RON MCDERMOTT spoke of SPELLING to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-16-96
RM>Dan, the way I see it, the discussions on this topic are 
RM>going poorly because everyone is talking about different
RM>things....    The idea
RM>was that, over time, the kid would correct the errors as
RM>words became more familiar.  The child also learned some
RM>attack skills, rules, basic phonics, etc.  Most people
RM>trained in this way became reasonable spellers, 
I think you are right.  I think that perhaps there is more 
misunderstanding than understanding going on.  Im not sure I have been 
understood since I am using the same language apparently, as other 
teachers whose whole language views may differ from mine.  I know there 
are probably teachers using a whole language approach who don't consider 
spelling important.  This is unfortunate.  What is more unfortunate is 
that these teachers may have been instructed to place less emphasis on 
spelling.  It may be that the proverbial baby left with the bath water. 
I happen to believe that spelling is very important and should be 
expected as long as the child is developmentally ready (there I go again 
with that developmental stuff...ahhhhh).
RM>It is ALSO true, that there has been a marked fall in a
RM>number of educational areas over a very short time period,
RM>and one is forced to consider whether a changing population
RM>accounts for all this change, or is instead indicative of
RM>a system going in the wrong direction.
I know that the idea of a "marked fall" in a number of educational areas 
has been pounded at educators for a number of years now, and I know that 
many parents and teachers believe this to be true. I dispute this as a 
blanket statement.  I'm not saying that what you have stated is not 
true, I am saying however that I question it.  I am not convinced that 
public education has had a "marked" fall.  As a matter of interest, 
where is the information coming from that tells us how poorly public 
schools are performing?
RM>Now... The approximated spelling "problem" which many here
RM>refer to is NOT a natural development; 
I think understand this now...I think many here are seeing approximated 
spellings continue (in student's writings) long after students should be 
able to spell certain words correctly. 
 
RM> The question, to me, is WHY are we pushing
RM>for early writing?  
Many reasons although we don't "push" kids to write.  I won't cite 
research though I do have plenty to draw from that demonstrate that 
children who have many experiences with print, both from writing and 
reading, build a strong sense of literacy.  For reading it can be a 
teacher reading the story, showing the pictures, and pointing to the 
words, or it may be a child simply looking at a book, noticing the 
pictures and print.  
For writing it may be that the child simply draws a picture and dictates 
to the teacher what the picture is all about.  The teacher writes the 
child's language on the paper.  These early experiences with print are 
important to a child's continued literacy development.  Read anything by 
Donald Graves and you can get a complete rationale including cited 
research.  I know, I know, research doesn't "prove" anything.  But good 
research can demonstrate reasonableness and teach us many things.  We 
are after guided in education by research are we not?  
Of special interest to your above question may be the following:
Graves, Donald H., for the committee on Research, National Council of 
   Teachers of English.  1978-81.  Articles initiated at the
   Writing Process Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham,
   NH, and published in the "Research Update" section of *Language*
  *Arts.*
Are we seeing improved writing as a 
RM>result?  Are we seeing greater literacy, reading levels,
RM>etc?  If we're not, then why are we pushing early writing
RM>in the first place?  I ask this because I genuinely don't
RM>know the answer. 
I think we are seeing greater literacy and reading levels where teachers 
are applying correctly good and sound teaching practices that are 
developmentally appropriate and are the *correct* practices recommended 
by the early childhood professional organizations.  I have a question 
for you.  If we take a look at the whole of education for the past 10-20 
years, would it be safe to assume that the majority of teachers are in 
fact teaching the traditional way?  What was the percentage of teachers 
in the 1980's teaching traditional vs whole language?  For that matter, 
what is the percentage breakdown even today?  The Nation at Risk report 
(which I don't place much confidence, but anyway) came out in 1983, 
right?  That means that students who graduated in 1983 had to have 
entered kindergarten in 1965.  It is probably true that the NAR report 
looked back several years to even the beginning of the 1960,s.  If we 
were doing so poorly, according to that report and other reports like 
it, the blame can only be focused on traditional educational practices 
can they not?  Again I ask, at that time, what percentage of American 
teachers were teaching using the traditional method?  
I only have to look at my district and I know that the traditional 
elementary teachers still outnumber those who have been taught and who 
use a whole language approach.  Even one of the teachers in my building 
who is considered a whole language teacher is more traditional in every 
approach.  She does use some whole language ideas but most teaching 
strategies are completely traditional.  
If kids cannot spell, as you and others here say, and if they cannot 
write or read at grade level, the bigger question it seems to me is "How 
were these kids taught?"  Why is the leap to whole language being made.  
Many, many children are still being taught in traditional classrooms 
throughout the Country.  Have there been studies to show where the fault 
lies or are people just looking for easy answers?  I think it is a fair 
question don't you?
RM> I haven't yet seen any
RM>sign that this early writing results in IMPROVED spelling,
RM>writing, etc.  Many of us HAVE seen indications, however, 
RM>that spelling is deteriorating, and the disasterous, and
RM>rapid, drop on scores in California is difficult to dismiss 
RM>as being unrelated to the implimentation of programs
RM>related to early writing and inventive spelling.
California is not representative of the entire Nation.  Again, where and 
how have the children you see, those who cannot spell or write or read 
the way you think they should be able to do, been taught...traditional?  
Whole Language?  Something Else??
Not one study of any kind has been made to show why California dropped 
in scores and no where can you or anyone else find any evidence that is 
*conclusive* and that "proves" a relationship between California's drop 
in performance and early writing programs.  You are simply stating 
conjecture.  California's educational problems were voluminous.
Dan  
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------