Liza Sabater

Hmm.

I just read this at HEM and find it pertinent to the LEARNING TO READ thread.

I think that the issues of when and how a child reads are absolutely
related to the educational perspective of the parents. There is
nothing natural about reading; it is very much a cultural construct.
If reading early is an imperative for the parent, by hook or by crook
the child will read. If it is not regarded as an imperative --as it
is for many unschoolers-- then the child will learn to read whenever.

The issue with reading, though, is that there is a right way to do it
within the context of the proper grammatical use of the language.
When that happens or should happen, THAT is what is open to debate.

Liza



>Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact
>[email protected]
>Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected]
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:38:36 -0800
>Subject: [HEM-Unschooling] Ten Myths of Reading Instruction
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>Status:
>
>Ten Myths of Reading Instruction
>by Sebastian Wren, Ph.D.
>Michael Pressley, in his excellent book, Reading Instruction that
>Works, concluded with a discussion of what he considered to be "Ten
>Dumb and Dangerous Claims about Reading Instruction." All of the
>points he made were quite compelling, but one wonders if these are
>his "top ten" picks for the most dangerous myths about reading
>instruction.
>
>Some might at least argue that the list should be re-ordered
>(placing some higher on the list than Pressley did), and certainly
>some would argue that there are a few myths that should have made
>the cut that he never mentioned. Curious readers are directed to his
>book to review his "top ten" list (the book is well written and
>highly informative), but here we will examine a second perspective
>of the most damaging myths and misconceptions about reading
>instruction. Let us begin with a myth that Pressley did not mention,
>but which is arguably the most pernicious myth currently influencing
>reading instruction:<<snip>>
>
><http://www.readingrockets.org/article.php?ID=402>http://www.readingrockets.org/article.php?ID=402
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/10/02 10:58:56 PM, liza@... writes:

<< If reading early is an imperative for the parent, by hook or by crook
the child will read. >>

This isn't true, though.
If reading early is "an imperative" and the child doesn't read, he is
labelled "disabled," dyslexic, homeschooling is blamed, spouses are blamed,
television is blamed, pressure and shame flood in, tears, and eventually the
child reads and the parents credit all their labelling and shame. TOTAL
waste of emotion. And five years later, if they could ONLY reclaim those
years and undo the crap, it would be the most valuable thing in their lives.
Way more valuable than early reading that cannot be forced.

And IF the early reading comes pretty easily, as it does for some kids in
school, what is lost is the opportunity for the parents and the child to see
natural learning work. If they can see reading come naturally, they won't
worry about other things a bit.

Sandra

Fetteroll

on 12/10/02 11:49 PM, Liza Sabater at liza@... wrote:

> There is
> nothing natural about reading; it is very much a cultural construct.

Spoken language is a cultural construct too but what part does its
"unnaturalness" play in learning to speak? Being available and useful is all
that's necessary.

> The issue with reading, though, is that there is a right way to do it
> within the context of the proper grammatical use of the language.

The same is true of spoken language. But what barrier or stumbling block is
that to speaking?

> When that happens or should happen, THAT is what is open to debate.

And the reasons people debate teaching kids to read is:

1) They don't all realize kids *do* read when given the freedom to do so.
They're caught in the "Well, maybe that's true, but I want to be sure" mode
of thinking.

2) Their goals are different. Someone whose goals are to allow learning to
unfold naturally aren't going to have the same needs as someone who wants to
"make sure" or someone (like schools) whose goal is to have the kids reading
independently by a certain age. It's like two people debating what it's best
to pack for a hike when they don't realize one is planning on hiking across
the desert and the other is planning to hike Mt. Everest. Parents' true
goals are masked by thinking their goal is to do what's best for their kids,
not realizing they aren't defining "what's best" in the same way. And often
they aren't defining it the same way because of fear and ignorance of how
children really learn when given the freedom to learn what they want when
they want it.

Joyce

Kimber

<<<If reading early is an imperative for the parent, by hook or by crook
the child will read.>>>

I disagree with this statement. I personally have found with my 2 children, that there is no way to force a child to read. The more we(teachers and parents) insisted they 'just try harder' the more my children resisted or seemed to just 'not get it'. It can be very frustrating for both the parent and child if you force the issue.

Kimber
Momma to ds9 and dd7


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/11/02 5:01:20 AM, fetteroll@... writes:

<< It's like two people debating what it's best
to pack for a hike when they don't realize one is planning on hiking across
the desert and the other is planning to hike Mt. Everest. >>

That is a wonderful analogy, Joyce.

Sandra

Liza Sabater

At 2:56 AM -0500 12/11/02, SandraDodd@... wrote:
>In a message dated 12/10/02 10:58:56 PM, liza@... writes:
>
><< If reading early is an imperative for the parent, by hook or by crook
>the child will read. >>
>
>This isn't true, though.
>If reading early is "an imperative" and the child doesn't read, he is
>labelled "disabled," dyslexic, homeschooling is blamed, spouses are blamed,
>television is blamed, pressure and shame flood in, tears, and eventually the
>child reads and the parents credit all their labelling and shame. TOTAL
>waste of emotion.

Reading is not an early imperative because reading is really not a
biological imperative. COMMUNICATION is a human imperative but
reading --whether pictures or words is not. There is a confusion
between the act of communicating and the tools we use to communicate
with. If using signs in such an abstract way as words were natural we
would all have a common language but that is not the case.

The best example that I could think of was with pictures. When my son
scribbles on a piece of paper and says that it is a picture of a cow,
I have to believe him because to HIM it is. In that instance I am
entering into a contract, into an agreement with him. He himself has
not entered into the visual social contract that says that some
circles and lines, fashioned in a certain way even if rudimentary,
will give me the construct of a cow. So even if as cavemen we were
"reading" pictures of bison, those pictures are not so much the
evidence of Neanderthal reading but probably evidence of one of the
earliest language constructs that we have.

A language is a social contract. We use words and signs in a certain
way because we enter in agreement with the community of speakers that
share the language. Even when we use words in an unconventional way
--like COOL! or GUAVA!, for example-- it is still understood that
these sounds mean something. Meaning is not natural. Meaning and the
use of meaning come out of a social agreement that predates all of us.

So communication and the act of creating social contracts is natural
to humans. What is not natural, in the sense of being a primal and
universal function of the human animal, is the social contract
itself. That is a construction. Just like a building or garden.

The whole American phenomenon of education has nothing to do with
what is natural or not. There is no failure in education --what we
have is a constant and jarring social disagreement on what education
is or should be. I do not know when historically reading and writing
became the markers of education in this society but I am sure that it
is traceable to a particular point in time somewhere back in the late
19th century.

You are very candid in the way you share your children's unschooling
journeys and the value that I see in that is not whether you are
doing the right or wrong thing. What your articles reflect is the
world you have created for your family and the values that you and
your husband have chosen to instill in this little piece of world
your call home. There is no blame, shame or tears but that is not
because what you are doing is right or wrong in itself but because
YOU have chosen to raise your children outside of the, let's say,
mainstream social contract that states that there is something wrong
if your child has not done X, Y or Z by a certain age.

What I see around me here in NYC is appalling. You see people
plunking down 16, 20, 30, 000 for pre-K so that their kids can have
the "right" kind of education. Or they get caught up in the drama of
their kids being gifted or not gifted and getting coaches and the
right books so that they can pass those god damn TAG tests that are
supposed to validate their existence through their children's
"giftedness".

When I said that people would make their kids read by hook or by
crook I meant it in the most literal sense. If reading and writing is
all they value as being the "proof" of a good education, they will do
anything to fix the "problem". Most people see their children's
achievements or failures as a reflection of not only who they are as
individuals but of their standing in society. That is, their
children's success at hitting all the milestones before everybody
else is as about their own success at completing all the milestones
that we as a society say that we need to hit in order to be
successful.

And this, btw, has no bearing on whether we send our kids to college
or not. If not, most homeschoolers and unschoolers would feel
comfortable with the idea of NOT sending their kids to college either
--but that is the topic for another discussion.

So, fundamentally, I do not disagree with your or Bec or Joyce. What
I disagree with is the consideration that reading and writing are
natural activities and not social constructs.

Liza

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Liza Sabater

At 7:00 AM -0500 12/11/02, Fetteroll wrote:
>on 12/10/02 11:49 PM, Liza Sabater at liza@... wrote:
>
>> There is
>> nothing natural about reading; it is very much a cultural construct.
>
>Spoken language is a cultural construct too but what part does its
>"unnaturalness" play in learning to speak?

The action is natural. Communication is natural; what is used to
communicate is not. Learning is natural, what is used to learned is
not.

Evan was colicky for what it seemed forever. I was going out of my
mind because he was 5 months old and still screaming for 3-5 hours a
day. The peds were idiots telling me it would go away. It didn't.
Then a friend told me to read THE FUZZY BABY BOOK. It changed my
life. Here I was a post-structuralist literary critic with a heavy
does of linguistics and something as simple as listening to the
different cries of my child just went over me. I had not a clue.

My son was colicky because of a breakdown in communication between
the two of us. I had not entered into an agreement with him as to
what his cryings meant. After reading that book, our relationship
changed. We 'spoke', we worked things out. He cried, I stated my
"translations" until, somehow, we found a way to reach an agreement
as to what he meant. Same when he entered into his babbling period.
We would translate what he was saying by asking questions. He would
nod if he agreed with our translation. Needless to say, when he
started talking he was extremely pissed off that we could not
understand what he was saying. We stressed, though, that he was
learning new languages (English and Spanish) and that the transition
from Evanish to these other languages was sometimes tricky. That's
why, when he did not want me to talk to him in Spanish anymore (at
about 3), I really had to back off. He was just overwhelmed and
needed to focus on one new language at the time.

There are other moments of this "unnaturalness". We were in the
living room --he was about 1 year old. Evan was slamming the door of
the VCR console. I asked him to stop. He did. Then I said to him,
"close the door". He looked at me mystified. "Close the door". Again
he was just two big eyes staring back at me. Then it dawned on me
--he had no clue that what he was playing with was called a door.
Doors to the apartment, doors to the bedrooms are, well huge things
that open and close. Those where doors. This thing that opened and
closed but was smaller than him, he had no idea that it was also a
door. So I went to him and pointed to the cabinet door and said,
"This is a door just like the front door", and pointed to that too.
"Ooooh", he said. So we went all around the apartment looking for all
the doors.

It is not that learning is extrinsic from language. What I am trying
to distinguish is between learning the action and the ability being
learned. The fact that human babies have to learn how to suckle
really tells us a lot about the human animal. Humans have had to
create practices and technologies to support learning just for the
simple reason of survival. So, if we look at learning from that
evolutionary perspective, then language becomes one of the early
practices or technologies that humans needed to develop in order to
survive.


>Being available and useful is all
>that's necessary.


I don't think we are disagreeing but when you talk about being
available, I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean being there when
they need the information to become available to them? If this is
true, then yes, I agree.

Still, I have an addendum to that argument. What about just changing
our perspective of what is language? What if we talked about language
as a practice and technology that we have developed and found an
agreement over its use through practices such as grammar,
orthography, philology, phonetics, etc. Then what? It does not become
a natural thing, it is just another ability that can be learned.
Timetables? I guess you and I agree that there should not be any,
that learning how to use language can happen at each person's pace.
What I am trying to argue for is to look at language as something
that is just a tool with a set of instructions and that, really, it
takes a lifetime --or a great deal of passion and practice-- to
master those instructions.



> > The issue with reading, though, is that there is a right way to do it
>> within the context of the proper grammatical use of the language.
>
>The same is true of spoken language. But what barrier or stumbling block is
>that to speaking?


Well, in my example with Evan, the stumbling block is the lack of
AGREEMENT over meaning.

When a 15 year old does not read or write at the same level of his or
her peers, it is not because that person is slow or behind. They are
not reading at the others 'level' because they are not in agreement
with what should be the level or reading or writing for a 15 year-old.

So, in general terms, unschooling is the opportunity for many of us
to allow our children to not be beholden to the mainstream agreements
of how, when and where our children should learn. What that creates
though, is a new agreement; or, in political terms, a new social
contract.



>
>> When that happens or should happen, THAT is what is open to debate.
>
>And the reasons people debate teaching kids to read is:
>
>1) They don't all realize kids *do* read when given the freedom to do so.
>They're caught in the "Well, maybe that's true, but I want to be sure" mode
>of thinking.


Fear is a major factor here. I think that people push their children
into doing things because THEY don't want to be embarrassed. Fear of
embarrassment is what feeds the education industry, no question about
it. And I am including the homeschooling section of that industry as
well.

So when I said "by hook or by crook" I meant it in the context of
this fear of embarrassment. Some will go all the way out spending
thousands of dollars in reading programs or coaches or whatever. Then
there are those that will medicalize the situation and call it a
condition like dyslexia because that way the blame is not on them, it
is on something as abstract as a "condition". So then, there is an
explanation for why the child can't read. I am not saying this is a
conscious act for everybody because many people are not aware that
FEAR is what drives their every move.

FEAR is not just an issue related to schooling or education but
basically everything in our lives. Look at the stock market, look at
religion, look at medicine, look at the institution of marriage, look
at homeschooling and even, yes, unschooling. A lot of people come to
homeschooling and unschooling out of fear not out of possibility and
that is what informs their decisions.



>2) Their goals are different. Someone whose goals are to allow learning to
>unfold naturally aren't going to have the same needs as someone who wants to
>"make sure" or someone (like schools) whose goal is to have the kids reading
>independently by a certain age.


Agreed.


>It's like two people debating what it's best
>to pack for a hike when they don't realize one is planning on hiking across
>the desert and the other is planning to hike Mt. Everest. Parents' true
>goals are masked by thinking their goal is to do what's best for their kids,
>not realizing they aren't defining "what's best" in the same way. And often
>they aren't defining it the same way because of fear and ignorance of how
>children really learn when given the freedom to learn what they want when
>they want it.



Joyce, when I was teaching college, a lot of kids knew how to read
but could not make any sense of what they were reading. Sounding out
words is not reading. There are so many things involved in the
processes of reading and writing and all have to be attended to.
Writing was the other big problem --they just could not articulate
their ideas. I am not saying that they were bad or wrong. What I am
saying is that as a Spanish teacher I spent way too much time
teaching English to my students. They just did not have the tools,
the knowledge of their own language, in order to apply to it to the
type of learning that goes on at a university.

And BTW, the fact that I was teaching the elite (NYU, Rutgers) and
the 'non-elite' (BMCC and Manhattan College) taught me that it did
not matter how much money or resources my students had at their
disposal. If they did not know how to use those resources, they just
went to waste.

Language is really a tool or, if you want to put it into a fun
context, we could say that words are like LEGO blocks. You can build
anything with them. There is nothing to fear in words. There is
nothing mysterious about them. Saying that "it will happen when it
happens" is too vague and feeds into that whole fear factor around
reading and writing.

My arguments are for demystifying language; for taking aware the aura
of fear around it. I guess because I have used everything I can use
to deal with my dyslexia, I have no qualms in encouraging people to
try things out with the kids.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN I ADVOCATE PUSHING CHILDREN INTO ANYTHING.

What it means is, if the interest is there but the parent is
overwhelmed because they are confused with all these messages of what
is right and wrong, I am here saying, don't worry, they are just
words. Let's strip reading and writing of their omnipotence in
learning. They are just words. Let's get rid of the mystery and fear
around phonemes and phonics. They are just words. It is just as
simple as that.

Liza



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/12/02 9:32:29 AM, liza@... writes:

<< The fact that human babies have to learn how to suckle
really tells us a lot about the human animal. >>

It's the moms who often haven't seen it done and don't know where to put the
baby and what to do. And it's hospitals giving bad advice and telling moms
that if the baby is isn't nursing yet the mom can't go home, before the milk
is even in. And it's cesareans and induced births so that the baby pops out
before the milk is ready.

Outside of modern intervention and nonsense, babies don't "have to learn."

I've heard that if a mother is unconscious when a baby is born the baby can
climb to the nipple. The grasping instinct that newborns have, which fades,
I've heard has to do with that potential first climb to food.

<<Communication is natural; what is used to
communicate is not. Learning is natural, what is used to learned is
not.>>

I don't know what you are saying.

What is used to communicate in people is voice or symbol. Both are "natural."
What's used in learning is new biochemical connections. Those are all
internal. All learning is in brain, muscle, mind.

<<So, if we look at learning from that
evolutionary perspective, then language becomes one of the early
practices or technologies that humans needed to develop in order to
survive.>>

Language is not "a technology."
When dogs communicate, or honey bees, or birds, or dolphins, that is natural.

Humans have involved communications with stories and songs and poems, but
it's still evolved gradually and been passed on naturally.

<<What about just changing
our perspective of what is language? What if we talked about language
as a practice and technology that we have developed and found an
agreement over its use through practices such as grammar,
orthography, philology, phonetics, etc. Then what? It does not become
a natural thing, it is just another ability that can be learned. >>

Native speakers don't need those in-depth studies and analyses for their
language to work. There is the natural use of language and then there's the
dissection and analysis of language.

A family with traditional building skills can build a shed or barn or house
or fence without studying the history of other methods. They only need what
they learned from their own relatives or neighbors. Some people like to
study the idea of building itself, either from an engineering standpoint, or
anthropological, or archeological. But that is not the same as building.

<<Timetables? I guess you and I agree that there should not be any, >>

Translate, please.

The "table" in "timestables" is a chart which anyone can construct. It's a
pattern of counting. The pattern existed before writing and charts did.

<<What I am trying to argue for is to look at language as something
that is just a tool with a set of instructions and that, really, it
takes a lifetime --or a great deal of passion and practice-- to
master those instructions.>>

I think you're seeing a lifelong obsession with the essence of language as
being somehow equal to or on a continuum with just learning and using
language in everyday life. It's a very different thing.

A person can be an excellent speaker of a language and have NO idea of how to
diagram sentences or conjugate verbs. They're different things, the use and
the analysis.

Someone can be an excellent musician without knowing music theory.
Someone can be a great baseball player without knowing biomechanics.



<<I am not saying this is a
conscious act for everybody because many people are not aware that
FEAR is what drives their every move.>>

Fear doesn't drive my every move.

Are you just talking about school-conscious New Yorkers still? Or have you
really moved on to "everybody"?

<<They just did not have the tools,
the knowledge of their own language, in order to apply to it to the
type of learning that goes on at a university.>>

You wanted them to know grammar so you could use that terminology.

People have learned second languages for thousands of years, and before the
development of grammar books. HOW? By actually going where the people spoke
the language.

There are people with great talent for learning multiple languages. There
are others without that talent. But 'scientific' school methods ignore that
and think that a method of instruction can be developed which will allow
anyone equally to memorize rules add verbs and vocabulary and then speak the
language. Classroom language instruction has never been shown to be as
effective as going to the place and living among native speakers.

<<And BTW, the fact that I was teaching the elite (NYU, Rutgers) and
the 'non-elite' (BMCC and Manhattan College) taught me that it did
not matter how much money or resources my students had at their
disposal. If they did not know how to use those resources, they just
went to waste.>>

Both were schools. And the resources were not natural learning experiences,
I'm guessing.

<<Language is really a tool or, if you want to put it into a fun
context, we could say that words are like LEGO blocks. You can build
anything with them. There is nothing to fear in words. There is
nothing mysterious about them. Saying that "it will happen when it
happens" is too vague and feeds into that whole fear factor around
reading and writing.>>

I honestly don't know what you're saying.
Yes, language is like blocks. English is like alphabet blocks that don't
connect. Latin/French (where much of English vocabulary arises) are like
tinkertoys--they clip parts together to make bigger words. But that's an
observation after the fact, and no child needs to know that to learn the
languages.

<<My arguments are for demystifying language; for taking aware the aura
of fear around it. >>

Yet you're describing it as something created, with rules, and unnatural.

<<Let's strip reading and writing of their omnipotence in
learning. They are just words. Let's get rid of the mystery and fear
around phonemes and phonics. They are just words. It is just as
simple as that.>>

Were you afraid at first and now you're losing the fear?
In the same post you've said things that seem contradictory.

Sandra

Liza Sabater

Sandra,

I think we are talking two different languages :-) I would like to know:

1. What do you consider a language?

2. Is a grammar put together in 1492 (Spanish) or 1602 (English) a
natural occurrence?

3. How do you define natural?

Liza

Schuyler Waynforth <[email protected]>

--- In [email protected], Liza Sabater <liza@c...>
wrote:
> Sandra,

> 2. Is a grammar put together in 1492 (Spanish) or 1602 (English) a
> natural occurrence?


I know I'm not Sandra, but...

Well, the grammar was just a reflection of the language that already
existed. It's not as if Spaniards had been sitting around not
speaking or communicating or writing until 1492. Grammar is an
artifice.

Schuyler

Liza Sabater

At 8:53 AM +0000 12/13/02, Schuyler Waynforth <dwaynf@...> wrote:
>Well, the grammar was just a reflection of the language that already
>existed. It's not as if Spaniards had been sitting around not
>speaking or communicating or writing until 1492.


The grammar was created under Ferdinand and Isabella for the main
purpose of unifying the kingdoms documents under one language (they
themselves spoke different languages).


>Grammar is an
>artifice.


Absolutely. My point exactly. It is not natural.


Liza

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/13/02 8:55:47 PM, liza@... writes:

<< >Grammar is an
>artifice.


Absolutely. My point exactly. It is not natural.
>>

And grammar is to language as mathematical forumlae are to naturally occuring
processes. You might write up in numbers and graphs how ice breaks rocks,
but the geological process is natural and will happen without that analysis.

Language exists without humans analyzing it and naming its parts.

Sandra