system: You are Charles Beams, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Educator message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to Ruth Leblanc about "Spelling...           1/".

They wrote:
RL>Why do you think that children who are writing and using
RL>invented/transitional/kidspell, or whatever you want to call it,
RL>spelling are not receiving any kind of instruction? This is not true, it
RL>just might not be the so called "traditional/formal" type of instruction
RL>that you may be thinking of.
RL>You say that practising the art of making gibberish on a piece of paper
RL>does not develop language skills any better than would the process of
RL>storytelling or news-time each day.  Charles, what is your
RL>knowledge of what language is? Teachers here would just shudder
RL>to hear you say such a thing. Language is just not reading and writing.
RL>I think the problem here is that you and Dan have completely different
RL>ideas/viewpoints of how primary children are taught. Dan is using his
RL>first hand knowledge of whole language and transitional spelling. You
RL>are using what you believe is taught (and maybe IS taught where you are
RL>teaching).
RL>In answer to my second question, children do not come to school knowing
RL>nothing about the writing/reading experience - even it is not what we as
RL>adults think it should be. They come with the building blocks in place.
RL>Some have better built foundations than others, etc.

Write your reply.

assistant: Responding to a message by Ruth, to Charles on <09/27/96>...
There are two issues here.  The first is our confusion over whole
language and inventive spelling - no two people define it the same
way.  The degree to which spelling is taught (or not taught) depends
a great deal on the teacher.  The second issue is that of formal
spelling instruction.  I believe it should be taught formally the
same week kids begin to read and write.  One can't know the word
"the" until they know it is made up of the letters t-h-e and in that
order.  Until I can see a number of well-documented studies that
prove it's a better way, I'll remain skeptical about transitional spelling.
I must not have phrased that correctly as Dan interpreted my comment
the same way you did.  As I mentioned a few months ago, I support
storytelling and news-time (sharing, whatever) as they build
language skills.  My point was that writing gibberish on a piece of
paper is not as effective a way to teach language development as are
the techniques mentioned above.
I believe that the traditional instructional techniques work better
than what Dan is using.  Whole Language is a product of the
"self-esteem now" philosophy under which we allow children to
achieve at their comfort level and we praise them for
inconsequential growth.  We need to set age-appropriate standards
and ensure that the children are meeting those goals.  Spelling included.
I agree with that and strongly support intervention (programs like
Head Start, Reading Recovery, summer school, etc.) for children who
don't have the advantage of coming from a home in which they got a
good foundation.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* A good deed never goes unpunished (Gore Vidal).