--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEQ00004 Date: 10/20/96 From: RUTH LEBLANC Time: 06:59pm \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Replies Hi Everyone who is waiting for a reply from me, I'm a bit back logged with mail packages right now and will endeavour to reply to you all shortly. Be patient. Thanks, Ruth --- QMPro 1.53 Sorry, I'm late - a pile-up on the information highway. * Origin: FidoNet: CAP/CANADA Support BBS : 416 287-0234 (1:250/710) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00000 Date: 10/20/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 11:23am \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 3 times) Subj: SPELLING BY ROUTMAN -> I agree with you that Both writing in context and word lists are -> important. I just wouldn't do the weekly test thing. IMO it is a -> waste of time... My children's teachers (grades 3 and 5...but also over the last two years as well, so really grades 1, 2, 3 for a second child, and 4 as well) have given spelling lists. These lists did not come from a spelling book. It has been mentioned here that in the state of California, the government won't pay for spelling books, and so that is a possible explanation. I haven't looked into it. But it doesn't mean that the teachers haven't had spelling lists and given weekly tests. One year the teacher seemed to come up with her lists from the literature the class was studying at the time or words that students were misspelling in their writing assignments. This year, my daughter's 3rd grade teacher has some list of "most frequently used words" which she pre-tests the kids on on Monday. Students who pass this test (my daughter has done so several times this year) are given a new list, which I believe they get to help compose. I know that two weeks ago my daughter had the word "familiar" on her list. She got it wrong on her test. It was on her list again this past week. My son's fifth grade teacher gives the class five words each week, and each student adds to that five his or her own personal five words, which most likely come from their own interests (you should see the words my son is picking like "entomology" or "volcanology"...get the impression he's interested in science???) or else they are words that the student has misspelled in his writing over the last week or so. I am GLAD the teachers are doing this. My kids bring their lists home and we practice and study the words. I drill them on the lists orally, give them a practice quiz, and the words they get wrong they have to write out several times each for me. How can you say this is a waste of time? It is time spent studying and memorizing a fact: the correct spelling of particular words that the child is encountering in their daily life. To say that it is a waste of time to practice such, makes me wonder what you think in general of memorizing facts and studying. Surely you don't think such stuff is a waste of time. I think that my children are learning spelling both through the methods that you advocate, plus additional emphasis on it through the spelling lists and tests (and time spent studying for them). It certainly sends them the message that spelling is important, and this is the message I hope they take with them from the whole process. Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00001 Date: 10/19/96 From: CHARLES BEAMS Time: 10:07am \/To: LISA MCINTOSH (Read 2 times) Subj: Ann Landers letter Lisa, LM>Sorry, and perhaps I should have just stayed out of the conversation. LM>I lurk alot here but don't say much cause I'm just a homeschool mom LM>and that's offtopic..... I certainly did not mean to imply you had no right to participate in this echo - teaching is teaching whether it is in the public schools, the private schools or at home. I believe what is off-topic here is the debate over the merits of home-schooling as opposed to the trashing of public abd parochial schools. There's another echo for that. Chuck Beams cbeams@dreamscape.com http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams ___ * UniQWK v4.1 * The Windows Mail Reader --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: The Hidey-Hole BBS, Pennellville, NY (315)668-8929 (1:2608/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00002 Date: 10/19/96 From: CHARLES BEAMS Time: 09:44pm \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 2 times) Subj: And Now This.. Dan, DT>Robert Hillerich is a former elementary teacher, ...and presently DT>professor of education at Bowling Green State University in Ohio And we all know about those professors living in ivory towers with hundreds of impractical ideas . DT>To my knowledge he is not a strong advocate of Whole Language (at DT>least he doesn't mention it in his book _Teaching_ _Children_ DT>_to_ _Write_ _K-8._ ) I like the guy already . DT>From this research, teachers can establish the level at which their DT>children perform. Up to this point, I liked the basics of his program. I do not think we can allow teachers to determine individual levels of performance for children. We nust have standards that we hold everyone accountable for or some teachers will lower standards for some children to levels so low that the children will never be able to succeed in school. Making some allowance for individual differences is part of the instructional process, not part of the evaluation process. DT>Further than that, it seems to me the practical DT>implication of such research is that teachers should be tolerant of the DT>spelling efforts of young children. I can accept this, within limits. We must still set standards and work to get all children to reach that level. DT>Stress too early on correctness will only discourage writing or DT>encourage use of a limited number of words whose spellings are DT>known." pp. 178-179 Here we part company. Lack of rigor in the standards we apply to teaching children how to spell produces poor writers as the children mature. It is much easier to lower standards in the interest of keeping children happy than it is to ask them to master more difficult tasks that will keep them on grade level. I don't mean to imply that Kindergarten children should all be spelling difficult words, but a select spelling list made up of appropriate words does not seem unreasonable to me. DT>This is a man who has written a book about teaching kids to write. In DT>his book there is a heavy emphasis on instruction, though not the DT>traditional method. He considers the traditional methods ineffective. I'd like to know what he considers "tradtional methods" and why he believes they are ineffective. At the beginning of this message you said, "DT>He is probably more of a traditionalist when it comes to spelling DT>instruction. In his book he offers hundreds of activities to stimulate DT>writing and offers many word lists to "raise spelling achievement at DT>each grade level..." This leaves me wondering what sorts of traditional spelling techniques he promotes and which he disparages. Chuck cbeams@dreamscape.com http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams Chuck Beams Fidonet - 1:2608/70 cbeams@future.dreamscape.com ___ * UniQWK v4.1 * The Windows Mail Reader --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: The Hidey-Hole BBS, Pennellville, NY (315)668-8929 (1:2608/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00003 Date: 10/20/96 From: CHARLES BEAMS Time: 09:16am \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 2 times) Subj: Approximated Spelling Dan, DT>Charles, you cannot uniformly dismiss every single bit of research I DT>have cited and call it "non-existant" because you don't happen to DT>believe it was "scientific." To a certain extent, you are right...I am getting repetitive and it is getting boring. I will make one last summary of my perspective on the matter, then drop it. The research branch of the American Federation of Teachers and a distinguished group of scientists from the northeast, as was reported in a number of articles I posted this past summer, have determined that there is no credible evidence supporting the superiority of whole language over more traditional instructional processes. Each of these groups analyzed much of the research that you point to and determined that it was ill-conceived and poorly conducted research. Until I see something from an unbiased source that contradicts this determination, I remain unconvinced of the effectiveness of the whole language process. DT>Don't you really mean that you have no confidence in DT>any of information I have shared here regarding Whole Language and DT>approximated spellings and this "no confidence" is based on what you DT>have read and heard from others? Yes. DT>And isn't it probably true that you began this discussion with DT>hostility toward both those concepts? Yes. DT>Hardly a fair hearing. I gave whole language a fair hearing over twenty years ago. It was called "the new math" back then, and more recently during the 1980's, as the term whole language actually emerged, I broached it with an open mind. As more and more evidence emerged that it wasn't working well and that the research supporting it was flawed, I lost respect for the program. The time for debate is over and the time for real research on the best techniques to use to teach children to read is upon us. Chuck Beams cbeams@dreamscape.com http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams ___ * UniQWK #5290* I don't think the Ranger is going to like this, Yogi. --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: The Hidey-Hole BBS, Pennellville, NY (315)668-8929 (1:2608/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00004 Date: 10/20/96 From: CHARLES BEAMS Time: 09:43am \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 2 times) Subj: Approximated Spelling/No Dan, I have purchased a new laptop computer that I'm typing this on and this is my fifth attempt to get my QWK editor working correctly. I *am* getting tired of typing my reply to you . It is interesting that it has evolved over a period of time, however. DT>Charles...I am an early childhood teacher. What activities do you think DT>a kindergarten teacher and a first grade teacher should set up in the DT>classroom? Please describe to me what _you_ would do if you were a DT>kindergarten teacher. I think this is a very good question. I am quite in agreement with the notion that those who criticize should have some suggestions as to how things could be improved. First of all, I'm not so sure I'd do much different than you at the Kindergarten level. Many of the specifics you have given have seemed reasonable. I think I find fault in two minor areas - I think you need to decide on your standards and make sure all children reach that level or get some help, and I think your phobia over paper-and-pencil tasks for the kids is unwarranted. Where we will probably reach greatest disagreement is over reading instruction in the first grade. I would use a basal series, hopefully one with some decent stories (or literature, as the whole language theorists would call it) and a lot of skills work. I would most likely use the related workbooks and stress skills such as phonics, word and letter recognition, understanding content, related readings and activities, vocabulary exercises, etc. I would try to work with my colleagues in advance to establish standards for all of these skills and test often to make sure the kids were mastering the concepts and skills I was teaching. I would use other resources for skills as well, including worksheets, computer programs, outside reading sources (I've always enjoyed Dr. Seuss and similar books), free reading etc. Sometime during the course of the year, maybe around November, I would begin formal spelling lessons, including weekly lists and tests. Writing assignments would revolve around these word lists and I would expect the children to spell the words correctly. Teaching reading within the content areas is also very important at this point, and I'd work very hard to provide the children with some experiences with "technical" reading, e.g. computer help files. DT>In answer to your question: "Do (I) think the children are learning how DT>to write and read by marking nonsense (it's not nonsense) on a piece of DT>paper?" It doesn't matter what _I_ think if I am wrong. It sure matters a lot to the kids in your classes if they grow up unable to read or write very well. DT>But it does matter what the large majority of early childhood experts, DT>writing/reading experts, and national and international organizations on DT>early learning have to say regarding early writing. I have stated all DT>along that these were not merely my personal views, but that these views DT>are supported by _leading_ experts. Too often "leading experts" are nothing more than self-proclaimed experts with virtually no field experience. I could write a few articles to virtually unknown publications starved for material to toss into the national debate and then proclaim that I'm an expert. The articles published by these experts need to be reviewed by unbiased parties and judged based on the quality of the research before anyone's work can be deemed to be a significant contribution to the field. DT>By they way, I think it's unfair to ask a question and include the word DT>"nonsense" in it. It unfairly colors the question. I was avoiding this writing technique until you started calling me a "boring" teacher. I'm willing to play by this rule if you are. DT>Also, if you were to actually teach kindergarten or first-grade you DT>might have a different viewpoint as well. True. And if OJ got to be his own judge and jury, he'd owe the Brown family not a penny. DT>This is totally unfair and a bit dishonest. I have offered _many_ DT>references to whole language theory, some of which you have not offered DT>any comment. Perhaps you should read the material for yourself? I'd love to, Dan, but I am working 3 jobs this year and am putting in 12-hour days. What little free time I have seems better spent on my hobbies. DT>We do many fine motor activities in kindergarten to help develop DT>fine motor skills. Eventually the hand strengthens and children DT>are able to hold pencils correctly. One of the _many_ fine motor DT>activities is to use a pencil in a variety of activities. And to begin to develop the ability to form letters correctly. Why so much focus, then, on writing assignments which really don't make sense? I understand the process of writing sentences on the board, easel, chart paper, whatever, as a class activity with the teacher. But why are kids being asked to write when it can do little but frustrate them? DT>Again I ask you, what would you have children at this age (5,6,7) DT>do regarding writing? Not much. A few sentences utilizing the words they should know. Better to spend this time developing their reading and oral language skills. Writing work would consist mostly of penmanship skills- learning to form the letters and write a few words. Chuck Beams cbeams@dreamscape.com http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams ___ * UniQWK #5290* "Hello", the lawyer lied. --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: The Hidey-Hole BBS, Pennellville, NY (315)668-8929 (1:2608/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00005 Date: 10/20/96 From: CHARLES BEAMS Time: 09:57am \/To: SHEILA KING (Read 2 times) Subj: Ed Research Sheila, SK>In the past, when students have missed my class for a day or three, they SK>may ask me for the notes. I don't really have notes to give them. I SK>suggest they get them from a reliable student in the class. I used to SK>make them take the notes down in their own hand. The last few years I SK>had relented and only required a xerox of the other students notes. I SK>wonder if I should reverse that policy? Do you check student notebooks? How so - on a daily basis, weekly, marking quarter? I must be honest - I do so hate grading notebooks that I gave it up 20-years ago. Chuck Beams cbeams@dreamscape.com http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams ___ * UniQWK #5290* ALZHEIMER SOFTWARE, INC.! Makers of uhhherrr... --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: The Hidey-Hole BBS, Pennellville, NY (315)668-8929 (1:2608/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00006 Date: 10/20/96 From: CHARLES BEAMS Time: 10:26am \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 2 times) Subj: More Of The Same Dan, DT>I don't know that we do accept less. But no matter what we "accept" DT>there will be some children who fall below expectations, some who rise DT>above, and many who fall in the middle. Aha! But isn't that the very facet of public education that we are getting beat up for in the press? Isn't that what parochial schools supposedly do better than public schools? We need to set a standard and then get *every* child to that level if we are going to graduate students who can all read, write and do math. We must tutor, help, assist and even fail children who fall behind at the very beginning. DT>Yes! And tutoring often helps. In our school we have a home liaison DT>who goes into the home and helps parents help their kids. Sounds like a good program. Do these liaisons meet with the teachers on a regular basis? DT>One thing though: No matter how far behind a child gets, no amount of DT>"pushing" concepts at a child will help if the "just don't get it." Do DT>we give up? No! We continue to work with that child. But children DT>develop on a continuum and we can't get them to point d until they pass DT>through a, b, and c first. It has always been this way. To some extent you are correct, but the new-think on this issue is that all children can learn and it is the job of the schools to get them up to speed and to keep them there. You and I know, on an absolute level, we won't do it with all of them, but we need to reach more than we are. As for your continuum, that also is not an absolute. We can travel around a rectangle from point A to point C by passing through B or by passing through D. For some kids the answer may lie in the route as yet unexplored, a diagonal directly to D. This is the sort of thing that can only be achieved if we are providing one-on-one tutorials for kids that are falling behind. DT>.DT>Not true....in any given elementary grade level we can have up to DT>.DT>two years of developmental difference. I think that what's DT>.DT>important is seeing DT>.DT>growth and continued progress in each child. DT> DT>CB>We disagree. DT> DT>You don't think growth and continue progress is important?? Of course. Where we disagree is over the fact that we can tolerate a two-year differential in student achievement. It is the absolute crux of the crisis (if it is a real crisis ) in American education. DT>This boy happens to be MR....but that is beside the point. No, not at all. He is entitled to work to a different standard than the others - that's what an IEP is all about - setting his level of excellence. DT>Many children are borderline and do not qualify because they score a few DT>points too high on certain tests. In other cases the parents do not DT>want the child labeled and so it goes... Your point is well taken, but according to the new-think, he *doesn't* qualify and therefore must be brought up to speed. The answer here is pragmatic - try again to get him labeled, or provide the tutoring to bring him up to the standards. I don't know how much of my own argument I buy into, Dan, but it _is_ the new wave of thinking running through educational circles, at least here in New York. For a while our state ed department's motto was, "It takes a whole village to raise a child," (this was before Hillary made it the title of her book) and it is now, "Every child can learn." It's very trite, but it is the philosophy which now guides our educational system. Chuck Beams cbeams@dreamscape.com http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams ___ * UniQWK #5290* Anything not nailed down is a cat toy. --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: The Hidey-Hole BBS, Pennellville, NY (315)668-8929 (1:2608/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00007 Date: 10/21/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 07:38pm \/To: RON MCDERMOTT (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling RON MCDERMOTT spoke of SPELLING to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-16-96 RM>Dan, the way I see it, the discussions on this topic are RM>going poorly because everyone is talking about different RM>things.... The idea RM>was that, over time, the kid would correct the errors as RM>words became more familiar. The child also learned some RM>attack skills, rules, basic phonics, etc. Most people RM>trained in this way became reasonable spellers, I think you are right. I think that perhaps there is more misunderstanding than understanding going on. Im not sure I have been understood since I am using the same language apparently, as other teachers whose whole language views may differ from mine. I know there are probably teachers using a whole language approach who don't consider spelling important. This is unfortunate. What is more unfortunate is that these teachers may have been instructed to place less emphasis on spelling. It may be that the proverbial baby left with the bath water. I happen to believe that spelling is very important and should be expected as long as the child is developmentally ready (there I go again with that developmental stuff...ahhhhh). RM>It is ALSO true, that there has been a marked fall in a RM>number of educational areas over a very short time period, RM>and one is forced to consider whether a changing population RM>accounts for all this change, or is instead indicative of RM>a system going in the wrong direction. I know that the idea of a "marked fall" in a number of educational areas has been pounded at educators for a number of years now, and I know that many parents and teachers believe this to be true. I dispute this as a blanket statement. I'm not saying that what you have stated is not true, I am saying however that I question it. I am not convinced that public education has had a "marked" fall. As a matter of interest, where is the information coming from that tells us how poorly public schools are performing? RM>Now... The approximated spelling "problem" which many here RM>refer to is NOT a natural development; I think understand this now...I think many here are seeing approximated spellings continue (in student's writings) long after students should be able to spell certain words correctly. RM> The question, to me, is WHY are we pushing RM>for early writing? Many reasons although we don't "push" kids to write. I won't cite research though I do have plenty to draw from that demonstrate that children who have many experiences with print, both from writing and reading, build a strong sense of literacy. For reading it can be a teacher reading the story, showing the pictures, and pointing to the words, or it may be a child simply looking at a book, noticing the pictures and print. For writing it may be that the child simply draws a picture and dictates to the teacher what the picture is all about. The teacher writes the child's language on the paper. These early experiences with print are important to a child's continued literacy development. Read anything by Donald Graves and you can get a complete rationale including cited research. I know, I know, research doesn't "prove" anything. But good research can demonstrate reasonableness and teach us many things. We are after guided in education by research are we not? Of special interest to your above question may be the following: Graves, Donald H., for the committee on Research, National Council of Teachers of English. 1978-81. Articles initiated at the Writing Process Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, and published in the "Research Update" section of *Language* *Arts.* Are we seeing improved writing as a RM>result? Are we seeing greater literacy, reading levels, RM>etc? If we're not, then why are we pushing early writing RM>in the first place? I ask this because I genuinely don't RM>know the answer. I think we are seeing greater literacy and reading levels where teachers are applying correctly good and sound teaching practices that are developmentally appropriate and are the *correct* practices recommended by the early childhood professional organizations. I have a question for you. If we take a look at the whole of education for the past 10-20 years, would it be safe to assume that the majority of teachers are in fact teaching the traditional way? What was the percentage of teachers in the 1980's teaching traditional vs whole language? For that matter, what is the percentage breakdown even today? The Nation at Risk report (which I don't place much confidence, but anyway) came out in 1983, right? That means that students who graduated in 1983 had to have entered kindergarten in 1965. It is probably true that the NAR report looked back several years to even the beginning of the 1960,s. If we were doing so poorly, according to that report and other reports like it, the blame can only be focused on traditional educational practices can they not? Again I ask, at that time, what percentage of American teachers were teaching using the traditional method? I only have to look at my district and I know that the traditional elementary teachers still outnumber those who have been taught and who use a whole language approach. Even one of the teachers in my building who is considered a whole language teacher is more traditional in every approach. She does use some whole language ideas but most teaching strategies are completely traditional. If kids cannot spell, as you and others here say, and if they cannot write or read at grade level, the bigger question it seems to me is "How were these kids taught?" Why is the leap to whole language being made. Many, many children are still being taught in traditional classrooms throughout the Country. Have there been studies to show where the fault lies or are people just looking for easy answers? I think it is a fair question don't you? RM> I haven't yet seen any RM>sign that this early writing results in IMPROVED spelling, RM>writing, etc. Many of us HAVE seen indications, however, RM>that spelling is deteriorating, and the disasterous, and RM>rapid, drop on scores in California is difficult to dismiss RM>as being unrelated to the implimentation of programs RM>related to early writing and inventive spelling. California is not representative of the entire Nation. Again, where and how have the children you see, those who cannot spell or write or read the way you think they should be able to do, been taught...traditional? Whole Language? Something Else?? Not one study of any kind has been made to show why California dropped in scores and no where can you or anyone else find any evidence that is *conclusive* and that "proves" a relationship between California's drop in performance and early writing programs. You are simply stating conjecture. California's educational problems were voluminous. Dan --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DER00008 Date: 10/21/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 07:40pm \/To: RON MCDERMOTT (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling... RON MCDERMOTT spoke of SPELLING... to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-16-96 RM> RM>DT>...(which I have already said doesn't work). RM> RM>Gee... Worked ok for me and for a great number of my peers RM>who shudder whenever we read students' writing these days! And worked very poorly for a great many others. Dan --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256)