of pressuring Kaitlin. Djuana
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/28/2002 3:47:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fishez@... writes:
brain develops to allow kids to learn different things - walking, talking,
reading, etc. -- that it will be a lot easier on parents of later-reading
kids when they know that their kid simply has ANOTHER part of their brain
developing first and that some physiological development needed for the
reading process to "click" just hasn't happened yet. It'll be easier to wait
without pressuring the kid when you know that it just isn't time yet. It
wouldn't matter (and shouldn't matter) when this development takes place --
it is ONLY because schools don't accomodate to the variance in brain
development that it seems like it matters so much and that kids seem
"behind." The schools don't accomodate because they think THEY are really
teaching the kids to read!!!! When a kid is a later-developing reader, they
think they have to "teach harder." It doesn't work and they create so much
anxiety around reading that the kids are likely to have lifelong reading
problems. In fact, I'm guessing that, by forcing, they actually create
physiological changes in the brain that make reading more difficult and less
pleasurable. They don't pay attention to the research on brain development
and on how people REALLY learn because it contradicts their preconceived
notions of the roles of teachers and students.
I recommend Frank Smith's book, "The Book of Learning and Forgetting" as a
great way to get a good basic understanding of the most current understanding
by researchers about how people really learn. It is a good read and very very
supportive of an unschooling philosophy, even though he doesn't mention it in
the book. It can be a lot easier to feel confident in our decisions as
unschoolers when we have a sense that there is research backing up our
beliefs. Frank Smith IS speaking at the HSC conference in August in
Sacramento, though, so if he did NOT know much about unschooling before, he's
going to get a crash-course that weekend. I SO hope to get a chance to talk
with him there!!!!
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fishez@... writes:
> Whenever I feel anxious about it again I'llI think that as scientists uncover more and more clearly exactly how the
> come to this group instead of pressuring Kaitlin. Djuana
brain develops to allow kids to learn different things - walking, talking,
reading, etc. -- that it will be a lot easier on parents of later-reading
kids when they know that their kid simply has ANOTHER part of their brain
developing first and that some physiological development needed for the
reading process to "click" just hasn't happened yet. It'll be easier to wait
without pressuring the kid when you know that it just isn't time yet. It
wouldn't matter (and shouldn't matter) when this development takes place --
it is ONLY because schools don't accomodate to the variance in brain
development that it seems like it matters so much and that kids seem
"behind." The schools don't accomodate because they think THEY are really
teaching the kids to read!!!! When a kid is a later-developing reader, they
think they have to "teach harder." It doesn't work and they create so much
anxiety around reading that the kids are likely to have lifelong reading
problems. In fact, I'm guessing that, by forcing, they actually create
physiological changes in the brain that make reading more difficult and less
pleasurable. They don't pay attention to the research on brain development
and on how people REALLY learn because it contradicts their preconceived
notions of the roles of teachers and students.
I recommend Frank Smith's book, "The Book of Learning and Forgetting" as a
great way to get a good basic understanding of the most current understanding
by researchers about how people really learn. It is a good read and very very
supportive of an unschooling philosophy, even though he doesn't mention it in
the book. It can be a lot easier to feel confident in our decisions as
unschoolers when we have a sense that there is research backing up our
beliefs. Frank Smith IS speaking at the HSC conference in August in
Sacramento, though, so if he did NOT know much about unschooling before, he's
going to get a crash-course that weekend. I SO hope to get a chance to talk
with him there!!!!
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Betsy
Hi, Pam --
What you wrote is very much what I believe. Seeing it spelled out so
clearly here is reassuring for me.
There's some stuff in one of Jane Healy's books about brain development
and handwriting that parallels what you said about the brain and
reading. (I wish I could remember which book. But the gist of it was
that until the brain structures that provide fine motor control for the
finger tips are developed, a child learning to handwrite will develop a
"kludgey" suboptimal brain wiring for writing. It's better to wait.)
I'm thrilled that both Jane Healey and Frank Smith are going to speak at
the conference! I'm going to have to buy a bunch of tapes of the
conference sessions since I'm pulled in three directions simultaneously
but am not triplets. <g> I'm really getting psyched!
Betsy
**I think that as scientists uncover more and more clearly exactly how
the
brain develops to allow kids to learn different things - walking,
talking,
reading, etc. -- that it will be a lot easier on parents of
later-reading
kids when they know that their kid simply has ANOTHER part of their
brain
developing first and that some physiological development needed for the
reading process to "click" just hasn't happened yet. It'll be easier to
wait
without pressuring the kid when you know that it just isn't time yet. It
wouldn't matter (and shouldn't matter) when this development takes place
--
it is ONLY because schools don't accomodate to the variance in brain
development that it seems like it matters so much and that kids seem
"behind." The schools don't accomodate because they think THEY are
really
teaching the kids to read!!!! When a kid is a later-developing reader,
they
think they have to "teach harder." It doesn't work and they create so
much
anxiety around reading that the kids are likely to have lifelong reading
problems. In fact, I'm guessing that, by forcing, they actually create
physiological changes in the brain that make reading more difficult and
less
pleasurable. They don't pay attention to the research on brain
development
and on how people REALLY learn because it contradicts their preconceived
notions of the roles of teachers and students.
I recommend Frank Smith's book, "The Book of Learning and Forgetting" as
a
great way to get a good basic understanding of the most current
understanding
by researchers about how people really learn.**
What you wrote is very much what I believe. Seeing it spelled out so
clearly here is reassuring for me.
There's some stuff in one of Jane Healy's books about brain development
and handwriting that parallels what you said about the brain and
reading. (I wish I could remember which book. But the gist of it was
that until the brain structures that provide fine motor control for the
finger tips are developed, a child learning to handwrite will develop a
"kludgey" suboptimal brain wiring for writing. It's better to wait.)
I'm thrilled that both Jane Healey and Frank Smith are going to speak at
the conference! I'm going to have to buy a bunch of tapes of the
conference sessions since I'm pulled in three directions simultaneously
but am not triplets. <g> I'm really getting psyched!
Betsy
**I think that as scientists uncover more and more clearly exactly how
the
brain develops to allow kids to learn different things - walking,
talking,
reading, etc. -- that it will be a lot easier on parents of
later-reading
kids when they know that their kid simply has ANOTHER part of their
brain
developing first and that some physiological development needed for the
reading process to "click" just hasn't happened yet. It'll be easier to
wait
without pressuring the kid when you know that it just isn't time yet. It
wouldn't matter (and shouldn't matter) when this development takes place
--
it is ONLY because schools don't accomodate to the variance in brain
development that it seems like it matters so much and that kids seem
"behind." The schools don't accomodate because they think THEY are
really
teaching the kids to read!!!! When a kid is a later-developing reader,
they
think they have to "teach harder." It doesn't work and they create so
much
anxiety around reading that the kids are likely to have lifelong reading
problems. In fact, I'm guessing that, by forcing, they actually create
physiological changes in the brain that make reading more difficult and
less
pleasurable. They don't pay attention to the research on brain
development
and on how people REALLY learn because it contradicts their preconceived
notions of the roles of teachers and students.
I recommend Frank Smith's book, "The Book of Learning and Forgetting" as
a
great way to get a good basic understanding of the most current
understanding
by researchers about how people really learn.**
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/28/02 11:10:26 AM, PSoroosh@... writes:
<< The schools don't accomodate because they think THEY are really
teaching the kids to read!!!! When a kid is a later-developing reader, they
think they have to "teach harder." It doesn't work and they create so much
anxiety around reading that the kids are likely to have lifelong reading
problems. In fact, I'm guessing that, by forcing, they actually create
physiological changes in the brain that make reading more difficult and less
pleasurable. >>
Years ago on AOL I suggested instead of bumper stickers that say "If you can
read this, thank a teacher," there should be some that say "If you can't
stand to read this, blame a teacher." (or some such--I had probably worded
it better).
OH my gosh, some people went ballistic!
And I had *been* a "language arts" teacher--not early grades, not reading,
but I knew to the bone the sadness in the eyes of hundreds of kids (from
which I could be assured there were millions) when they were (DAILY, in
school) pressured to show they could read, to show they could comprehend, to
read aloud.
I would not be in the least surprised if it were considered common knowledge
someday that compulsory schooling caused all manner of psychological and
emotional carnage which was passed on widely within one's own time, and to
children and grandchildren.
But there was a time when most of the books and paper available to normal
people was at school buildings. And the globes and the maps. Only rich
people had such things. Only interested and curious people have them now.
Sandra
<< The schools don't accomodate because they think THEY are really
teaching the kids to read!!!! When a kid is a later-developing reader, they
think they have to "teach harder." It doesn't work and they create so much
anxiety around reading that the kids are likely to have lifelong reading
problems. In fact, I'm guessing that, by forcing, they actually create
physiological changes in the brain that make reading more difficult and less
pleasurable. >>
Years ago on AOL I suggested instead of bumper stickers that say "If you can
read this, thank a teacher," there should be some that say "If you can't
stand to read this, blame a teacher." (or some such--I had probably worded
it better).
OH my gosh, some people went ballistic!
And I had *been* a "language arts" teacher--not early grades, not reading,
but I knew to the bone the sadness in the eyes of hundreds of kids (from
which I could be assured there were millions) when they were (DAILY, in
school) pressured to show they could read, to show they could comprehend, to
read aloud.
I would not be in the least surprised if it were considered common knowledge
someday that compulsory schooling caused all manner of psychological and
emotional carnage which was passed on widely within one's own time, and to
children and grandchildren.
But there was a time when most of the books and paper available to normal
people was at school buildings. And the globes and the maps. Only rich
people had such things. Only interested and curious people have them now.
Sandra