Re: Anti-Unschooling: Pure Madness
Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
At the risk of being called Anti-unschool, as has sprung up lately.....
The law covering education in Connecticut (where Luz and I have lived for
several years) says that parents (and/or guardians) are responsible for
their children's education. That law was written in 1650 and is still in
effect. The law acknowledges the natural, sacred, unalienable RIGHT and duty
that parents have in the raising of their children -- education being part
of that upbringing. As this group and others remind us, homeschooling (at
least learning) goes on in every home in the world -- so what are your kids
learning?
In CT, homeschooling has been an accepted practice for over 350 years. In
fact, it was so universal in the early days that when towns organized Common
Schools, the schools often did not accept children unless they already knew
how to read, write and calculate -- skills that were presumed to have been
taught at home.
Compared to today's barrage of mostly drivel, the tools for teaching were
few -- reading primers, arithmetic lessons and penmanship, probably only a
few choices of materials that were familiar to most families. The lessons
were simple. The children were bright, as today, and they learned the
lessons easily, quickly and well. For example: put four pennies (or apples)
on the floor arranged in a square. It's hard to mistake that 2+2=4 and 1+3.
Those lessons are instantly and indelibly printed in a child. No review is
needed, no test required. Ever. But the parent has (dare I say it) taught
the lesson. The child can usually take it from there. Timing is important.
Similarly, when a child needs (wants ! ) to learn how to read, such as in
the recent example of the smaller sister asking her older sibling in bed how
to say certain words that she pointed to on the page, such as HOP, one
person was helping the other to learn. It is not unusual that parents are
surprised by the abilities of their kids -- without any teaching. The reason
we are surprised sometimes is that we believe that learning is difficult and
takes a lot of teaching. That is the garbage that schools want us to
believe, so that we will maintain support for all their employees and
outrageous budgets.
As an unschooler (a staunch, radical, fanatical one) I am vehemently against
schooling -- the kind that is done in schools, and is directed by schoolers
for the benefit of the school establishment -- not the children. But that
doesn't mean I am against learning or even teaching, so long as it is asked
for by the learner.
In fact, in CT, parents are required by that ancient law to make sure that
their children are instructed in reading, writing, math, geography, and
government. For homeschoolers, nobody is looking over our shoulders, but
citizens need to be aware that their children's knowledge of those things is
their responsibility. No tests are required here, parents must determine an
acceptable level of information that their kids need to know. The law is
kind, saying that parents need to be ABLE TO show that their kids have
received instruction....it doesn't say that we MUST show it (to anyone).
My point is that UNschooling is a personal idea. Today's practice comes
primarily from the work and books of John Holt, who told us years ago that
the trouble with education is the schooling, the boring, life-crushing
tedium, the sit-down-shut-up-listen-to-this madness that drives kids crazy,
especially when there's so little that those places teach and how quickly
most kids can learn it ALL so that they can go out and play and discover how
the world really works.
What's my point...let's not thrash each other for not UNschooling. I am not
Anti-Unschooling, but I am also not Anti-teaching when a kid asks for that.
Purity in unschooling (as some understand it, as *no teaching no matter
what*) is as much the enemy of learning as school is.
Unschooling, for Luz and me, means providing the tools to a child so that
curiosity can be inspired and satisfied, preferably not by scripted
lessons, but more by the initiative and ingenuity of the learner. Becoming
our children's schoolteacher/taskmaster is sure to poison our relationship
with them, but when they ask for specifics, we must not be so hung up on
UNschooling that we fail in our responsibility as parents.
Is it possible that some parents don't know HOW to teach what their child
wants to know? Sure, it happens a lot. That's when they need to become
learners right along with the child. For example, I believe that part of the
resistance during the phonics discussion/tussle was because some folks are
convinced that Phonics is something that needs to be *taught* (saints
preserve us!) and they just weren't about to do that. But there is also the
hint that many people have no idea what phonics is, and school fashion has
told many people that Phonics is boring, repetitive, rote, rulebound,
old-fashioned, yadayada. That bad rap makes people fear that it requires a
whole lot of schooling. It's just not true...it comes from school teachers
who prefer therapy to teaching specific skills that even they are unsure of.
Liza sends this brief list from a book that, on its cover, claims to be a
how-to-read book, but inside claims that it's not a how-to-read book. It
turns out to be both. From the book, Liza summarizes:
Now you tell me which *way* tells HOW to read. If we want to know what a
word sounds like so we can *read* it, we do #3. Being able to read
accurately means being able to turn the printed marks into specific familiar
sounds. What it's not is guesswork, although many people believe that
guessing at words is just fine.
Liza's book is right: it's not a how-to-read book when it tells us to use
pictures for clues (a strategy from whole language), or when it tell us to
remember words by their confuguration (look-say-good luck), when it tells us
to Expect what comes next (be fortune tellers), use writing (can we write if
we can't read?), and finally, Making sense...Please, how can it make sense
if we can't read it. Reading is a prerequisite for understanding, not the
other way round.
Lucky for us all, kids find ways to learn on their own despite all the
miseducation we invent and therapies we use to avoid giving specific
instruction, even when it's begged for.
I have plenty of contempt for the teaching trade for turning simple learning
into a secretive and corrupt occupation that can now demand huge sums from
the public trough to do terrible things to children. Luz got her masters in
Education and certification from U of Az and agrees that what she learned
there was debilitating, fraudulent and a waste of time -- all of it. Bad
teaching methods have become the hallmark of the schooling establishment,
and it is affecting even the most independent intelligent people --
homeschoolers.
My hope is that we can get back to the common sense of our early settlers
and use direct methods to teach simple skills when they are needed and
requested, and then get on with real life. Learning how to read and
calculate each can take only a few minutes, total, perhaps spread out over a
few weeks. John Holt said that all of arithmetic can be learned in a single
morning, by a kid who's interested. I can't forget that kid who said, I
learned UP and DOWN, and then I could read.
Ned Vare
The law covering education in Connecticut (where Luz and I have lived for
several years) says that parents (and/or guardians) are responsible for
their children's education. That law was written in 1650 and is still in
effect. The law acknowledges the natural, sacred, unalienable RIGHT and duty
that parents have in the raising of their children -- education being part
of that upbringing. As this group and others remind us, homeschooling (at
least learning) goes on in every home in the world -- so what are your kids
learning?
In CT, homeschooling has been an accepted practice for over 350 years. In
fact, it was so universal in the early days that when towns organized Common
Schools, the schools often did not accept children unless they already knew
how to read, write and calculate -- skills that were presumed to have been
taught at home.
Compared to today's barrage of mostly drivel, the tools for teaching were
few -- reading primers, arithmetic lessons and penmanship, probably only a
few choices of materials that were familiar to most families. The lessons
were simple. The children were bright, as today, and they learned the
lessons easily, quickly and well. For example: put four pennies (or apples)
on the floor arranged in a square. It's hard to mistake that 2+2=4 and 1+3.
Those lessons are instantly and indelibly printed in a child. No review is
needed, no test required. Ever. But the parent has (dare I say it) taught
the lesson. The child can usually take it from there. Timing is important.
Similarly, when a child needs (wants ! ) to learn how to read, such as in
the recent example of the smaller sister asking her older sibling in bed how
to say certain words that she pointed to on the page, such as HOP, one
person was helping the other to learn. It is not unusual that parents are
surprised by the abilities of their kids -- without any teaching. The reason
we are surprised sometimes is that we believe that learning is difficult and
takes a lot of teaching. That is the garbage that schools want us to
believe, so that we will maintain support for all their employees and
outrageous budgets.
As an unschooler (a staunch, radical, fanatical one) I am vehemently against
schooling -- the kind that is done in schools, and is directed by schoolers
for the benefit of the school establishment -- not the children. But that
doesn't mean I am against learning or even teaching, so long as it is asked
for by the learner.
In fact, in CT, parents are required by that ancient law to make sure that
their children are instructed in reading, writing, math, geography, and
government. For homeschoolers, nobody is looking over our shoulders, but
citizens need to be aware that their children's knowledge of those things is
their responsibility. No tests are required here, parents must determine an
acceptable level of information that their kids need to know. The law is
kind, saying that parents need to be ABLE TO show that their kids have
received instruction....it doesn't say that we MUST show it (to anyone).
My point is that UNschooling is a personal idea. Today's practice comes
primarily from the work and books of John Holt, who told us years ago that
the trouble with education is the schooling, the boring, life-crushing
tedium, the sit-down-shut-up-listen-to-this madness that drives kids crazy,
especially when there's so little that those places teach and how quickly
most kids can learn it ALL so that they can go out and play and discover how
the world really works.
What's my point...let's not thrash each other for not UNschooling. I am not
Anti-Unschooling, but I am also not Anti-teaching when a kid asks for that.
Purity in unschooling (as some understand it, as *no teaching no matter
what*) is as much the enemy of learning as school is.
Unschooling, for Luz and me, means providing the tools to a child so that
curiosity can be inspired and satisfied, preferably not by scripted
lessons, but more by the initiative and ingenuity of the learner. Becoming
our children's schoolteacher/taskmaster is sure to poison our relationship
with them, but when they ask for specifics, we must not be so hung up on
UNschooling that we fail in our responsibility as parents.
Is it possible that some parents don't know HOW to teach what their child
wants to know? Sure, it happens a lot. That's when they need to become
learners right along with the child. For example, I believe that part of the
resistance during the phonics discussion/tussle was because some folks are
convinced that Phonics is something that needs to be *taught* (saints
preserve us!) and they just weren't about to do that. But there is also the
hint that many people have no idea what phonics is, and school fashion has
told many people that Phonics is boring, repetitive, rote, rulebound,
old-fashioned, yadayada. That bad rap makes people fear that it requires a
whole lot of schooling. It's just not true...it comes from school teachers
who prefer therapy to teaching specific skills that even they are unsure of.
Liza sends this brief list from a book that, on its cover, claims to be a
how-to-read book, but inside claims that it's not a how-to-read book. It
turns out to be both. From the book, Liza summarizes:
>> the 6 ways to read:All of those are straight out of the Whole Language grab-bag.
>>1. Getting help from pictures
>>2. Remembering
>>3.Sounding out letters
>>4.Expecting what comes next
>>5.Writing
>>6.Making sense
Now you tell me which *way* tells HOW to read. If we want to know what a
word sounds like so we can *read* it, we do #3. Being able to read
accurately means being able to turn the printed marks into specific familiar
sounds. What it's not is guesswork, although many people believe that
guessing at words is just fine.
Liza's book is right: it's not a how-to-read book when it tells us to use
pictures for clues (a strategy from whole language), or when it tell us to
remember words by their confuguration (look-say-good luck), when it tells us
to Expect what comes next (be fortune tellers), use writing (can we write if
we can't read?), and finally, Making sense...Please, how can it make sense
if we can't read it. Reading is a prerequisite for understanding, not the
other way round.
Lucky for us all, kids find ways to learn on their own despite all the
miseducation we invent and therapies we use to avoid giving specific
instruction, even when it's begged for.
I have plenty of contempt for the teaching trade for turning simple learning
into a secretive and corrupt occupation that can now demand huge sums from
the public trough to do terrible things to children. Luz got her masters in
Education and certification from U of Az and agrees that what she learned
there was debilitating, fraudulent and a waste of time -- all of it. Bad
teaching methods have become the hallmark of the schooling establishment,
and it is affecting even the most independent intelligent people --
homeschoolers.
My hope is that we can get back to the common sense of our early settlers
and use direct methods to teach simple skills when they are needed and
requested, and then get on with real life. Learning how to read and
calculate each can take only a few minutes, total, perhaps spread out over a
few weeks. John Holt said that all of arithmetic can be learned in a single
morning, by a kid who's interested. I can't forget that kid who said, I
learned UP and DOWN, and then I could read.
Ned Vare
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/5/02 11:53:59 AM, nedvare@... writes:
<< Compared to today's barrage of mostly drivel >>
Ned, I don't understand why you like to insert strong negativity into writing
that is otherwise uplifting and inspiring.
<<Purity in unschooling (as some understand it, as *no teaching no matter
what*) is as much the enemy of learning as school is.>>
This is rhetorically powerful, but fallacious.
For one thing, I know of no "no teaching no matter what" "understandings,"
but of the importance of unschoolers considering what "teaching" is and is
not, and what hampers joyful learning.
<<it comes from school teachers
who prefer therapy to teaching specific skills >>
The rhetoric is really grating on me, and I think it's adding a film of
school-frustration and a political overlay which aren't conducive to the
discussion of what the families on this list are doing with their kids this
week, what has worked well, and what they're considering in the future.
The amount of drivel perceived by the politically minded in the media doesn't
help unschooling. Characterizing teaching as therapy doesn't help.
Badmouthing schools doesn't help.
There is a space where learning can be considered and discussed without the
shadow of schools or politics, and families which haven't learned how to get
over the stresses and fears could use as much time there as possible.
<< Learning how to read and
calculate each can take only a few minutes, total, perhaps spread out over a
few weeks. John Holt said that all of arithmetic can be learned in a single
morning, by a kid who's interested. >>
I believe the statement included it being a fifteen year old.
The suggestion that parents need to spend even a few minutes a day "teaching"
will cause doubt in some people here, and will be interpreted in a schooly
fashion, because they are of a schooly mindset, and still afraid because they
haven't seen natural learning work yet.
I believe, Ned, that you haven't seen a child learn naturally either. And
you could benefit from the dozens of examples people are sharing here, or you
could continue to ignore them and undermine and belittle them.
I don't think repeating your beliefs about teachers and phonics is
productive, nor is it answering any questions any others here are asking, and
neither will it bring people closer to natural learning.
Your son learned phonics from you and reads now, and so you are convinced
that did it. Great! That's one point of information. It's not half of the
discussion, or shouldn't be.
Sandra
<< Compared to today's barrage of mostly drivel >>
Ned, I don't understand why you like to insert strong negativity into writing
that is otherwise uplifting and inspiring.
<<Purity in unschooling (as some understand it, as *no teaching no matter
what*) is as much the enemy of learning as school is.>>
This is rhetorically powerful, but fallacious.
For one thing, I know of no "no teaching no matter what" "understandings,"
but of the importance of unschoolers considering what "teaching" is and is
not, and what hampers joyful learning.
<<it comes from school teachers
who prefer therapy to teaching specific skills >>
The rhetoric is really grating on me, and I think it's adding a film of
school-frustration and a political overlay which aren't conducive to the
discussion of what the families on this list are doing with their kids this
week, what has worked well, and what they're considering in the future.
The amount of drivel perceived by the politically minded in the media doesn't
help unschooling. Characterizing teaching as therapy doesn't help.
Badmouthing schools doesn't help.
There is a space where learning can be considered and discussed without the
shadow of schools or politics, and families which haven't learned how to get
over the stresses and fears could use as much time there as possible.
<< Learning how to read and
calculate each can take only a few minutes, total, perhaps spread out over a
few weeks. John Holt said that all of arithmetic can be learned in a single
morning, by a kid who's interested. >>
I believe the statement included it being a fifteen year old.
The suggestion that parents need to spend even a few minutes a day "teaching"
will cause doubt in some people here, and will be interpreted in a schooly
fashion, because they are of a schooly mindset, and still afraid because they
haven't seen natural learning work yet.
I believe, Ned, that you haven't seen a child learn naturally either. And
you could benefit from the dozens of examples people are sharing here, or you
could continue to ignore them and undermine and belittle them.
I don't think repeating your beliefs about teachers and phonics is
productive, nor is it answering any questions any others here are asking, and
neither will it bring people closer to natural learning.
Your son learned phonics from you and reads now, and so you are convinced
that did it. Great! That's one point of information. It's not half of the
discussion, or shouldn't be.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/5/2002 10:54:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
Just like I think that MOST PEOPLE will hear you say "Kids need phonics" and
think you mean "Kids need to be taught to read using a formal comprehensive
phonics program" - I also think MOST PEOPLE hear the word "teach" or
"teacher" and think of someone deciding what, when, where, and how kids are
supposed to learn something and then testing and grading how well they do at
it.
Now - I'm going to be pretty darn sure that long-time unschoolers don't mean
either of those things. If I hear a long-time unschooler say, "Yeah- I taught
my daughter how to do long division," it doesn't bring up those connotations
to me. In that case, knowing how unschooling workds, I'm going to assume this
came about because the kid wanted to do something and the parent offered the
information and so on.
BUT - here, on this list, with nearly a thousand people and MANY of those
people who are just trying to figure out what all this unschooling stuff is
all about - many of those people start out not even able to conceive of what
unschooling is - it seems to me that people are going to be very confused and
even misled if you say either that kids need phonics or that kids need to be
taught. Again - I GET the point - I just think that in THIS context it is
something that we have to stop and clear up every time it gets said because
it is so easily and so likely misconstrued.
It is okay - words can have multiple levels of meanings. "I am my child's
first and most important teacher." "I am my child's parent and I am NOT my
child's teacher."
I have said both of those and meant them and they didn't contradict each
other IN the contexts in which I said them.
So - in a context where there are lots of new-to-unschooling people -
remembering that "phonics" and "teach" and "teacher" have connotations to
them that we don't mean - it is more helpful to avoid those terms and just
talk more descriptively about what we mean.
--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:
> What's my point...let's not thrash each other for not UNschooling. I am notAgain - what we have here is a failure to communicate <G>.
> Anti-Unschooling, but I am also not Anti-teaching when a kid asks for that.
> Purity in unschooling (as some understand it, as *no teaching no matter
> what*) is as much the enemy of learning as school is.
Just like I think that MOST PEOPLE will hear you say "Kids need phonics" and
think you mean "Kids need to be taught to read using a formal comprehensive
phonics program" - I also think MOST PEOPLE hear the word "teach" or
"teacher" and think of someone deciding what, when, where, and how kids are
supposed to learn something and then testing and grading how well they do at
it.
Now - I'm going to be pretty darn sure that long-time unschoolers don't mean
either of those things. If I hear a long-time unschooler say, "Yeah- I taught
my daughter how to do long division," it doesn't bring up those connotations
to me. In that case, knowing how unschooling workds, I'm going to assume this
came about because the kid wanted to do something and the parent offered the
information and so on.
BUT - here, on this list, with nearly a thousand people and MANY of those
people who are just trying to figure out what all this unschooling stuff is
all about - many of those people start out not even able to conceive of what
unschooling is - it seems to me that people are going to be very confused and
even misled if you say either that kids need phonics or that kids need to be
taught. Again - I GET the point - I just think that in THIS context it is
something that we have to stop and clear up every time it gets said because
it is so easily and so likely misconstrued.
It is okay - words can have multiple levels of meanings. "I am my child's
first and most important teacher." "I am my child's parent and I am NOT my
child's teacher."
I have said both of those and meant them and they didn't contradict each
other IN the contexts in which I said them.
So - in a context where there are lots of new-to-unschooling people -
remembering that "phonics" and "teach" and "teacher" have connotations to
them that we don't mean - it is more helpful to avoid those terms and just
talk more descriptively about what we mean.
--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 8/5/2002 10:54:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
their child help? I haven't seen that. The unschooling parents I have seen
seem to all be incredibly resourceful, supportive, involved, observant,
intuitive, responsive facilitators. It wouldn't occur to me to worry that a
kid might want to learn to read and that an unschooling parent would not
figure out how best to help them or get help for them. Is that really
something you worry about?
--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:
> BecomingNed - do you and Luz see this happening? Unschooling parents refusing to give
> our children's schoolteacher/taskmaster is sure to poison our relationship
> with them, but when they ask for specifics, we must not be so hung up on
> UNschooling that we fail in our responsibility as parents.
their child help? I haven't seen that. The unschooling parents I have seen
seem to all be incredibly resourceful, supportive, involved, observant,
intuitive, responsive facilitators. It wouldn't occur to me to worry that a
kid might want to learn to read and that an unschooling parent would not
figure out how best to help them or get help for them. Is that really
something you worry about?
--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 8/5/2002 10:54:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
division algorithm (to kids who already understand simpler division, keep in
mind).
I was able to help my daughter learn to do long division in 30 minutes.
Literally - she started from knowing that 6 divided by 3 is 2 and we moved
from that to her being able to divide any-big-number by any-other-big-number
in amost exactly 30 minutes including enough practice time for her to
solidify her new ability. She thought it was cool and a wonderfully clever
technique. The secret? WAITING until she had a good reason to want to do it
AND until she had a deep full understanding of division - before helping her
learn a particular procedure.
--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]
nedvare@... writes:
> John Holt said that all of arithmetic can be learned in a singleSchools schedule 30 HOURS of instruction time to teach the standard long
> morning, by a kid who's interested.
division algorithm (to kids who already understand simpler division, keep in
mind).
I was able to help my daughter learn to do long division in 30 minutes.
Literally - she started from knowing that 6 divided by 3 is 2 and we moved
from that to her being able to divide any-big-number by any-other-big-number
in amost exactly 30 minutes including enough practice time for her to
solidify her new ability. She thought it was cool and a wonderfully clever
technique. The secret? WAITING until she had a good reason to want to do it
AND until she had a deep full understanding of division - before helping her
learn a particular procedure.
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/5/2002 10:54:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
as they do that, they also pick up the ability to sound them out.
Most kids have picked up SOME ability to do that just because they've, in
some way or another, felt the internal compulsion to do so. My now-17 yo's
first "sound" was "M" for MacDonalds. By the time they are five or six, many
(but not all - don't WORRY if your 6 yo isn't there yet), have picked up LOTS
of letter-sounds. So - they can often actually begin reading just a bit --
lots of times they can do the first sound in a word - even though they
haven't picked up on vowel sounds yet. So if they are looking at a book and
there is a picture of a dog and the letters D-O-G are on the page, they kid
might know that first letter sound is the "d" sound and "guess" that the word
is "dog". This is not really reading - this is guessing with a bit of extra
information - first-letter sound and a picture. The kid could probably still
not read that word, "d-o-g" without the context of the picture. But if it IS
fun and satisfying, then the kid will keep at it. A parent might notice that
the child has guessed that the word is dog and might make a point of playing
some rhyming games using that word. Or might say, "HOW did you know that word
wasn't "log?" <G>
-- and that leads them to more reading and more learning about more letter
sounds and eventually they read fluently.
If
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:
> Liza's book is right: it's not a how-to-read book when it tells us to useUsing these other steps is what makes it fun for kids to fool with words and,
> pictures for clues (a strategy from whole language), or when it tell us to
> remember words by their confuguration (look-say-good luck), when it tells
> us
> to Expect what comes next (be fortune tellers), use writing (can we write
> if
> we can't read?), and finally, Making sense...Please, how can it make sense
> if we can't read it. Reading is a prerequisite for understanding, not the
> other way round.
as they do that, they also pick up the ability to sound them out.
Most kids have picked up SOME ability to do that just because they've, in
some way or another, felt the internal compulsion to do so. My now-17 yo's
first "sound" was "M" for MacDonalds. By the time they are five or six, many
(but not all - don't WORRY if your 6 yo isn't there yet), have picked up LOTS
of letter-sounds. So - they can often actually begin reading just a bit --
lots of times they can do the first sound in a word - even though they
haven't picked up on vowel sounds yet. So if they are looking at a book and
there is a picture of a dog and the letters D-O-G are on the page, they kid
might know that first letter sound is the "d" sound and "guess" that the word
is "dog". This is not really reading - this is guessing with a bit of extra
information - first-letter sound and a picture. The kid could probably still
not read that word, "d-o-g" without the context of the picture. But if it IS
fun and satisfying, then the kid will keep at it. A parent might notice that
the child has guessed that the word is dog and might make a point of playing
some rhyming games using that word. Or might say, "HOW did you know that word
wasn't "log?" <G>
-- and that leads them to more reading and more learning about more letter
sounds and eventually they read fluently.
If
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Liza Sabater
I completely agree with Pam.
Aidan is 2.4 and competing full force with his brother. My MIL sent
them both frisbees that are exactly the same. So I gave one to each
and wrote their name. Now, Aidan has been seeing his name on his
door, on his presents, on pictures and especially every time he gets
signed in for computer games. Guess what, he definitely can tell the
difference between his name and his brother's.
We did the 'switch the frisbee' trick and he still picked the right
one. Our friends did the 'behind the back switch' and he still
pointed to the one with his name. If he finds Evan's frisbee he drops
it and looks for his. Not only that, now he truly recognizes his name
ELSEWHERE. As with his name, he now also recognizes the numbers that
come up on our elevator up to 12 because, guess what, we live on the
12th floor. Then there is the birthday card incident: We were invited
to a neighbor's b-day and I gave Evan the card to sign. Not to leave
Thing2 out, I passed the card to him. There are 5 letters in his name
and, guess what, he made 5 scribbles, one next to the other and small
enough to look like that's where letters should go. I had nothing
like this with Thing1. To him a paper is still a universe with almost
no gravity: His letters look like they are hardly touching a
baseline. This tells me a few things:
(1) Aidan is soaking up every bit of information that he can get from
his brother
(2) He may be benefiting from having a hyper-visual environment with
art and computers everywhere
(3) He is acquiring the skills that he will need to learn how to read and write
When I say my kids are my own private National Geograhic I am not
kidding. It is truly "smashing" how they just are learning so much
and taking it all in without my former paradigm of learning (which
was teach, teach, teach). And what is more important is that they are
having fun with it. Aidan gets excited when he 'gets' a new word (he
is starting to speak as well).
Evan is allergic to any teaching but now is into adding thanks to the
Pokémon board game. And it was not until he got his library card that
he got that when somebody writes, if you know how to you can read
that writing. He signs his name on the Library's roster of 'little'
clients . The librarian reads it and says, "Well thank you Evan". He
turns to me and asks, "How come she knows my name?" I said, well
because she read it off the book after you signed it. He totally
flipped. He was so floored by the whole idea --and here I was all
along thinking that he understood this what I thought was an obvious
concept.
Every day they are acquiring reading and writing skills and as
embattled Martha would say, THAT is a good thing.
Best,
Liza
Aidan is 2.4 and competing full force with his brother. My MIL sent
them both frisbees that are exactly the same. So I gave one to each
and wrote their name. Now, Aidan has been seeing his name on his
door, on his presents, on pictures and especially every time he gets
signed in for computer games. Guess what, he definitely can tell the
difference between his name and his brother's.
We did the 'switch the frisbee' trick and he still picked the right
one. Our friends did the 'behind the back switch' and he still
pointed to the one with his name. If he finds Evan's frisbee he drops
it and looks for his. Not only that, now he truly recognizes his name
ELSEWHERE. As with his name, he now also recognizes the numbers that
come up on our elevator up to 12 because, guess what, we live on the
12th floor. Then there is the birthday card incident: We were invited
to a neighbor's b-day and I gave Evan the card to sign. Not to leave
Thing2 out, I passed the card to him. There are 5 letters in his name
and, guess what, he made 5 scribbles, one next to the other and small
enough to look like that's where letters should go. I had nothing
like this with Thing1. To him a paper is still a universe with almost
no gravity: His letters look like they are hardly touching a
baseline. This tells me a few things:
(1) Aidan is soaking up every bit of information that he can get from
his brother
(2) He may be benefiting from having a hyper-visual environment with
art and computers everywhere
(3) He is acquiring the skills that he will need to learn how to read and write
When I say my kids are my own private National Geograhic I am not
kidding. It is truly "smashing" how they just are learning so much
and taking it all in without my former paradigm of learning (which
was teach, teach, teach). And what is more important is that they are
having fun with it. Aidan gets excited when he 'gets' a new word (he
is starting to speak as well).
Evan is allergic to any teaching but now is into adding thanks to the
Pokémon board game. And it was not until he got his library card that
he got that when somebody writes, if you know how to you can read
that writing. He signs his name on the Library's roster of 'little'
clients . The librarian reads it and says, "Well thank you Evan". He
turns to me and asks, "How come she knows my name?" I said, well
because she read it off the book after you signed it. He totally
flipped. He was so floored by the whole idea --and here I was all
along thinking that he understood this what I thought was an obvious
concept.
Every day they are acquiring reading and writing skills and as
embattled Martha would say, THAT is a good thing.
Best,
Liza
>In a message dated 8/5/2002 10:54:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>nedvare@... writes:
>
>
> > Liza's book is right: it's not a how-to-read book when it tells us to use
> > pictures for clues (a strategy from whole language), or when it tell us to
> > remember words by their confuguration (look-say-good luck), when it tells
>> us
>> to Expect what comes next (be fortune tellers), use writing (can we write
>> if
>> we can't read?), and finally, Making sense...Please, how can it make sense
>> if we can't read it. Reading is a prerequisite for understanding, not the
>> other way round.
>
>Using these other steps is what makes it fun for kids to fool with words and,
>as they do that, they also pick up the ability to sound them out.
>
>Most kids have picked up SOME ability to do that just because they've, in
>some way or another, felt the internal compulsion to do so. My now-17 yo's
>first "sound" was "M" for MacDonalds. By the time they are five or six, many
>(but not all - don't WORRY if your 6 yo isn't there yet), have picked up LOTS
>of letter-sounds. So - they can often actually begin reading just a bit --
>lots of times they can do the first sound in a word - even though they
>haven't picked up on vowel sounds yet. So if they are looking at a book and
>there is a picture of a dog and the letters D-O-G are on the page, they kid
>might know that first letter sound is the "d" sound and "guess" that the word
>is "dog". This is not really reading - this is guessing with a bit of extra
>information - first-letter sound and a picture. The kid could probably still
>not read that word, "d-o-g" without the context of the picture. But if it IS
>fun and satisfying, then the kid will keep at it. A parent might notice that
>the child has guessed that the word is dog and might make a point of playing
>some rhyming games using that word. Or might say, "HOW did you know that word
>wasn't "log?" <G>
>
>-- and that leads them to more reading and more learning about more letter
>sounds and eventually they read fluently.
>
zenmomma *
>>The librarian reads it and says, "Well thank you Evan". HeWhat a great story. I just love those "light bulb" moments. Sounds like
>turns to me and asks, "How come she knows my name?" I said, well
>because she read it off the book after you signed it. He totally
>flipped. He was so floored by the whole idea --and here I was all
>along thinking that he understood this what I thought was an obvious
>concept.>>
both Evan and you had an AHA! at the library. :o)
Life is good.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com