Bob Moylan was overheard to say to Dan Triplett
BM> DT> You are uninformed.  No one inflicts creative spelling or invented
  > DT> spelling or transitional spelling on anyone
BM> When teachers are presented with a curriculum that contains
  > creative/invented spelling they have not been trained in, do not
You cannot train a teach in creative/inventive spelling....you can
explain the philosophy or reasons behind it but you don't train them in
it. Invented spelling is the child's natural spelling process.
BM> DT> Children spell developmentally in classrooms where early writing is
  > DT> allowed.
BM> Developmental/creative spelling is, IMO, complete nonsense.  Are you
  > saying that when doing this children are consistently using the same
  > groups of letters to represent the same word?
Yes, Bob, this has been researched and replicated. You obviously missed
my long post last month in which I wrote in DETAIL about inventive
spelling. In fact I wonder how many people did miss it as no one replied
 :(
If you want to look into it J. Richard Gentry is the most renowned
expert. If you want a quick read then read Spel...Is A Four-Letter Word
which is put out by Scholastic in their Bright Idea paperback line.
Are all the children
  > using the same groups of letters to represent the same word?
This does happen with children at the transitional stage of spelling and
it happens all over the world with children learning to spell in English
(first language)
 If, for
  > example, "qwerty" does not represent "horse" to every kid in the
  > class then how can they understand what any other kid is trying to
  > write?
A child that writes "qwerty" for horse has not reached the stage of
spelling where he/she even knows the alphabetic principle. If the child
starts with an h you will at least know they recognize initial sounds.
This is all phonemic awareness. I keep meaning to write about this but
always am too tired to start a new message in depth. Do my responding
and replying first and sometimes there's no energy left afterward. :(
(I know, I know, I still owe YOU a reply from months back about
standardized testing - and I owe Charles one on Whole Language... 
- I keep forgetting)
If you want me to repost the information - it is long and wordy  - I
will endeavour to find it and send it to you - and anyone else who
didn't see it.
 For that matter how do you understand it?  By the kid telling
  > you what it says?   If the child doesn't learn that specific groups
  > of letters represent specific things EVERY TIME they see it then, at
  > least with regard to this, their valuable learning time is being
  > wasted.  Being wasted at the time and later when they have to forget
  > all that creative spelling and actually learn how to spell horse.
I would endeavour to say that children probably do know that specific
groups of letters represent specific things - or they wouldn't ask us to
spell words for them all the time. How can you say that a child who is
practising to spell using the knowledge that they do know is wasting
time?
BM> I'm referring, of course, to what this whole thread has been about,
  > developmental/creative spelling.  Just because something is an
  > acceptable practice doesn't mean that it came down from the mountain.
  > Putting kids in a corner with a pointed hat on their heads was an
  > acceptable practice at one time.
Whether an idea or practice comes "down from the mountain" or not
doesn't mean that we should ignore it - I for one like to judge for
myself and having worked with children since 1988 using inventive
spelling and whole language practices (the complete whole language that
Dan writes about) I have been able to endorse them. I see it work!
This doesn't mean that we don't teach children how to spell or that we
don't ever correct spelling that simply isn't true. I work with many
teachers as I go around from school to school and the children use their
"KidSpell" when they write but when the good copy has to be done it is
corrected.
BM> DT>  Many first grade teachers I know allow transitional
  > DT> spelling because they understand it to be a natural process.
BM> I don't believe it is natural to let a child invent their own written
  > language that no one else can understand and that the child probably
  > can't read a week later.  If they are taught the correct way of doing
  > something the first time around they won't have a lot of the problems
  > they have later with reading and writing.
How would you recommend we teach kindergarteners and first graders to
(Continued to next message)
---
 þ QMPro 1.53 þ Philosopy: the profound grasp of the obvious.
---------------