Jen E.

I just sent this post into my local unschooling group and thought I would go ahead and share it here too. This list has been pretty intense the last few days and I thought some might appreciate a light story of unschooling "success-in-progress."

************
I just wanted to share (with people who would truly appreciate it) some writing Dane just handed me. I will put all the translations into parentheses.

He drew out a "cartoon" titled Mi PT BD. (My Pet Beetle)
I'm going to try to explain this as best as I can. There are a bunch of little drawings all over the paper and each one has a little caption bubble above its head. The captions are as follows:

"NO" (No)
"OOY" (Yes)
"IM WAD" (I'm waiting)
"IKBU" (I can beat you)
"P" (pfft)
"Di" (die)
"No" (no)
"Surrender" {This was actually written by Beck (8)}
"UH" (uh)
"KM BAK" (come back)
"No" (no)
"plez" (please)


I didn't say it made any sense...lol....but it was cute. I love all the phonetic/invented spelling. And I love that Dane is learning to read and write at his own pace and feels no shame or pressure for it.

Thanks to anyone who made it through this.

Jen :o)
Mom to Beck (8) and Dane (5)



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

kstjonn

That's wonderful! I also live with a pre-reading 5 year old :)

She looks at writing like drawing. She has asked me to write words
down so she can copy them. I've noticed that when I'm writing too
quickly and not paying attention, I write the letters too close
together. She copies them exactly. It's fascinating.

She seems to recognize whole words and has no interest in learning
individual letters or phonics. She wants to know the whole word.

[email protected]

kara@... writes:


>
> That's wonderful! I also live with a pre-reading 5 year old :)
>
> She looks at writing like drawing. She has asked me to write words
> down so she can copy them. I've noticed that when I'm writing too
> quickly and not paying attention, I write the letters too close
> together. She copies them exactly. It's fascinating.
>
> She seems to recognize whole words and has no interest in learning
> individual letters or phonics. She wants to know the whole word.
>
>


Not to offend but this made me think of menopause. :)

For years I've been quizzing my OB/GYN about when I would be
"premenopausal" and he keeps explaining that it's really a long individualized
development period of years during which a woman is not "premenopausal" but
"peri-menopausal." And there's no way to speak of that perimenopausal process as over
until after you've obviously arrived at Menopause, disembarked and gone home. <
grin>

So I was wondering if there might be value in re-casting the
development of reading not as pre-reading but as a properly indeterminate and personal
time of "peri-reading" ? Only half-joking, JJ


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

Jen E.

***So I was wondering if there might be value in re-casting the
development of reading not as pre-reading but as a properly indeterminate and personal
time of "peri-reading" ? Only half-joking, JJ***
I actually kinda like this idea! I think I may start using it.

Jen :o)
Mom to Beck (8) and Dane (5)



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

[email protected]

This is not criticism of kids early writing. I think it's wonderful.



<< So I was wondering if there might be value in re-casting the
development of reading not as pre-reading but as a properly indeterminate
and personal
time of "peri-reading" ? >>

"Emergent reader" is one existing term.

I personally think that creating stages only adds to the prejudice against
non-readers. Maybe if not reading wasn't treated as sin or eternal separation
from literacy (it is neither of those), everyone involved would lighten up and
just calmly say "She's not reading fluently yet."

There aren't stages of bike riding, outside of "with training wheels" or
"without." Yet there's a world of difference between a five year old on a coaster
bike and a mountain racer. Still, if one is operating the bike independently
and it's moving forward, that is riding a bike.

If a parent can't leave a carefully printed note for a child that has
important information and know that the child can read it and act accordingly, I
don't think the child can read. Anymore than a child who can't have a phone
conversation with someone can be considered to be fully verbal.

But everyone starts out not fully verbal, and most gain amazing facility
there, so why create intermediary steps? It reminds me too much of gold star
school stuff and not enough of accepting and helping kids see the normal healthy
progressions of real life.

Sandra

[email protected]

I completely agree that defining stages and standards for each is
troublesome to unschoolers for various reasons, not the least of which is it's
needlessly schoolish. (Yes, for the same reasons transcripts and grades are
troublesome.)

Unschooled learning conceived as each person's unique development
continuum, unfolding its mysteries as a daily delight and proceeding along at its
own unique timetable, is best of all.

Peri-literacy was only mentioned as an improvement on the concept of
"pre-reading" and only as a gimmicky illustration at that. :) JJ

SandraDodd@... writes:


> This is not criticism of kids early writing. I think it's wonderful.
>
>
>
> << So I was wondering if there might be value in re-casting the
> development of reading not as pre-reading but as a properly indeterminate
> and personal
> time of "peri-reading" ? >>
>
> "Emergent reader" is one existing term.
>
> I personally think that creating stages only adds to the prejudice against
> non-readers. Maybe if not reading wasn't treated as sin or eternal
> separation
> from literacy (it is neither of those), everyone involved would lighten up
> and
> just calmly say "She's not reading fluently yet."
>
> There aren't stages of bike riding, outside of "with training wheels" or
> "without." Yet there's a world of difference between a five year old on a
> coaster
> bike and a mountain racer. Still, if one is operating the bike
> independently
> and it's moving forward, that is riding a bike.
>
> If a parent can't leave a carefully printed note for a child that has
> important information and know that the child can read it and act
> accordingly, I
> don't think the child can read. Anymore than a child who can't have a phone
>
> conversation with someone can be considered to be fully verbal.
>
> But everyone starts out not fully verbal, and most gain amazing facility
> there, so why create intermediary steps? It reminds me too much of gold
> star
> school stuff and not enough of accepting and helping kids see the normal
> healthy
> progressions of real life.
>
> Sandra
>



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

queenjane555

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:

>
> If a parent can't leave a carefully printed note for a child that
>has important information and know that the child can read it and
>act accordingly, I don't think the child can read.

well hey now, first you'd have to have a kid that would actually
notice the note in the first place (might have to tape it onto the tv
screen or gameboy or maybe the lid of the toilet seat), and then
trust that he would actually choose to follow whatever information
was on the note.(And not forget about it 30 seconds after he read
it.) Seamus can read, but i don't think the above steps will come til
he is at least 14! ;OP

(But i get your point....)


Katherine

Lisa H

In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:

>
> If a parent can't leave a carefully printed note for a child that
>has important information and know that the child can read it and
>act accordingly, I don't think the child can read.

<<Katherine wrote: well hey now, first you'd have to have a kid that would actually notice the note in the first place (might have to tape it onto the tv screen or gameboy or maybe the lid of the toilet seat), and then trust that he would actually choose to follow whatever information
was on the note.(And not forget about it 30 seconds after he read it.) Seamus can read, but i don't think the above steps will come til he is at least 14! ;OP
(But i get your point....>>

Funny - after i read sandra's comment i wrote a note of instruction for my dd. she looked at me like i was cockoo...i read it to her...i know she could read it if she wanted to focus her attention on it - ...but she didn't...she made sure her dad understood my instructions before i left the house.<g>
Lisa H.


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

Danielle Conger

> If someone says a child read at three and someone else says ten, the ages
are
> pretty easy to grasp from the outside, but the definition of reading
isn't.
>
> In school "reading" is often not really reading. It's exercises,
recitation,
> lists of reading words (these ten words by Friday), or repetition of the
same
> reading lesson or little story that everyone in the class has been
repeating
> for days.
> =================================

Yet, for me, it is exactly this gap that's giving me the confidence that
Emily will read in her own time. Because I can see that she is "reading"
already (granted, way down on the yard stick--sounding things out, reading
cereal boxes and homemade video tape titles that have no picture clues,
things like that) I have no fear that she will be "reading" really way up on
the yardstick as soon as it's important enough to her to practice or
whenever she has enough life experience under her belt or just whenever the
code clicks. I don't know exactly why she will cross that threshold, but I
do *know* that she will, and part of that confidence comes from being able
to see the "reading" in what she's doing right now.

--Danielle, who's been on a really long trip to the Gulf Coast of Alabama
and has been reading but not responding, so now you'll get a bunch of late
responses from me!

http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html

Elizabeth Hill

** Yet, for me, it is exactly this gap that's giving me the confidence that
Emily will read in her own time. Because I can see that she is "reading"
already (granted, way down on the yard stick--sounding things out, reading
cereal boxes and homemade video tape titles that have no picture clues,
things like that) I have no fear that she will be "reading" really way up on
the yardstick as soon as it's important enough to her to practice or
whenever she has enough life experience under her belt or just whenever the
code clicks. I don't know exactly why she will cross that threshold, but I
do *know* that she will, and part of that confidence comes from being able
to see the "reading" in what she's doing right now.**

My husband teaches 9th grade English at the local high school. It's my
firm belief that of all his students, those that like to read and that
read *voluntarily* are the ones that will reach the levels of
proficiency that will lead to them "succeeding in school", being able to
pass the exit exam and being able to read college level work. I think
that pushing reading on kids faster than they can get it is the worst
thing that one can do to them.

If not now, in a year or so, your daughter might really like "comic
books" like Garfield. My son did, when lots of text was too daunting.

Betsy

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/24/04 7:18:10 AM, danielle.conger@... writes:

<< -Danielle, who's been on a really long trip to the Gulf Coast of Alabama

and has been reading but not responding, so now you'll get a bunch of late

responses from me! >>

Well welcome back!

Late responses are cool, like an oldies station. You'll respond to the
good stuff! (or the weird stuff--we heard "Hey There, Little Red Riding Hood"
the other day. What drivel. Holly and Marty had never heard it, and I could
sing the harmony and laugh along with the idiotic laugh. I think they liked me
more before that.)

Sandra