-> You don't believe it because you haven't seen enough of it. I work
-> with little kids most of the time.
I'll grant you that I haven't worked with primary children as you have,
and I'm sure that can account for a lot of difference in our views.
However, I don't believe it because I have a degree in a foreign
language with emphasis on linguistics, have taken courses (required for
a California teaching credential) in reading, have done much reading in
professional journals on this topic, have my own experiences and those
of my siblings as children to draw on, plus my experiences with my own
children. I do not believe my points are wholly without foundation.
-> It took me over 90 minutes to type out!
I salute you! I really do appreciate that other message that you typed
out. The problem is, that just because someone wrote a book about a
topic doesn't make it true. I could go write a book about alien
visitations of earth tomorrow and publish and market it without a shred
of evidence to back it up. Something doesn't have to be true to be
published. I'd be more convinced by a study. I think that,
unfortunately, in education it is all too common a practice for someone
to come up with some appealing theory, put it in to practice, claim
annecdotal evidence that it works and publish about it. Chuck Beams is
correct in stating that NCTM's Standards for curriculum, which appeared
quite a number of years ago now (wasn't it in the late 80's?) are NOT
based on any scientific research. They sure are appealing, though. And
lots of teachers are implementing them in their classrooms (I do
subscribe to some of their ideas myself), and lots of textbooks have
been written to support their suggested program. Yet, there have been no
scientific studies to prove that what is suggested by NCTM will work.
From much of the conversation that has gone on here with regards to
Whole Language and Inventive Spelling, I believe that a lot of this has
gone on in that area as well. Lots of people find that the ideas of
these philosophies appeal to "reason" and without any hard scientific
data are willing to subscribe to these philosophies, put them into wide
practice in the classroom, publish books on them, conduct workshops on
them, and so forth.
-> Many teachers that I have worked with use inventive spelling with
-> kids and keep journals correction free. However, all good work has to
-> be corrected - especially stories that need "publishing" and all good
-> copies.
-> The extent to which it is done depends on the teacher. I have not yet
-> made up my mind how far I will take this - it will depend on the
-> grade and the children involved.
I think you have hit upon a key concern of many educators and parents
here when you say "the extent to which this is done depends on the
teacher".
:-(
-> You say that your daughter was getting mixed messages from her
-> teacher but from what you have said there was no mixed message from
-> her teacher (who did not seem to care) but rather from your idea of
-> spelling and hers. If I have got this wrong here, please correct me.
If you would say that lack of clear communication on the part of the
teacher, introducing an ambiguity in the child's mind, is sending "mixed
messages", then, YES, the teacher did send mixed messages. IMO, telling
the kid that sometimes incorrect spelling is OK (outside of rough
drafts, which OF COURSE should allow misspellings), and in other
contexts spelling must be correct, then you are sending mixed messages.
The bottom line is that my daughter didn't seem to understand clearly
when she was expected to spell correctly and when she wasn't. Not being
an excessively motivated type, and correct spelling requiring more
effort than incorrect spelling, my daughter often tried to convince me
that her spelling wasn't important, EVEN IN HER SPELLING JOURNAL!
-> I'm not saying that you had no cause for concern. Although you want a
-> child to take risks you also want them to pride in their work and
-> have good work habits.
Exactly.
-> If your daughter has been capable of better work then IMHO the
-> teacher should be expecting it from her. Even if she is miles ahead
-> of the other children. Here we are trying to get away from norm
-> referencing to looking at the individual child's growth and effort -
-> how well are they working compared to what they are capable of and to
-> what they did last week, month, term, etc. What improvement/changes
-> do you see. What improvements/changes do they see?
You and I are in complete agreement here.
-> We are working towards outcomes based education here. (Outcomes based
-> education here, so I hear, is not the same as in the U.S.)
I hope it is different than the sad attempt at Outcomes Based education
that has come and gone in the US already.
-> Coupled with this is consistent evaluation and assessment which means
-> rubrics and self evaluation, portfolios, etc. etc. As eclectic as
-> possible.
:-( Yuck! Are you looking forward to this?
->               Must go, it's almost one a.m. and my alarm goes off at
-> 6:30 tomorrow morning (or should I say this morning!).
->
->               Nighty, night,
->                               Ruth
Aiyhhee! Ruth, you gotta take care of yourself! (I should tell myself
the same, as I do similar stuff all the time.) ;-)
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------