--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00000 Date: 09/27/96 From: CARL BOGARDUS Time: 11:44am \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 1 times) Subj: Spelling... DT>Your view that children will learn spelling DT>habits that cannot be broken DT>or will be difficult to correct is not supported DT>by the experience of DT>most early childhood teachers (K-2). CB> But my view *is* supported by virtually every intermediate teacher CB> (4-6) teacher that I know. Yup! --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: VETLink #13 Las Cruces NM (505)523-2811 (1:305/105) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00001 Date: 09/27/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 07:05pm \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling... CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Spelling... to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-17-96 CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on <09/08/96>... CB>DT>I suppose then if you carry your reasoning further here Charles CB>DT>then we shouldn't allow children to draw because when young CB>DT>children draw they are drawing incorrectly. Many of my kids draw CB>DT>just a head and arms and legs protruding out from the head. CB>You don't see the analogy as I see it. The golfer is allowed to CB>continue to swing as long as he receives some instruction first, and CB>throughout the learning process. Children should be allowed to draw CB>- as long as it preceded and accompanied by instruction. My children are able to draw just fine without drawing instruction. I do some instructing regarding drawing but only when appropriate. Again, it's a developmental thing and children should be allowed to draw freely to develop their skills "naturally." This idea doesn't preclude instruction. It's just that allowing children to draw _only_ as long as it is preceded and accompanied by instruction doesn't fit with what's really best for kids. Such an approach could really stifle creativity. I do agree that instruction is important and does have it's place (and a very important one) but *most* drawing experiences should be free expression. Writing is no different. Instruction is important and children do need to learn proper writing conventions; however, writing skills (such as spelling) should be learned in the context of writing and not "taught" separately. CB>Why do we place children in school if not to teach them? Why allow CB>those budding artists of yours to continue to draw the arms and legs CB>coming out of the head? Teach them a little today and a little more CB>tomorrow and soon they may actually have quite a few things CB>connected together properly. If you allow them to keep drawing the CB>figure improperly without encouraging them to improve, their growth CB>will be much, much slower. We are in complete agreement here. I do teach them these important things. However, not EVERY time we draw. I know from experience that children's drawing improve over time as they developmentally mature. I do agree that we should be about the business of developing artistic and perceptual awareness in children. Part of my drawing lessons of people include talking about the various parts of the body (head, hands, feet, lets, neck, lips, and on....) and helping children become aware and encouraging children include these features in their drawings. CB>And so it is with writing and spelling. I see no sense in the CB>notion that children should waste their time putting gibberish on a CB>page under the pretense of language development. There should be CB>some initial instruction and the writing process should be critiqued CB>and worked on every day. Not according to current theory. I think I posted some things recently regarding this idea. And there is nothing gibberish about it. Much of it makes perfect sense. Practicing the art of marking gibberish on CB>a piece of paper does not develop language skills any better than CB>would the process of storytelling or news-time each day. This must be just an opinion because the opposite is true. Storytelling and "Daily News" times are very important for emergent readers. CB>DT>I have watched 5,6 and 7 year olds children playing soccer. I CB>DT>don't think they should be allowed to play soccer at such a young CB>DT>age because they have no concept of team work, a concept CB>DT>essential to a good soccer team. CB>You stretched the analogy using a variety of examples, but you CB>simply didn't look at the process very carefully. Does the soccer CB>team have a coach? Are the kids given instruction before the first CB>game? I don't think I ever suggested that writing in the early grades is done completely without the "coach" providing some instructions. The argument is the degree in which this "coaching" is done. Certainly in a kindergarten soccer league the coaching is _very_ basic. It would have to be since the kids cannot comprehend the more complex task team work requires. CB>Under the auspices of "inventive spelling" the children are kicking CB>the ball into the wrong net day after day and nobody is teaching CB>them any differently. ?^^^^^^^^^^^? ?~~~~~~? This is a false statement since it is extremely over generalized. CB>DT>Your view that children will learn spelling habits that cannot be CB>DT>broken or will be difficult to correct is not supported by the CB>DT>experience of most early childhood teachers (K-2). CB>But my view *is* supported by virtually every intermediate teacher CB>(4-6) teacher that I know. You have no way of proving cause and effect here so the position that approximated spelling is the culprit is a "leap of faith." CB>DT>Children eventually become aware of more complex spelling CB>DT>patterns (Usually beginning with initial sounds, then ending CB>DT>sounds, and then the stuff in the middle.) We can see a CB>DT>_consistent_ developing pattern of spelling skills when children CB>DT>are allowed to write. CB>I understand that you aren't a proponent of the extreme forms of CB>whole language and inventive spelling, so perhaps we're not talking CB>about the same thing. I'm not indicating that each child has to CB>have every misspelled word corrected every time they write, but I CB>*do* believe that they ought to be getting spelling instruction and CB>that they ought to be encouraged, when writing, to use words they CB>can spell or to look up words they can't spell. Many of the CB>children will work to the lowest acceptable standard and the higher CB>you set that bar, within reason, the more the children will do. I think we agree on many things here we just don't fully understand each other's perspective. I could have written the above statement myself since I firmly believe that children need to be instructed in writing conventions (spelling) _as_ _they_ _write._ I absolutely agree that our standards for children (and for ourselves) should be high. (Reaching for something that requires stretching rather) CB>DT>I don't think the traditional method of teaching spelling has the CB>DT>best track record either. In fact, the method I grew up with CB>DT>(and the one you learned in school) is not supported by research CB>DT>data. CB>Here we go again . What research data? Which methods don't work CB>and what don't they work as well as? Many of the teachers I know CB>who work in the intermediate grades and middle school teach spelling CB>not only because of the desire to have kids spelling words CB>correctly, but because spelling is also a means of teaching letter CB>sounds and word recognition skills. Do the studies indicate this is CB>ineffective as well? If so, why does *anyone* bother to spell CB>correctly? Spelling teaching letter sounds? No way. Yes if our language was purely phonetic. It is not. It's not just a few words either Charles. Read the paper phonetically and try to get the meaning of any article. It probably can't be done. CB>Sorry, Dan, but it does not compute (with me) that teaching spelling CB>does not help the language development process. I don't think I ever put forth the argument that one should not teach spelling. The topic was approximated spelling and I am arguing that such approximations are "natural" and must be allowed. As for the research data regarding the effectiveness of the traditional approach to spelling instruction, it's there but would be pointless and too time consuming for me to dig up. I have provided some good posts that support the concepts of approximated spelling which were research based. Have you seen them? I could do a repost . CMPQwk 1.42 445p Use the Force, Luke, Don't give in to the DOS side.- ObiWan Kenobi * ++++++ * _ /| ACK! \'o.O' / =(__)+ U --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: R-Squared BBS (1:352/28.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00002 Date: 09/27/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 07:42pm \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 2 times) Subj: The Real Story 2 CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-19-96 CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on <09/07/96>... CB>DT>Actually I don't buy the idea that we are behind other nations. CB>You are not the only person writing in this echo who feels that way. CB> Since there have been many well-publicized reports (A Nation At CB>Risk, U.S. Ed. Department NAEP scores, etc.) over the years CB>indicating that our students score lower in math and writing than do CB>children in other nations, a few of which I've quoted here, can you CB>cite evidence to support your position? Well-publicized inaccurate reports. There are many who like to bash education (I believe it's a great political football) and it's easy to slant these studies (and they have been slanted). I am willing to go out on a limb even though I don't have any evidence right at hand. But I will try to obtain some to prove the point. I think that when many studies which compare today's SAT's with SAT's of yesterday there are many factors which are ignored. When we compare apples with apples, we are producing better apples today and we are producing more of them. (We also have more crab-apples and rotten-applestaking the tests today and driving down the scores. CB>DT>We are graduating more students than ever before. CB>But at what level of competence? How many colleges and employers, CB>both, are complaining about the lack of basic skills among recent CB>high school graduates? I don't know but we have record numbers of attendance at major colleges in Washington State and elsewhere. In what manner does this show that our CB>students are better educated than children from other nations? It doesn't but if one looks the data is there. CB>DT>When one looks at test results from year to year for a CB>DT>comparison, all factors must be considered. We have more CB>DT>students in the lower 60% taking tests and thus driving down the CB>DT>results. CB>In the most recent administration of the international exams, an CB>analysis was done of the top ten percent of kids in each of the CB>participating nations in order to check this hypothesis. The top CB>10% of U.S. students still scored 13th out of 14 nations. I posted CB>Al Shanker's report on this sometime last winter or spring. CB>DT>I am not looking at any data in front of me but I'm willing to CB>DT>bet our results are much better when we take a second look at CB>DT>_all_ contribution factors. CB>Americans do have a tendency to always want to believe they are the CB>best at everything. In the 1960's this was characterized in a book CB>about American diplomacy called _The Ugly American_. It manifests CB>itself in other ways, such as the cheering at the Olympics in CB>Atlanta that was disruptive to athletes of other nations. In one of CB>the first tests given comparing students in various nations, CB>American students scored near the bottom in all categories, except CB>for self-esteem, in which they scored the highest. CB>DT>Research has shown that when learning is made meaningful, children CB>DT>want to learn and learn better. CB>I've not run across these studies anywhere. How was the learning CB>made more meaningful? To what degree were the kids more successful? CB> Was there any difference in the impact of more meaningful CB>instruction between children of different races or socio-economic CB>groups? CB>DT>The same concepts can be taught in boring fashion or in ways that CB>DT>engage and challenge the learner. Sounds like you opt for boring CB>DT>while I opt for engaging learning through meaningful activities. CB>Interesting interpretation. I would tend to see things a bit CB>differently. Although I do give some effort each year to a few CB>changes in my teaching style, I do not see my job as that of an CB>entertainer. My job is to educate. I try to make the math CB>interesting by connecting it to other branches of math or science, CB>or by connecting it back to something the kids did earlier in math. CB>I present some history and a few anecdotes about the math as I go, CB>but I do *not* bring in pies to teach the kids how to do fractions. I'm a bit of both educator and entertainer. But then I teach kindergarten and must be entertaining to keep the kids attention. CB>If a child finds the math we are doing to be of interest, good for CB>them. If they do not find it interesting, I still expect them to CB>learn it - knowing it will make transitions to other learning CB>easier. If a child makes a mistake doing the age-appropriate math I CB>am teaching, I tell them they are wrong and teach them how to CB>correct it. I do not teach in such a manner nor discipline in such CB>a manner as to protect their fragile egos - they are in school to CB>learn and I expect them to exert some effort toward that end. I am not a strong proponent of the "self-esteem" stuff either. I think children need to be respected (by their teachers and their peers) and they need to show respect to their teachers. But I don't think they need to have their *fragile* egos protected. I think that many probably need to have their balloons deflated once in a while . ] CB>I think you are the product of the "self-esteem first" education CB>system. You believe that if the kids have strong self-esteem they CB>will learn better, so you go out of your way to make the kids happy CB>and comfortable at all costs (e.g., making learning meaningful and CB>inventive spelling). Yuck!!!!!! NO I do not believe in this.......ahhhhhhhh I opposed the self-esteem curriculum our district had when I arrived here 8 years ago. I thought it was stupic then and I think it is stupid now. We dumped it finally and I secretely never taught it (for which I took a lot of flack when I was discovered). I believe in teaching respect (and I demand it from my students) and I think that children will feel valued by us when we interact with them in respectful ways. I value children because they are valuable but their work has nothing to do with how I value them as individuals. If a child in my room does sub- standard work (for his/her abilities) I do not value that work. I teach my kids to do quality work and I strive very hard to teach them what quality work is (doing your very best is quality, following directions is quality, taking one's time on a project is quality, putting obvious effort is quality). I believe that standards are lowered to CB>achieve this state of euphoria and a false sense of self-esteem may CB>be created. CB>I think the learning style you espouse is ineffective, presents a CB>false view of the world to the kids, and reduces the children's CB>ability to adapt in the upper grades. CB>DT>I really don't think you understand young children. You are a CB>DT>high-school teacher right? CB>Middle school. Still, I think I understand young children quite well CB>- I was one once. I think you just want to coddle the children and CB>don't realize the impact that not imposing standards will have on CB>them later in life. Oh but I do have standards for my kids. Mine are very realistic and appropriate. They differ from child to child according to the child's abilities. CB>DT>CB>I'm afraid I don't follow this. My point is this...if we CB>DT>CB>establish that we want all 3rd graders in this country to be CB>DT>CB>able to read at a 3rd grade level on the XYZ Exam, then I CB>DT>CB>don't care *what* the kids think is boring, we teach them to CB>DT>CB>read at the proper level by the 3rd grade. The adults are in CB>DT>charge, not the kids. If it is really boring then you had better care because if the child isn't engaged in the lesson you are wasting your breath. CB>DT>If you want a child to learn 3 digit adding before they are CB>DT>developmentally ready it doesn't matter one bit who is in charge. CB>DT>Kids can only learn what they are able to comprehend CB>DT>developmentally. I again refer to Piaget (as well as many others CB>DT>who have contributed to the idea of cognitive development). CB>At no time have I argued that we ask Kindergarten children to learn CB>3-digit addition. You *have* argued, however, that when *you* CB>determine a child is not developmentally ready to do something in CB>Kindergarten, even if it is part of the program, you don't push the CB>child. You lower the standards for that child, and that student CB>will be below grade level for the rest of his/her life. Not true....in any given elementary grade level we can have up to two years of developmental difference. I have a young girl who is an emergent reader in my class. I also have a child who is borderline retarded. On a developmental continumn, he is at the bottom; she is at the top. The rest of the class falls inbetween. I don't lower my standards. For the girl I have very high standards because I think she is extremely capable. For the boy I hope he can write his name at the end of the year and can recogize most of his letters. I cannot expect this boy to learn beyond his abilitys. I think that what's important is seeing growth and continued progress in each child. Instead of CB>making excuses for the child and letting them off the hook, seek CB>intervention - get the child tested, get the child a tutor, provide CB>additional practice, get the parents involved - but DON'T let the CB>kid fall behind the others! I do agree with this...in fact I am beginning testing next week to see what I have to work with. CB>DT>I agree with you that we should not lower standards. Standards CB>DT>should be set that are appropriate. One questions that I have CB>DT>pondered is whether we should design curriculum bottom up or top CB>DT>down. What do you think? CB>I'm willing to listen to both sides, but generally speaking I believe CB>in top down curriculum. We should decide on our graduation CB>standards, then work backwards to decide what our kids need to learn CB>at each grade level to get them to graduation. I used to lean the other way but now am not sure.....I have a friend who argues the top-down model and his arguments make a great deal of sense. CMPQwk 1.42 445p Clinton -- The Carter of the 90's * ++++++ * _ /| ACK! \'o.O' / =(__)+ U --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: R-Squared BBS (1:352/28.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00003 Date: 09/27/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 08:00pm \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 2 times) Subj: Approximated Spelling/not Approximated spelling is not gibberish. It is a child's best attempt to spell using the decoding skill they have available. Many documented cases support this idea of approximated spelling (though it is called invented spelling but that is incorrect...it is not invented it is approximated and is temporary). A girl in my class is an emergent reader. I wanted to know just what here skill level was so I had her tested by the reading specialist in our building. She knows most letters, most sounds, and can write many simple words that she has memorized. If a word is purely phonetic she can write most of it (usually the beginning consonant and the ending with a few sounds in the middle). In the test we gave her there was this sentence: "The bus is coming. It will stop here to let me get on." She was asked to write the words of the story. It was read at normal speed and then slowly. Here is what she wrote: V BHS CM IT SIP HR TO LHT M GT IN She wrote in column fashion like this. When looked at closely the approximated spellings reveal something of her decoding skills. "The bus is coming. It will stop here to let me get on." V BHS / CM IT / SIP HR TO LHT M GT IN I can't explain it all but bhs for bus is simple. She heard the /b/ sound in the beginning, the /h/ sound in the middle, and the /s/ sound in the end. In the word coming she knew /c/ and /m/ were in the word so she wrote what she knew. Notice that in "let" she wrote H because she heard the /h/ sound. I understand that /l/ /e/ /t/ said in isolation and then together should produce "let." But so do /l/ /h/ /t/. The reading specialist said this is very common. Now eventually I would show this girl that "lht" is spelled "let" I wouldn't wait long either because this girl will be able to handle being corrected. However, I firmly believe that I won't need to correct her misunderstanding of this particular word because as she refines here phonetic knowledge and as she has many more experiences with the printed word, she will learn this word on her own. I will let you know how her development progresses (if you are interested) since this is the first time in kindergarten I have had an emergent reader of this skill level so early in the year. I am very excited and fully expect here to be reading at a functional first-grade level before the end of the school year. Dan CMPQwk 1.42 445p Windows: From the people who brought you EDLIN! * ++++++ * _ /| ACK! \'o.O' / =(__)+ U --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: R-Squared BBS (1:352/28.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00004 Date: 09/27/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 08:22pm \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Spelling... CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Re: Spelling... to ERICA LONG on 09-18-96 CB>Responding to a message by Erica, to Charles on <09/10/96>... CB>EL>I get the feeling that some techers still believe that children CB>EL>learn to read in Year 1 and should be accomplished by the end of CB>EL>that year. CB>Not at all, and I don't know of anyone who feels that way. I *do* CB>believe that children should have high standards set for them and CB>that age appropriate activities should be given to them. Asking CB>children to scribble on a piece of paper and then calling that CB>process "writing" is delusional. Teach them to do tasks they can do CB>correctly, such as forming letters, spelling simple words (he, the, CB>at) and then forming sentences. Don't you just love it when I butt in here?? I have never instructed a child to scribble on a piece of paper and then told them that is writing. I have had children scribble on a piece of paper (which I have placed in several areas in my room) and they have read the scribblings to me. Often what happens is a child will write random letters with no spaces and ask me to read their "writing." I read each letter or search for a "real" word and point it out. If the child wants to "pretend" to read I go along with it. I also give them experiences that include writing (copying) words that are phonetically predictable (cat, hat, mat, rat, dog, hog, log,) as well as other words. Most of my word cards have pictures but many do not. As you say, children are not stupid. I think that many know they are not really writing when they scribble. Even if they don't fully understand it at first, they will very soon. But children do love to pretend (do they think they really are pouring me coffee when I visit the house center? No...but I drink it anyway. I have often eaten the fake food they have prepared for me. Yesterday I had a hamburger made of plastic hamburger buns and felt shapes in between....hold the pickles please :) Dan CMPQwk 1.42 445p Cap'n Crunch found dead- Cerial killer suspected. * ++++++ * _ /| ACK! \'o.O' / =(__)+ U --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: R-Squared BBS (1:352/28.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00005 Date: 09/28/96 From: BOB MOYLAN Time: 10:31am \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling... Charles Beams On (17 Sep 96) was overheard to say to Dan Triplett CB> DT>Your view that children will learn spelling habits that cannot be CB> broken or will be difficult to correct is not supported by the CB> experience of most early childhood teachers (K-2). CB> But my view *is* supported by virtually every intermediate teacher CB> (4-6) teacher that I know. Hey... many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade teachers are disgusted with it too, why wait until the 4th grade..it's too late then. They can't read for content and can't write very much independently. ... Sometimes the garbage disposal gods demand an offering of a spoon. --- PPoint 2.02 * Origin: What's The Point? Virginia Beach, VA USA (1:275/429.5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00006 Date: 09/28/96 From: BOB MOYLAN Time: 10:37am \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling... Dan Triplett On (08 Sep 96) was overheard to say to Charles Beams Getting old....put this in a temp file to respond to later but not this much later... )-8 DT> I have watched 5,6 and 7 year olds children playing soccer. I don't DT> think they should be allowed to play soccer at such a young age DT> because they have no concept of team work, a concept essential to a DT> good soccer team. --------8<-------- I have coached little league baseball since my oldest son was 6 (he's 30 something now) I am still coaching because my youngest is now involved in the sport. You are correct, when they are that age they don't have any of those concepts. If one were to accept your line of reasoning merely by taking these children to ball games, allowing them to watch and then trying to emulate what they have seen they will eventually get it and become proficient ball players. What do you think those coaches are doing out there? They are teaching the rules of the game, how to play the various positions, how to hold and swing the bat, how to field the ball, how and where to throw the ball when they catch or pick it up. These skills are practiced until they become almost second nature. It's the same for any other sport. DT> Their ball handling skills are awful and yet these DT> kids are allowed to play in organized games! Unthinkable! Assuming you have a PE teacher at your school ask for his or her opinion of 5, 6, 7 year olds playing these sports and what benefit kids get from PE. DT> Charles, many skills are progressive and develop on a continuum. Yes but they have to be taught, errors correct as they occur and practiced. ... Those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it --- PPoint 2.02 * Origin: What's The Point? Virginia Beach, VA USA (1:275/429.5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00007 Date: 09/30/96 From: BOB MOYLAN Time: 01:11am \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling... Dan Triplett On (28 Sep 96) was overheard to say to Bob Moylan DT> I think you missed my point entirely..... Not at all, or at least no more than you are missing what I've been saying, what Chuck Beams has been saying and one or two others. It appears that you and I, at least, will have to agree to disagree. Bob ... Don't accept "good enough" as good enough! --- PPoint 2.02 * Origin: What's The Point? Virginia Beach, VA USA (1:275/429.5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00008 Date: 09/29/96 From: MATT SMITH Time: 08:07pm \/To: CHARLES WOOTTEN (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Public Schools Threatened CW> -> The Religious Right plans to use its political power to change CW> -> America in November. Unless other Americans act, we may be closer CW> -> to theocratic government by 1997. CW> -> call for abolishment of public schools, CW> CW> The public school system where I teach is not the least bit CW> threatened. The "Religious Right" is hardly the biggest threat to public schools. Most public schools face far more serious _daily_ threats: gangs, violence, apathetic students, apathetic parents, dope...threats that are in the "here and now" regardless of who wins Nov. 5. Anyone who thinks school prayer is the main threat to public schools is a tookus! --- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS]) * Origin: NighthawkBBS, Burlington NC 910-228-7002 HST Dual (1:3644/6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDW00009 Date: 09/25/96 From: CARL BOGARDUS Time: 06:51pm \/To: DAVID RAASCH (Read 1 times) Subj: school help 1 DR> 1) Anybody got any Apple II GS keyboards for DR> sale ?? We could use.. Try 1-800-227-3971 Also, get yourself a subscription to T.H.E. Journal- Circulation Department T.H.E. Journal 150 El Camino Real Tustin, CA 92680-3670 Fax 714-730-3739 Web Page www.thejournal.com 500+ links to educational resources --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: VETLink #13 Las Cruces NM (505)523-2811 (1:305/105)