BOB MOYLAN spoke of Spelling... to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-10-96
BM>Dan Triplett On (08 Sep 96) was overheard to say to Charles Beams
BM> 
BM> DT> I don't think the traditional method of teaching spelling has
BM> DT> the best track record either.  In fact, the method I grew up
BM> DT> with (and the one you learned in school) is not supported by
BM> DT> research data.  Yet the practice continues.  I am left to wonder
BM> DT> why. 
BM> Perhaps because it works..?
What evidence besides your opinion are you using to support that 
statement?  I suspect you have none because the research doesn't support 
the traditional method of spelling instruction.
BM> The variance in ability to spell correctly I've seen in my own 3 is
BM> ridiculously apparent.
Your children are different.  Who is to say what factors were a part of 
the overall picture.
  The eldest (who attended mainly DOD schools
BM> until high school) has little difficulty with spelling, the middle
BM> child got caught up in all the fads that afflicted public education
BM> in the 80's.  The youngest had whole language with creative spelling
BM> inflicted on him beginning in Kindergarten.
This is just not a true statement.  You are uninformed.  No one inflicts 
creative spelling or invented spelling or transitional spelling on 
anyone anymore than you inflicted baby talk on your own children.  
Children spell developmentally in classrooms where early writing is 
allowed.  WL classrooms do not "inflict" invented spelling on any child.  
That is a lot of nonsense.  If a teacher does such a thing, he/she is 
incompetent.
  He's now in 3rd grade
BM> after repeating 1st because he wasn't able to make the leap from the
BM> nonsense of K
What specifically are you talking about?  I happen to be very informed 
of acceptable practices regarding kindergarten.  What is the nonsense to 
which you refer?  
 to the reading & writing requirements of 1st.  He gets
BM>a  lot of plain old fashioned drill and practice at home.
Perhaps you should have been involved sooner.
BM> FWIW none, not a single one, of the first grade teachers I know
BM>think  that creative spelling is worth a hoot.  I agree with them.
It's worth very little since such attitudes generally come from those 
ignorant of current learning theories and research studies supporting 
such practices.  Many first grade teachers I know allow transitional 
spelling because they understand it to be a natural process.  Any 
knowledgeable early childhood teacher understands this.  There is plenty 
of research data to show that transitional spelling is natural.  People 
who don't understand the process are often quick to criticize.  Read 
Transitions or Invitations by Regie Routman.  Her case studies are very 
informative.
Dan
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
... According to my best recollection, I don't remember
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------