CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Spelling...           1/ to RUTH LEBLANC on 10-06-
96
CB>Responding to a message by Ruth, to Charles on ...
CB>There are two issues here.  The first is our confusion over whole 
CB>language and inventive spelling - no two people define it the same 
CB>way.  The degree to which spelling is taught (or not taught) depends 
CB>a great deal on the teacher.  The second issue is that of formal 
CB>spelling instruction.  I believe it should be taught formally the 
CB>same week kids begin to read and write.  One can't know the word 
CB>"the" until they know it is made up of the letters t-h-e and in that 
CB>order.  Until I can see a number of well-documented studies that 
CB>prove it's a better way, I'll remain skeptical about transitional
CB>spelling.  
And where are your "well-documented" studies that support the 
traditional method of spelling instruction?  You accept the traditional 
method based on what??
CB>I believe that the traditional instructional techniques work better 
CB>than what Dan is using.  Whole Language is a product of the 
CB>"self-esteem now" philosophy under which we allow children to 
CB>achieve at their comfort level and we praise them for 
CB>inconsequential growth. 
So now we see you hoist your true flag of objection.  I understand your 
adamant objection to Whole Language in a completely new way.  I also 
agree that the "self-esteem now" philosophy has hurt us.  It has gone 
extreme.  But I don't think this is a whole language thing.  Seems to me 
there were several "programs" that sprung up from the self-esteem 
movement (Such as Duplo and Positive Action...there are others).  Whole 
language honors a child's best attempt because it is all the child can 
do at that time.  Close approximations are celebrated because we know 
that as time goes on the child will get closer and closer to getting it 
"correct." In my book, a wrong answer is a positive thing.  We learn 
from our many mistakes.   
Sorry for butting in...:)
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------