CARL BOGARDUS spoke of Spelling And Stuff to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-16-96
CB>When I think of invented spellings-yes I do think of the IBM program
CB>which was heavily used in our district for quite a few years.
CB>Unfortunately, IBM had the position that children would automatically
CB>learn to spell from being exposed to "correct spelling". This is the
CB>"osmosis theory" of spelling that somehow infiltrated the regular
CB>program. So in very few instances were students ever expected to
CB>correct spelling or to produce a finished document (by finished, I
CB>mean to acceptable standards for publication for parents and the
CB>public).  So, one learning theory has merged into WL here, one that
CB>you apparently don't support. The IBM program did not make our kids
CB>readers, only reading will make students readers. (Smith)
I just recently learned of this program and have looked into it a bit.  
I was confused at all the new "phonetic" symbols.  As a teacher, I would 
have difficulty teaching kids to use this invented spelling approach.  I 
hope people see that there is a vast difference between this type of 
spelling instruction and the classroom practice of allowing early 
writers to write using the best spelling tools they have available 
(resulting in approximations).  There is also a difference between the 
developmental characteristic of approximated spelling being a "natural" 
developmental trait and the classroom practice where some teachers  
don't teach spelling to early developing writers under the mistaken 
notion that any spelling instruction is inappropriate for young 
children.  This idea is completely false and is not a practice 
recommended by the whole-language literature.  Spelling instruction is 
recommenced but only in the context of how it relates to the writing 
process.  Whole language does not recommend that spelling instruction 
happen in isolation.
Dan
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------