Conference moira::parenting_v3

    I would never in a thousand years reduce myself to such a level of
    nitpicking and harping as to correct my preschool children's
    grammatical errors when they're trying to explain something else
    to me.  I occassionally, if I can do it in a noncritical way, try
    to explain about language and the different ways to say things,
    but not "correct their grammar."  And if a daycare teacher asked
    me to do that, I'd be looking for a new daycare.  
    
    Children learn language by hearing it spoken around them and using
    it themselves.  They will speak the language of their social
    group pretty much regardless of what you do about it.  You may be
    able to teach them that there are other ways of speaking, what the
    grammaticians call "other levels of discourse" -- more formal for
    school, for instance, and very formal for meeting the mayor -- but
    if you live in a yuppie suburb your kids will, like the neighbors,
    tell their friends "I can't relate to that," where a child in a
    different environment will say, "F you."  
    
    --bonnie

Bonnie, I'm not certain but I think maybe what the daycare person was getting
at could be something like the following:

Child: "Look at what I drawed!"

Parent: "Why yes, look at what you drew, it's beautiful!"

In this way, the child is hearing the word used in the right tence without
really being corrected. 

	Re: -1 Or even the right tenSe. :-)

	(Yes, it was nit picky. Yes, it was a low blow.  But in the context of 
this discussion, I just COULDN'T let this one go by without comment. )

	Tracey
	(Who is NOT having fun today!)

    In re: grammar

    I'm with bonnie.  Correcting a kid's grammar on the spot is a 
    mistake, and a poor pedagogical practice.  Having a pre-school
    director suggest it also displays surprising ignorance (which would not
    be surprising at all in a parent).

    Language acquisition is probably the most thoroughly studied and best
    understood aspect of cognitive psychology.  Kids do not learn the
    "proper" language of their sub-culture by being corrected, or by being
    exposed only to "correct" utterances.  They do gradually, and in a very
    predictable sequence, develop an immensely abstract subconscious rule
    schema.  Basically all kids learning a given language go through it in
    the same sequence.  They'll all have a conversation like this:

    	kid:	I drawed this picture, mom.
    	mom:	You drew this picture today?
    	kid:	Yes, I drawed this picture in class.
    	mom:	You drew this picture in the morning?
    	kid:	Yes, I drawed it before lunch.

    You get the picture.  There is a rule that you add "ed" to get past
    tense.  A child needs to operate under this rule for awhile before
    passing on to a more abstract rule that admits of irregular verbs. 
    Nagging will not change or hurry the sequence, just inhibit the child.

    In recent years there has been a new approach to initial instruction in
    writing called "invented spelling."  For the first year, any spelling
    that is meaningful to the kid (and hopefully decodable by an adult) is
    considered "OK".  I had tried to teach Aaron proper spelling, but as
    soon as his Kindergarten teacher made the case for this, I relaxed, and
    his willingness and ability to write shot suddenly ahead.  Once he got
    to like stringing written words into sentences and longer units, he
    basically taught proper spelling to himself.  Before invented spelling,
    he was a rather reluctant writer, though a very precocious reader.  I
    know it also worked well with kids who were normal or slow readers,
    too.
    
    		- Bruce

    Yes, I just heard about this "inventive spelling" from my sister who
    teaches first grade.  I have to admit, I was kind of skeptical, not to
    mention being pretty amused at this "inventive" euphemism!  Incorrect
    spellings tend to jump off the page at me, so I tend to be in favor of
    teaching correct spelling right from the start.  But I suppose if it
    really encourages kids to write, there will be time for spelling tests
    and such later.

    
    I believe that children speak as they hear, and write as they read.  An
    extremely talented child can even write as he/she speaks.
    
    -m

    Are there any good reference books around about speech patterns for
    pre-schoolers. I have one book that sites examples like Bruce's (.6?)
    of children adding the "ed" on the end of a word to make it past tense.
    This is how most English words are but of course there are exceptions
    like draw/drew - throw/threw - etc. You cannot expect a pre-schooler to
    how all the rules of the English grammer. 
    
    Things I am wrestling with now with my son (2.8 years old) is him using
    the correct "sexual distinction". If he is speaking about a girl he
    will often say "he, his" in reference to that female. I tried to
    explain that "ladies are shes" and "men are hes" or "girls are shes"
    and "boys are hes" but to him everyone is still a "him". I'm not
    worried about it but I don't know when I can expect him to get the
    correct gender. He points out girls versus boys and ladies versus men
    so he can make the sexual identification but he doesn't know how that
    translates into using the correct pronouns, etc. It will come in time.
    
    About the daycare...if they are correcting with "you said that wrong"
    techniques then I would be upset. You cannot expect pre-schoolers to
    know all the rules of English grammer. They should be encouraging
    correct speech with a response using the correct word like "I DRAWED
    this picture", "Oh, you DREW it today?" and rarely, if ever, a response
    of "No it's I DREW this picture". You've just shot down the poor kid
    and have discouraged him/her from telling you things. 
    
    There is a major difference (and results) from constant versus
    constructive criticism and correction.
    
    Andrea

    I guess I should have been more clear.  When the director told me this,
    the boys were 4 and 5.  Yes, technically they're preschool, but they'd
    been talking for years and were close enough to school age to start 
    learning rules of grammar.    
    
    Yes, the boys were corrected, but not "picked-at" (I don't say, "No,
    you're  wrong-- it's THIS.").  I've noticed that my boys are sponges
    (as are most children), and they like to learn, so why not have them
    learn correct grammar instead of using incorrect grammar?  And as 
    other noters have mentioned, the errors mainly occur with the 
    nonstandard past tenses (draw/drew).
    
    Yes, I agree that environment has a lot to do with it, and the fact 
    that my older boys have been reading since an early age, but they'll
    make mistakes, and I want them to learn what's correct.  
    
    Pam-the-writer-and-daughter-of-a-grammar-lover-whose-mother-taught-English
    
     

    My daughter is 2 years 9 months.  I also encourage her to tell me
    "stories" about her day without making interuptions for grammatical
    corrections.  EXCEPT ....  there are a few grammatical errors/slang
    expressions that affect me like fingernails on a chalkboard and I do
    correct her.  For example:
    
    She:  I don't want no milk.
    Me:   Any milk.  
    She:  I don't want any milk.
    
    She's picked up the "no" vs "any" from both her daycare provider AND my
    mother-in-law.  She spends alot of time with both of them.   
    
    Who knows why it makes MY skin crawl, but I've occasionally corrected
    my mother-in-law, too!!!
    
    L.

Bruce, I don't see your example conversation as "nagging", do you?

re .9 do I ever know what you mean about the "I don't want no milk" kind
of speach!  My mother in law talks like that and she used to teach English!

    Let me start with an anecdote of my own.
    
    Steven at age 4 had a crush on his teacher, so at home one evening
    he wrote wrote a little story for her.  It was, "The line is
    brushing his tooths." (He asked me how to spell "brushing".) And
    he decorated it with a big brown lion and an enormous red
    toothbrush.  He read it to her in school the next morning.  She
    said, "You spelled "lion" wrong."  He said, "Why didn't you like
    my story?"
    
    Language is for the most part instrumental.  That is, we use words
    to get a glass of milk, to share our excitement about a drawing,
    to tell our teacher we like her, to tell stories, or to 
    communicate a new sales plan.  Only occasionally do we speak,
    write, or read just to hear the sound of the words.  
    
    Learning the words that will get us what we want is generally a
    cyclical process.  The person grasps a new rule and proceeds to
    apply it, making some mistakes of overextension in applying that
    rule where it doesn't belong.  The person sees that the rule
    didn't work in that situation and refines the rule, applying it
    again in another situation.  They learn that what is a mistake in
    one situation is expected form in another situation.  You can say
    "don't want no milk" at grandma's but not at mom's; you say "can I
    have a glass of water" to your friends and "may I have a glass of
    water" to your English teacher.  This is a concept called "levels
    of discourse" and it's a key concept in using language
    effectively.  
    
    But the cycle doesn't work without the step of using what is
    already known, and sometimes making mistakes. 
    
    The same is true of writing, including spelling.  A person learns
    to write by writing, by trying to express ideas -- whether that
    idea is as simple as writing down an order for hamburgers and
    fries or as complex as a dissertation on plasma physics.  In
    trying to express the idea, the person will apply known rules and
    stretch to learn the rest.  They will imitate techniques they have
    heard -- does using "they" for an unknown individual of any sex or
    age work  better than "one" which is formal or "you" which can be
    interpreted as accusing individuals, even though "they" is plural?
    But the focus is on the *idea* and feedback is interpreted in
    terms of the idea that was being expressed.  (Exactly what Steven
    did.  He wasn't interested in learning grammar; he wanted the
    teacher to like him.)  The whole process of writing is refined
    together.  Ideas are focussed more clearly, expressed in more
    complex sentences, spelled better.  
    
    The best way to teach anyone, kids as well as adults, standard
    grammar is to them work with language.  Read them interesting
    books; help them write their own stories (both factual and
    creative ideas), with the focus on the idea being expressed rather
    than mechanics.  Mechanics -- the rules of how those ideas are
    expressed -- generally don't stick well until the person
    understands what kind of idea the rules apply to.  For instance,
    spelling is a meaningless concept until a person understands that
    the visible symbols called letters represent the sounds that
    come out of one's mouth, and those letters combine to make words
    that represent ideas. 
    
    --bonnie, who is also a writer, a teacher of English, and a lover
    of language

    Starting down a rathole... 
    
    If a child says something that is gramatically incorrect and is not
    corrected-- NOT CRITICIZED, *CORRECTED* -- he will continue to use it
    because he thinks it's fine, or because it has become a habit.  Because
    I believe this, I correct my children.  I do not attack them--
    as another note said, I do it in a "noncritical" way.  But they learn. 
    I don't think that's a bad thing.
    
    Spelling is not the same thing, however.  I think the teacher in the
    previous note was dead wrong.  Of course a 4 year old is going 
    to spell some words wrong.  Who cares?  At 4, most children aren't
    reading, and the concept of letters is just beginning to sink in.
    The teacher should have taken the story for what it was-- a charming
    story from an admirer.  It was unreasonable for her to behave as she
    did.  But correcting a child for saying she doesn't "want no milk" is 
    not unreasonable.
    
    A story:  I've been teaching my son's first grade class how to 
    use one of the programs on their Apple computer.  It highlights
    a little graphic of a common object, and the child has to press the
    arrow key to move the pointer down to point to the first letter of 
    the word.  Some of the children can read, some cannot.  Some of the 
    children can spell, some cannot.  Most of the children know what
    sounds the different letters make, but a few do not.  One little
    girl saw a picture of a fish and said, "I know that one!  That 
    starts with 'S', right?"  What was I supposed to do-- let that go by?
    I said, "The letter S makes the "ssssssss" sound.  What letter makes 
    the "fuh" sound?"  I don't think that's being unreasonable.
    
    My son (6) can read (since he turned 4) almost anything, can spell, 
    understands how letters and phonics work, and has a great vocabulary.  
    Yes, environment has a lot to do with it.  Obviously having me correct 
    an incorrect verb tense has not hindered him at all.
    
    Pam-a-mother-who-wants-her-children-to-talk-good  :-)

    .10 > Bruce, I don't see your example conversation as "nagging", do you?
    
    You're correct, I didn't mean that the "drawed / drew /drawed / drew /
    drawed" conversation is nagging.  But I also don't view it as
    "correcting." I have conversations like that all the time with my kids.
    But (and this is the point) I don't view the conversation as any less
    successful if the child doesn't pick up on the difference. When they're
    ready to move onto the next stage, they will do it, whether or not I
    obsessively present them with "good examples" (which I tend to do, by
    the way).
    
    		- Bruce

I think that this is another example of there being a time and place for 
everything.  But, Pam, I fail to grasp the differentiation between spelling 
errors and grammatical errors.  

I think that the teacher in Bonnie's example made a big mistake.  
I think it would have been just as big a mistake is she had corrected the 
incorrect pluralization (teeths) as the misspelling of "lion".  But the 
incorrect pluralization is much closer to being a grammatical error than a 
misspelling.  When my children were four, I might have corrected them when 
they said "I don't want no milk", but I wouldn't dream of correcting them if 
they had said "I loves you".  Similarly, if one of them had made a mother's 
day card saying "Happy Muther's Day" I wouldn't correct them, but I might if 
they had written "I like skool".  So to me the differentiation is more one of 
context than whether it is grammar or spelling.

To me the following two comments are equally reasonable:

>    If a child says something that is gramatically incorrect and is not
>    corrected . . . he will continue to use it
>    because he thinks it's fine, or because it has become a habit.  

    If a child spells something incorrectly and is not
    corrected . . . he will continue to spell it incorrectly 
    because he thinks it's fine, or because it has become a habit.  

as are the following two:

>    Of course a 4 year old is going 
>    to spell some words wrong.  Who cares?  At 4, most children aren't
>    reading, and the concept of letters is just beginning to sink in.

    Of course a 4 year old is going make some grammatical errors.
    Who cares?  At 4, most children aren't communicating in full, gramatically 
    correct sentences, and the concept of syntax is just beginning to sink in.

Not only do I think that the context is important, but I think expectations of 
correct grammar and spelling should be appropriate to age.  "Can you and me 
play baseball" goes unnoticed from my younger, but not from my older.  I do 
not expect my younger to spell "Massachusetts" correctly, but I do expect my 
older.  And it will be some time before I expect either of them to say "If I 
were . . ." as opposed to "If I was . . ."

>    One little
>    girl saw a picture of a fish and said, "I know that one!  That 
>    starts with 'S', right?"  

Now if she were _really_ sophisticated, she would have proposed that it be 
spelled "ghoti".	:^)

Clay

    Again I should have been clearer....  For Bonnie's 4 year old,
    I would have let the "line" slide and highlighted the story instead.
    I don't expect 4 year olds to spell every word correctly.  But if
    a 4 year old made a grammatical error in speech (i.e. don't want no),
    I'd point out the error...  *nicely*.  But as the child ages, of
    course spelling errors should be pointed out, too, for exactly the
    reasons you mentioned.  I was still talking about the case of
    Bonnie's son... a 4 year old... I expect my oldest (6) to spell words
    correctly and use proper grammar.  I'm thrilled when my 15-month-
    old says "Mama dar-row ta-ta."  Age and context, just like you said. 
    :-)                                                    
    
    

    This statement is, according to language development people and my
    own experience working with beginning readers of all ages, not
    true:
    
>   If a child says something that is gramatically incorrect and is not
    >corrected-- NOT CRITICIZED, *CORRECTED* -- he will continue to use it
>    because he thinks it's fine, or because it has become a habit.  Because
>    I believe this, I correct my children.  I do not attack them--
>    as another note said, I do it in a "noncritical" way.  But they learn. 
    
    Children do not continue to say things that they don't hear around
    them, and they do say things they do hear around them.  If at one
    stage they overapply a rule such as "add -ed to make the past
    tense," and the people around them speak standard English,  they
    will soon learn the irregular past tenses. Similarly, if everyone
    around them speaks BED (Black English Dialect) and does not form
    verb tenses in the standard way, no amount of correction of their
    spoken words will change "I be happy today." (As many an
    aching-headed teacher has learned.)
    
    In this context, I doubt that the child perceives much difference
    between an explicit criticism and the criticism implicit in a
    correction.  Both function to take the attention away from the
    idea or feeling that's being expressed and put it on the details. 
    That's what I meant by nit-picking -- the focus on the less
    important at the expense of the important. 
    
    Oddly, when you shift focus to the important, the details tend to
    come along.  When I was teaching standard English to young adult
    speakers of BED, I never did a specific grammar-mechanics lesson. 
    We focussed on understanding the reading and on clarifying ideas. 
    I talked about figures of speech and analogy and parallel
    structure, and they wrote about dental work and the governmental
    structure of Peru.  And yet my students scored better than anybody
    else on the end-of-term grammar-and-usage test the school gave all
    students.  
    
    I didn't deserve any credit. All I did was provide them with the
    opportunity to see how good writers use language.  They looked at
    it and used it to convey their ideas, and in so doing they
    absorbed the usage they needed.
    
    When my kids say "Look at the picture I drawed this morning," I'd
    much rather say "Oh, wow, that's pretty!  Is that supposed to be
    the sun?"  It's not that correcting their grammar is such a
    terrible thing in itself as that it tends to blind you to the real
    message in what your child is telling you and to the opportunities
    for conversations about ideas they have to grope to express and
    maybe don't always do correctly. 

    Clay's partly right -- since Steven's now 6 and in school, I
    wouldn't expect that phrasing from him any more, and would be
    worried if he were doing it as more than amusing baby talk.  So
    yes, age and context are important.  In fact, the best way to deal
    with issues such as friends or relatives who have a different
    level of formality in their colloquial diction is usually to
    explain in plain terms that it's okay to say that at x's house but
    not in yours. 
    
    --bonnie 

    What this really boils down to in my books is that there is a time and
    place for everything ...
    
    When a kiddie is seeking admiration, the last thing s/he needs is a put-
    down so you overlook grammatical and spelling errors.
    
    When a kiddie is working on, say homework, then you definitely work
    on these things ... but never correct in a critical way and never put
    the child down for his/her errors.
    
    For the million and one potential cases in between, you have to use
    discretion.  For example ... a kiddie is making a card to send to
    teacher ... encourage her/him to seek out help for words or grammar
    not understood ... our 6 year old asks us how to spell words regularly
    and how to say something ... if you catch a mistake before it is
    committed to paper, correct it ... after it is committed to paper,
    mention it but don't FOCUS on the error ... say something like
    "actually we usually write 'the lions are asleep' (child used is)
    but it doesn't matter because the teacher will like it anyway.
    
    BUT sense the mood of your child ... if he/she is likely to tear the
    card up because they may think it no good ... then don't correct.
    
    
    Just m.h.o.
    
    Stuart

    
    I must have been a bad parent - I never corrected my children's
    grammar, and only assisted on spelling if the children asked me to
    help (same with math, science, etc...).  I did read to them a lot,
    and we *never* used  "baby talk".
    
    Amazingly, my children speak just like I do - with as correct a usage
    of the English language as I have (no better, no worse).  Also,
    amazingly, they do NOT speak like my husband, who has some grammatical
    differences in his English (he is not a native born American).
    
    Perhaps a child develops in spite of his parents?
    
    
    -m
    
    

    It seems like if you are trying to encourage creativity (journal
    or story writing exercises) that ignoring the grammar and spelling
    errors is the way to go.  If you are doing rote (sp?) exercises
    then that would be the time to correct.  I agree with the premise
    that we develop an "ear" for the correct way to speak.  I can still
    remember taking my LSATs and there was alot of grammar.  I knew
    which examples were right, although I couldn't think of the rule
    for why.  I just read them to myself and picked the one that sounded
    correct.  Then I came to work for Digital and have gone steadily 
    downhill since.  :-)
    	Linda

re: .14

>    But (and this is the point) I don't view the conversation as any less
>    successful if the child doesn't pick up on the difference. When they're
>    ready to move onto the next stage, they will do it, whether or not I
>    obsessively present them with "good examples" (which I tend to do, by
>    the way).

Bruce, I think you may be selling the effect of the examples a little short.  
Even if the child doesn't immediately pick up the difference, I have to 
believe that the cumulative effect is that the child will begin (for example) 
using "drew" instead of "drawed" sooner than if the parent didn't present good 
examples -- and probably would continue to use "drawed" longer (perhaps 
permanently) if the parents used "drawed" also.  Bonnie's reasoning in .17 
on how patterns of speech develop appeals to me.

re: .19

>    Perhaps a child develops in spite of his parents?

No, but its not the only influence.  If all of your child's friends and 
teacher spoke like your husband, I would imagine that your son's speech 
patterns would be more like your husband's than yours.


re: .17

Bonnie, I agree with you that correcting grammer can be done to the 
point that it interferes with hearing the message.  I agree with .19's 
approach that never correcting is better than overcorrecting.  I also agree 
that's a strange thing for a preschool daycare provider to set as a priority.

But I don't think that a certain amount, done discreetly, hurts.  In fact, if 
done properly, it could send a clear message to the child that speaking 
properly is important.  And it IS, particularly as a child becomes older.

I do think that we are capable of functioning on more than one level.  In your 
example,

>    "Oh, wow, that's pretty!  Is that supposed to be
>    the sun?"  

instead were:

    "Oh, wow, that's a pretty picture you drew!  You drew it all by 
    yourself?!?! Is that supposed to be the sun?"  

I don't think that the child would feel criticized or bad.  The main message 
is the enthusiasm over the picture.  Of course if the response is 

    "Look at the picture you *DREW* this morning.  Oh yes, that's very nice" 

Then, yeah, the kid would feel bad.  

Also, not everything a kid says is full of meaning.  "I don't want no milk" 
might be some subliminal, rejection of the person offering the milk, but
more likely it means that she doesn't want any milk, or at most that she's 
thirsty (or that she's really sophisticated and can distinguish between not 
wanting milk and wanting "no milk".

I think it's also true that the Pygmalion effect works at a relatively young 
age -- and gets more and more pronounced as the child gets older.  Not 
everyone is as skilled as we are ( ;^)) at "hearing the real message".  
Suppose, for example, that Steven had written a story about "The Lion Brushes 
His Teeth", then he may have gotten the response he wanted from the teacher.  
His self esteem would have been enhanced, not diminished.  It ain't fair, it 
ain't right, but it's real.

I am also intrigued by the depth of feeling that can accompany discussions of 
incorrect grammar, spelling, etc.  An earlier noter mentioned how a particular 
grammar error can lead her to correct her mother-in-law.  For a long time, my 
son and I had a strong disagreement over the correct pronunciation of 
"Diplodocus"; neither of us would budge from our positions.  Why is it so 
important to me?  I don't know.  To this day, if I am reading to him, I don't 
pronounce the word.  I let him (mis)pronounce it, and grit my teeth.  And 
misuse of apostrophe's (especially by "Principle Engineer's") drive's me 
absolutely nut's.  Perhaps in each of us has was a subconcious schoomarm who 
raps our knuckles with an 18 inch ruler every time we hear or see a 
grammatical error.

Clay

    re: .21
    
    First of all, I didn't mean to say there was never a place for
    grammatical corrections -- it's just a much smaller and less
    critical place than most people think it is.  And generally people
    can only learn the "rules" associated with a construct they
    already know how to use.  Spelling, for instance, is something you
    can only teach to someone who understands that words are made up
    of a fixed series of letters.  Telling you to put commas around
    intruded adverbial phrases, for another example, only makes sense
    if you know what an adverbial phrase is and how to intrude it in a
    sentence. 
    
    So, as Stuart put it, knowing the age and the ability of the
    person involved, and making sure what you say is at their level,
    is critical. Focussing on it to the exclusion of other, more
    important aspects of language and personal development leads to
    the phenomenon Clay jokingly described:
    
>Perhaps in each of us has was a subconcious schoomarm who 
>raps our knuckles with an 18 inch ruler every time we hear or see a 
>grammatical error.

    This is what happens to most people -- they internalize a harsh
    Editor or Critic who stands at the back of our minds scrawling
    red-pen corrections all over our ideas before we ever get them
    out.  Books aimed at teaching literate adults how to write reports
    or stories or even letters without undue anxiety are full of
    techniques for quieting one's Internal Critic before it becomes an
    Internal Censor who prevents us from writing or thinking at all.
    
    The Internal Critic is the person who harps in the ear of a lot of
    read-only noters, "I'd like to contribute, but I don't write well
    enough to say anything worthwhile."  It keeps a friend of mine
    from taking a job as a product manager because "It takes too much
    writing and I never learned how to write all those big words you
    have to know," as if big words were more important than the
    thoughts and ideas.  
    
    Most of us learned this in school or from our parents, and it's
    still what's being taught.  We don't learn about first thoughts
    and first drafts and second drafts and editing and all the rest of
    the cycle of generating good writing.  We learn that everything
    has to be mechanically correct when it first comes out of our
    brain or else it has to be red-inked.  
    
    I'm exaggerating a bit, of course; not all of us get treated this
    way and for most of us it's a lot more subtle than the woman whose
    mother used to "correct" and return the letters she sent from
    college.  Most of us were never taught that the rules for
    colloquial speech are different and far less formal than the rules
    for written discourse, that there are several levels of formality
    in writing, that there are a number of dialects in this country
    that use varying grammatical forms -- such as "he don't", which is
    common throughout the midwest among almost everybody, even the
    highly educated, when they're having a good time at a bar.
    
    --bonnie

    Correcting a child's spelling can be disastrous.
    
    I have a learning disabled son.  Many LD children not only can't
    read with sight methods (their ability to retain a visual memory
    of a word is very limited) but have extreme difficulties with spelling.
    
    When Chris was in his local school, whenver he wrote something he'd
    get it back with lots of red marks.  He quickly learned to reduce
    the red marks by reducing his written output.  He became extremely
    adverse to writing.  If you asked him for a story on his favorite
    topic (baseball) you might get three sentences back.
    
    Once he started in a school that recognized his learning disabilities
    he was given encouragement to write - to keep a journal - to express
    his ideas - WITHOUT worrying about the spelling.  His aversion to
    writing has ended.  Today we sometimes have to insist he stop writing
    and go to bed, because he gets into writing assignments and will
    stay up to all hours writing.
    
    Despite all the writing, his spelling is still poor - although its
    also very phonetic.  He is elarning new strategies to work on the
    spelling, however, including the use of computer spell checkers.
    
    Once his teachers (and parents) stopped harping on his spelling,
    the writing blossomed.  Of course, as he has come to realize he
    likes to write he has also developed his own internal desire to
    spell better.

    I think it has to do with how much importance you put on creativity
    vs. correctness.  I would want to encourage creativity in a child,
    so would not worry so much about the mechanics.  It is probably
    a good idea to have some exercises that are rote grammar and spelling
    and other exercises that are "freestyle" where the child's imagination
    doesn't have to be limited by his level of skill.  Regarding the
    "inner ear", I took the LSAT about 10 years ago and there was _alot_
    of grammar in it.  Very rarely could I actually site the grammar
    rule, I just read each example and picked the one that sounded right.
    It gave me an awareness of how socio-economic background could keep
    some kids out of law school.
    	Linda

    re .23, I can relate to what you're saying, it DOES carry into
    adulthood!  My husband was diagnosed wiht a mild form of dyslexia as a
    child and still spells phonectically (? my spelling)  He has 2 degrees,
    and is also a DECie in a rather obvious position with EH&S.  I found
    for him something  to help with spelling called  the "Misspeller's
    Dictionary" he keeps it on his desk at work, and uses it frequently. 
    According to my mother inlaw he was supposed to grow up and be useless
    as an adult, obviously some psycologist made a mistake!  But as you
    indicated the red lines of correction are real discouraging.  I
    remember him getting his college exams back, correct for material, but
    many instuctors would take points off for his spelling.  If only
    they could be made to understand this.
    
    My opinion...thank heavens for Spellcheck on the systems!!
    
    Lyn
    

    re: .21
    
    My personal pet peeve is "your" versus "you're".  My son just came
    home with something that his teacher had written that said, 
    
    "Your invited to a party".
    
    Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!!

    
    I am sorry, but I have a real problem with people (not young children)
    who speak incorrectly.  I use the method others recommend here with my
    3 year old--she will say something grammatically incorrect and I will
    answer her grammatically correct--without pointing out any difference
    in our resonse or remark.
    
    However, once she reaches school age (ie: 1st grade), I feel it's time
    to start correcting.  If she has a learning disability, of course I
    will accomodate her in whatever way is helpful--but as a parent, I feel
    it is my job to make sure she speaks correctly.
    
    I am terrible at grammer rules--I don't know one from the other.  But I
    had a mother who constantly corrected my grammer once I was old enough
    where it mattered (ie: 1st grade).  I hated it at the time--but it
    stood me in very good stead throughout junior high, high school,
    college, etc. and to this day, my grammer usage is quite good.  Again,
    I don't know rules--but I do know how to write and speak correctly.
    
    Spelling is something else.  I am convinced that people are either born
    with the ability to be good spellers--or born to be poor spellers.  I
    don't think poor spelling has much to do with intelligence, or speaking
    and writing ability.  I believe that good and bad spelling is
    inherited.  My mother is a terrific speller.  She worked with me
    constantly to make me a good speller too.  My father was a HORRIBLE
    speller--despite the advanced degrees from Ivy League schools.  I am a
    horrible speller--despite my mother, and an advanced degree in English.
    So there.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    

>    Spelling is something else.  I am convinced that people are either born
>    with the ability to be good spellers--or born to be poor spellers.  I
>    don't think poor spelling has much to do with intelligence, or speaking
>    and writing ability.  I believe that good and bad spelling is
>    inherited. 
    
    There was an article in the New York Times about this about 6 months
    ago.  I don't  remember if it was in the Education or Science section, 
    but was based on recent research and supported what you're saying!
    
    [ I tried to write "your" instead of "you're" in response to the
    earlier reply about the misuse of those words, but I couldn't make
    myself do it!  It bugs me that much, too! ]
    
    And back to Parenting, I think that we'll find out that MANY more
    things are "nature" instead of "nurture" as we raise our kids.  It's a
    great trend: towards accepting them as individuals while we help them
    be the best they can be.
    
    
    
    

    One should bear in mind that what is "correct" speaking varies
    according to context.  There is no one identifiable set of rules
    that forms a U.S. English that is correct under any and all
    circumstances, regardless of who is present and what activities
    are under way.
    
    For instance, the first paragraph of this reply is written in a
    formal, stilted style appropriate to dissertations (and perhaps to
    notes in certain moods).
    
    If I came out with a sententious proclamation like that at my
    mother's dinner table, it would be a deliberate insult to my
    family's way of life.  We are not formal at dinner and never have
    been; dinner is a time for sharing, touching bases, making bad
    jokes.  At another family's dinner, with people who preferred a
    more restrained style, my family's jokes would be equally
    incorrect -- and this although both families use "standard"
    English.  
    
    If I were a guest in a home where BED or Appalachian or other U.S.
    dialects were spoken, a formal pronouncement might be an even
    worse insult.  At a football game with friends I'd just sound
    stupid.  
    
    So as much as any abstract "correctness," we need to teach our
    children to be sensitive to the people around them and to adjust
    their levels of diction in ways appropriate to the circumstances.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Bonnie,
    I think what you are saying is that we need to teach our children to be
    sensitive to the lives and cultures of other people.  I wholeheartedly
    agree.  
    
    However, I still feel very strongly that correct English (as defined by
    Strunk and White, The Elements of Style) is the way to go when teaching
    correct grammar--whether you are doing it by the book--or by the seat
    of your pants (as I will have to--not knowing formal grammar rules). 
    Even though I write and speak properly--I can certainly "let my hair
    down" in any conversation and adapt my tone and intonation to those
    around me, when appropriate.  I have also been known to let out a "I
    don't want no apples" when feeling very loose and informal--the
    distinction being...I know the difference between what I've said and
    what is correct.  I've simply chosen to use incorrect grammar.
    
    The bottom line is that whatever culture or socio-economic class or
    neighborhood our kids come from--they will find themselves in the same
    world, competing for the same jobs, at some point in their lives.  Most
    people will not hire someone who uses incorrect grammar in a job
    interview.  The point is--a person needs to know the correct usage.  If
    they choose not to use it, that's one thing.  But not to know it is, in
    my mind, handicapping them for the rest of their lives.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    
    

    In re: .27, .28
    
    I didn't see the NYT article, but can vouch that different learning
    abilities/styles extend beyond spelling.  I looked into this when on a
    faculty committee re-evaluating a college foreign language requirement.
    
    After early childhood, most people acquire foreign language skills by a
    combination of visual (reading, writing) and aural/oral (listening,
    speaking) experience.  There is a subgroup that really cannot learn
    through the aural/oral methods that currently dominate most foreign
    language instruction.  There is a smaller subgroup that really cannot
    acquire foreign languages from reading and writing.  I am in the latter
    group, and, as an example, I was completely unable to learn Latin when
    in graduate school, even though it was essential to the field I was
    studying (I eventually switched to a quite different field).  I cannot
    learn foreign languages from books, regardless of motivation and
    effort.  On the other hand, I've been fairly fluent in Spanish and
    German (and to a lesser degree, French) because one can listen to and
    speak them.
    
    And this has major impact on specific native language skills, too.  For
    example, English spelling is very hard for me, because of major
    non-phonetic aspects.  On the other hand, I could once spell almost
    flawlessly in German.  I look up words in the dictionary all the time,
    but they simply don't get transferred to long-term memory.  If I don't
    write a word down right after looking it up, I have to look it up again
    immediately.
    
    These linguistic abilities/disabilities have nothing to do with general
    intelligence.  I know university professors who can't learn languages
    aurally, and my problem has nothing to do with a generally poor
    _memory_.  { One day I memorized 75 digits of pi for shear pleasure (and
    I remember 30 or so a few decades later).  And in college I was always
    being drafted to replace someone at the last moment in the cast of a
    play, because I could memorize a major part overnight, if needed.}  But
    I cannot memorize what English vowel goes where (I have very little
    trouble with consonants).
    
    And this does relate to childhood grammer acquisition.  I cannot learn
    grammer from rules, or books, or being "corrected," and I couldn't as a
    child.  But I mastered grammer very well as a child from an infinite
    sea of examples, which included written as well as spoken examples. 
    Since youth, I have scarcely been able to think a thought, let alone
    utter a sentence, that was gramatically improper.  As it happend (it
    really was coincidence), I also went to a "progressive" school that
    didn't _teach_ conventional grammer.  I had never even _heard of_ terms
    like "subjunctive," "dative," "imperative," or "pluperfect" until I got
    to high school German class.
    
    And it is now well established that my style of intuitive, unconscious
    rule formation from examples is the normal style of native language
    acquisition for all children and all languages.  At older ages, most
    children add additional abilities to memorize rules and profit from
    explicit correction.  But not all do.  And these methods are of little 
    or no value for most kids before about 1st grade.
    
    The flip side, with the same conclusion, as bonnie has said more than
    once, is psychological.  A kid won't wan't to learn how to write
    correctly until after learning to want to write.  I started out wanting
    to teach Aaron good spelling, since I knew I had wasted so much time
    correcting my own spelling throughout life.  That made writing an
    unpleasant ordeal for him, which he therefore avoided.  After I was
    talked into accepting Invented Spelling by his kindergarten teacher, I
    dropped the matter, and he started to bloom as a writer.  He later
    decided on his own that it was better to try to learn to spell right.
    
    		- Bruce

    re: .30
    
    You're right about the social consequences of standard usage. 
    However, you're confusing the standard imposed by the preferred
    dialect with some kind of mythical correctness.  If by some wave
    of a magic wand the nation was converted into a country controlled
    entirely by inner-city blacks, then we'd all be learning Black
    English if we wanted to get ahead.  
    
    _The Elements of Style_ is an extremely valuable book, but it does
    not define "correct" grammar.  It's the opinion of Mr. White
    (Strunk was the source, but as far as I know wasn't involved in
    writing the book) about how standard US English should be written,
    but it is not the only way or necessarily even the best way US
    English should be written.  If you take it as the Bible of usage,
    you'll find that neither Hemingway nor Dickens, among dozens of
    others, qualify as good writers.   Granted that Strunk and White
    had a lot of experience on which to base their opinions, White
    also had his personal axes to grind and his personal views to
    promote.  Try reading some of his literary and social criticism,
    and similar works by other writers at the time,  and then reread
    _The Elements of Style_, and notice how the hidden agenda comes
    through.  
    
    Again, I'm not saying that he's wrong, or that his work isn't
    valuable anyway -- you certainly won't go wrong following his
    rules.  But it's not the only way to write.
    
    Even if one grants that White's rules are absolute, as Bruce
    points out it doesn't follow that specific rote drilling in the
    rules is the best way, or even a workable way, to teach it.  I
    happen to be able to learn grammar that way, but statistically I'm
    in a considerable minority -- about 5 or 6 percent of the
    population can learn grammar by having structures explained and
    terms analyzed.  But most of the remaining 95 percent of people --
    the normal ones -- learn by doing and by exmaple, not by analysis
    and drill. 
    
    --bonnie

    Conversation last night on picking Eric (age 4) up at pre-school. 
    There were some pictures from a recent apple-picking field trip, in one
    of which Eric was holding something:
    
       Eric:		I holded the log.
       Dad:		Oh, you held the log, did you?
       Eric:		Yes!  I found the log and holded it.
    
    My utterance here was shear force of (semi-obsessive) habit, not under
    conscious control.  But my noting awareness did record the sequence for
    posterity.  Not that his next transition has already begun, as we have
    "found" rather than "finded."
    
    		- Bruce

    My sons are older (5 and 6-- almost 6 and 7).  Now if one slips and
    says, "I drawed this picture!" and I say, "You drew this picture by
    yourself?  It's beautiful!", he'll say, "Yes, I drew it all by
    myself.  You can hang it in your office, if you want..."
    
    My office the art gallery.  :-)

    
    re:32
    
    Bonnie,
    I have read E.B. White's essays, books, and most recently, his letters.
    While I agree with you that many writers would not qualify as using
    correct grammar according to White--I still think that despite any
    "hidden agenda"--he knew what he was talking about.  I think that
    Elements of Style is the best little book around and is invaluable when
    needing a reference or claifying a point of grammar.
    
    My point though is not Elements of Style.  It is that while many people
    may choose to use incorrect grammar--it is extremely important that
    they know the difference--that they're making an informed choice.
    
    Read anything by the "Beat Generation" of writers--their grammar and
    intonations were in many cases, of their own making (ie: Burroughs,
    Kerouac, etc.).  But I've seen these guys on old tapes and in
    interviews--and when discussing literary criticism--believe me--they
    were quite well spoken and quite literate.  The point being:  they knew
    the difference.  
    
    I don't want to go down a rathole here.  My point is simply that in
    order to make it in this world--and I mean--get a good-paying job that
    one likes--support oneself and possibly a family, etc.--one must be
    able to speak correctly, yes?
    
    Again, if one chooses not to speak correctly--that's fine.  But it is
    still important that one knows the difference between the two.
    
    Bonnie
    
      
    

    re: .35
    
    Of course it's important.  I never said it wasn't.  I never said
    E.B. White wasn't a good writer, I said his wasn't the only
    correct way or effective way to write.  I just don't think parents
    correcting our children's grammar and holding them to a rigid
    conservative definition of writing excellence is an effective
    technique for teaching them to write well. 
    
    How well spoken and well educated you are has nothing to do with
    whether you're literate.  With all the books that are available on
    tape right now, everything from classics to current bestsellers,
    it would be possible to have absorbed the thoughts and ideas of
    the entire Western tradition, plus a pretty fair sampling of other
    cultures, and explain the meanings and connections wonderfully in
    an interview, and not be able to read a word or sign one's name.  
    
    The people who write well at any age are the ones who have
    something they want to say, something that means a great deal to
    them, who are willing to put in the work to learn how to say it as
    well as possible.  If you don't have anything to say, then you're
    much less likely to consider writing as anything but a pain,
    something to be avoided.   I know adults who have changed their
    fields of interest because what they wanted to do required too
    much writing and they were convinced that since they couldn't
    diagram sentences or identify an introductory clause, they didn't
    have anything to say.  Person after person gives that as a reason
    why they're a read-only noter rather than a participant.  "I can't
    write well enough."  And who taught them that?  Probably lines of
    parents and teachers red-pencilling their thoughts. 
    
    The quality of a piece of writing is only partly in the mechanics. 
    Most of it is in the quality of the thought it's expressing. 
    
    The way to teach our children to write well, or speak well, isn't
    to correct the way they express their ideas. It's to encourage
    them to discover the wonderful creative potential that's inside
    each of us, encourage them to give voice to their own unique
    vision, show them ways other writers have shaped other visions. 
    Then they'll learn their own voice, and as they learn that voice
    and give it shape, they'll be ready to learn how to say it better. 
    
    All in all I'd much rather have my children secure in who they are
    and what they want than to have forced them into society's mold
    for the sake of getting a job that will let them buy more material
    things.
    
    --bonnie

    ...in the classroom, that is.  I'm grudgingly conceding the usefulness
    of Inventive Spelling in a limited time frame (tail wag accompanied by
    low growl).  But around Columbus Day, Alex came home with a drawing of 
    a man on a ship, and the teacher's explanatory notes included the
    ship's name: SANTA MARIEA [sic].
    
    The head teacher was mortified when I teased her about it; turns out
    that the culprit was a substitute teacher (still no excuse, but
    mitigating I guess).
    
    I pointed out, too (still in good humor; smile vs.grimace!) that a chart
    posted on the wall listed a student named AlexandER WOLner.
    
    Simple mistakes are understandable, but in a classroom (IMO) a major
    effort should be made to spell posted words correctly.  The ortho-
    graphically-impaired have to live with the inconvenience of looking up
    absolutely *everything* before presenting it as gospel to the children;
    if that's too much bother, then they should restrict their share of the
    classroom duties to those not requiring writing.
    
    Leslie 

    
    I taught in the Upward Bound program for 3 years when I was in my early
    20s.  I will never forget it.  My kids were all bright, highly
    motivated, but educationally disadvantaged.  All of them were
    college-bound...providing they could get decent scores on their SATs. 
    My job was to teach them writing, speaking, grammar, spelling, study
    skills, listening skills--all the basics...in addition to getting them
    through the SATs. 
    
    I had approximately 25 kids per year.  I lived in a college dorm with
    them for 6 weeks during the summer--during those 6 weeks, my students
    worked literally day and night to try and come up to speed.  During the
    school year, I saw them after their regular school and on weekends. 
    They drove themselves very hard--these kids really wanted to go to
    college.
    
    Out of my 75 kids, only 4 were able to graduate from college.  Only 35
    made it into college and most of them ended up dropping out.  I'm still
    in touch with many of them and despite the reasons they cited back
    then (needing money, being bored, not what they wanted, etc.) for
    dropping out--many of them now concede that they didn't have the basic
    skills they needed to stay in school and be successful.
    
    Unfortunately, these kids came out of the worst schools in the Boston
    City School system and by the time they were 17 and 18 years old, it
    was too late for them to learn skills--such as proper grammar and
    sentence structure--that they needed to succeed in college.  
    
    I will never forget one of my best and brightest and most creative
    students--a young woman--who, in her yearbook, wrote that she wanted to
    be a "nurc."  She was one of my casualties.  She got into B.U. on a
    scholarship program, but ended up flunking out in her 2nd semester. 
    She had not fully matriculated into the B.U. program at that point--she
    was still part of the special B.U. learning center--still taking
    remedial courses in order to matriculate at some point.  She flunked
    out of the learning center.  Today, she's married with a couple of
    kids--but she still wants to be a nurse.  Whether she will achieve that
    goal, I don't know--but I do know that she is bitter about not being
    taught correctly in the 1st place.  
    
    My experience has taught me that my kid(s) will know the difference
    between proper English and whatever slang they choose to use.  Again, I
    have no problem with kids using slang or street talk.  But they need to
    know the difference.  If they don't, it will follow them for the rest
    of their lives and will impact on everything they do.  
    
    Bonnie
    
    

re: .0

I was so pround of myself that I spelled "grammar" correctly.  Now I notice 
that I made an error in the placement of the apostrophe.  Arggggh.  :^)

re: .37

One of the more sad aspects of the educational crisis in the United States is 
that the people who go into teaching now are not the "cream of the crop".  The 
average SAT scores (sorry I can't give an exact figure, but I remember the 
number shocking me) and average class standing of people who major in 
education is _appalingly_ low.  Unfortunately, it is no suprise to me that 
there are teachers who are not exactly skilled at what they teach.  
Particularly in light of the fact that a lot of them went to college at a time 
when the emphasis was swinging away from fundamentals.

re: generally

I think that this discussion it fascinating as intellectual, and theoretical 
excercise.  One thing I now understand more clearly is why spelling and 
grammar ought to be taught apart from creative expression.  If you learn good 
spelling and grammar, and it becomes engrained, then you can apply good 
spelling and grammar to your writing more or less instinctively, without its 
getting in your way.  So while I generally agree with Bonnie R, I think that 
if you work on the creative side at the expense of the "correctness" side, 
then the child will eventually come up againt the problem that Bonnie P talks 
about -- the quality of their thoughts getting discounted by the way in which 
they are expressed.

I continue to assert that it is a matter of context and age.  I think that at 
a toddler level, that the creative side should be emphasied heavily, 
and the "rules" side lightly or not at all.  But when _should_ the "rules" 
side start getting more emphasis?

To give a specific example, my daughter Lara is 10 and in the fifth grade.  
She's starting to write stories of about two or three handwritten pages.  I 
review her homework.  If it's, say, math, I ask her to go back and recalculate 
the problems that she got wrong.  I probably would do this anyway, but I'm 
influenced somewhat by the fact that she has ADHD (though it's mostly the 
AD = Attention Deficit rather than the H = Hyperactivity).  She makes a lot of 
errors that would ordinarily be classified as "careless".  Some of the errors, 
for example, are caused by her copying the problem incorrectly from the book.

Now what do I do if it's a piece of creative writing?  She has learned 
punctuation, at least periods at the end of a sentence.  Spelling has always 
been her weakest subject.  What should do I do if a story she writes is full  
of punctuation and spelling errors?  

I look at the first draft of the essay.  I discuss the content of the essay 
and what she's trying to say.  I note the punctuation and spelling errors and 
ask her to correct them and recopy the paper -- which IMO she needs to do 
anyway, because her handwriting on first drafts is quite sloppy.

Any comments?

Clay

    In re: .39
    
    As to "Kid's", you give yourself away, Clay.  In the title of the
    string, the possessive singular "kid's" makes reasonable sense, only in
    reviewing .0's context is the error clear.
    
    As to new teachers, what new teachers?  In my system, there is scarcely
    a single teacher (except a few specialists) with less than 10 years
    experience.  Of course that (the absence of new hiring) is largely why
    few live wire students get education degrees these days.  In about 10
    years, a huge share of the current teachers will retire within a short
    period, and we will suddently be in an immense pickle.
    
    As to daughter's papers: I have already mentioned that I am a
    congenitally poor speller, and ever grateful for spelling error
    detectors.  Have you thought about getting her to do her essays on
    computer?  It would eliminate the sloppy handwriting problem (though it
    might be feared that it would also eliminate handwriting improvement).
    Word processing makes it so much more painless to edit and revise
    writing, skills that in handwritten form are usually neglected.   Aaron
    isn't quite old enough for real written assignments yet, so I don't
    have my own experience with the appeal or effect of automation in upper
    elementary grades.  Can others comment?
    
    		- Bruce

    
    Clay,
    I am a horrible speller--really horrible.  As I said in an earlier
    note, I believe that spelling ability is inherited--either you have it
    or you don't.  
    
    I was not the type of student who learned well in a classroom.  Maybe I
    had (have) ADD or something--who knew back then?  I was classified as
    an underachiever--careless--did things all the time like copy the wrong
    math problem out of the book--screw up directions, etc.  To this day, I
    can't do math--have no head for numbers--yet my father got his B.S. in
    math.  Talk about a parent being mortified...
    
    Anyway, my mother, who was the good speller in the family RELIGIOUSLY
    went over my homework EACH AND EVERY night while I was in grade school.
    I looked forward to our time together after dinner--my mother wasn't
    critical about it--she just would go over my homework and help me when
    things weren't right.  She would go over and over and over my spelling
    with me--she always corrected my grammar (again, from about 1st grade
    on--which is what I will do with Hannah, if necessary)--and she
    basically taught me to read.  I was incapable of learning to read in
    the classroom--didn't understand what the teacher was doing.  I was in
    the bottom reading group.  By the time my mother got through with
    me--and by mid-1st grade, I was in the top reading group--and to this
    day, read a novel every week or two.  Love to read.
    
    So Clay, I would say that if you are going over your daughter's
    homework in a non-threatening (ie: helpful) way--you are doing the
    right thing--absolutely.  I credit my mother with teaching me--over the
    years--how to memorize the spelling of certain words--at least to the
    point where I don't constantly embarass (sp?!) myself.  Also, as I got
    older, I got to be a better speller just from practice.
    
    My dad, on the other hand, was absolutely horrendous.  He would spell
    things from purely sounding them out--some of his spelling was quite
    creative and quite funny!  But he was very well spoken, a good writer,
    and quite literate.  So....
    
    Regarding the education of our teachers...from my experience with
    Upward Bound--I believe most of my students had grounds for a class
    action suit against the City of Boston.  Their education (or lack of
    it) was truly criminal.  This is going back up to 15 years ago--and
    from what I understand, the problem has gotten worse, not better.  Of
    course, there are a lot of mitigating factors when dealing with
    inner-city schools--like lack of support from the administration,
    out-of-control students, problem homes, drugs, violence, etc.--the
    problems these days are far worse than they were when I taught Upward
    Bound.  I am certainly not advocating John Silber (believe me, I am not
    advocating John Silber!), but I do think he is right on target in
    Chelsea.  Basically, his program calls for putting kids into "Head
    Start" type programs around the age of 2-3 (under the guise of
    "daycare").  This includes proper nutrition (giving them breakfast and
    lunch), teaching numbers, colors, letters, etc. and basically, getting
    them into a structured learning environment very early.  His basic
    premise is that once a child reaches the old age of 6--and has not had
    the basics (proper nutrition, home support, letters, numbers,
    etc.)--it's basically too late.  That child gets lost in the
    system--and I agree.  
    
    I also think that our current crop of teachers aren't so terrible.  The
    problem, I think, is the system.  Sure, there are born "teachers,"
    those people who really love what they do and are good at it.  But like
    any profession, there are those that have natural talent and then there
    are those that have to work at it.  I think that many of our teachers
    are discouraged, burned-out, disinterested--because they are not valued
    in terms of money or respect--by our society.  It's unfortunate, but
    true.  Granted, there are bad teachers out there--but on the whole, I
    think most of them are decent folks who honestly try.  Even the best
    schools in the state have much lower SAT scores than when most of us
    went to school.  It's a real problem.  I think our entire educational
    system is falling apart.  I do believe that real learning does go on in
    some of our better private schools--and those teachers are some of the
    lowest paid individuals around.  I think they are highly motivated and
    dedicated and respected.  It would do the public school system good to
    do a study on what makes these folks tick--and try and copy it in the
    public schools.
    
    Well, I didn't intend to go on like this.  As you can see, education is
    a subject I'm quite passionate about.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    
    

re .41:

Bonnie, it sounds to me like you have the classic symptoms of dyslexia --
great difficulty in spelling and math, and an inability to learn to read
using the look-say method.  I would guess that your mother used some
kind of phonics method to teach you to read.

Since dyslexia and ADD are often hereditary, you might be interested in
the learning disabilities conference (KP7 or SELECT to add it to your
notebook).

    
    Gerald,
    This is not a cop-out, but I honestly don't have the time to be active
    in more than 1 notesfile, although the topic of learning disabilities
    interests me greatly.
    
    I've always assumed that left-handedness has a lot to do with inability
    to learn in a standard, rote way.
    
    I am very concerned, because it appears that Hannah is left-handed.  I
    absolutely DO NOT want her going through what I went through in school
    and I am worried (possibly paranoid?).
    
    Also, forgive my ignorance, but if I'm dyslexic, then why don't I see
    letters backwards?  I always thought that was the telltale sign...
    It appears that Hannah sees her letter correctly--she is already
    showing great interest in identifying letters and numbers and can
    identify most of the letters in the alphabet.  She is also teaching
    herself to write her name--and she's not doing is backwards.
    
    Anyway, I wonder how much "handedness" has to do with learning
    standardized learning ability?
    
    Bonnie
    
    

	Bonnie, I believe that there are many forms of dyslexia.  Of which the 
classic backwards or swtiched letters is only the most well known.

Tracey

    Also, unless you're seriously handicapped, by the time you're an
    adult, you've learned to cope with most of the symptoms of various
    forms of dyslexia, so that even experts can't say for sure if you
    really perceive things differently.  I'm "probably" dyslexic --
    after several days of tests, this was the best they could come up
    with, and their conclusions were based on one piece of evidence:
    that I have a terrible time with rear-view mirrors or other mirror
    images.  The mirror image "looks" "right".  If I rely too much on
    the rear-view mirrors, I'll turn the car the wrong direction every
    time. 
    
    And I really think that many of the perceptual differences
    labelled as "learning disabilities" are not disabilities but 
    different ways of looking at the world.  When the material is
    presented in the way YOU percieve -- for instance, learning by
    hearing, or by doing, rather than by reading -- instead of the way
    the school system thinks you SHOULD percieve, or the way the
    majority percieves, so many of us don't have any problem with
    learning or with intelligence.  
    
    --bonnie

    re: .46
    
    Yes, that's what they told me when I was tested, too.  
    
    The good thing is that people with ambidextrous brains tend to be
    very creative :) :)
    
    --bonnie

re .43, .44:

Most dyslexics (at least according to the medical establishment's definition)
probably don't reverse letters or even swap letters in a word.  Dyslexia
doesn't even necessarily involve reading or writing -- there are forms
of dyslexia that involve hearing and speaking.  I'm convinced that George
Bush is dyslexic; according to Barbara Bush, one of their sons is.

There does seem to be a link between left-handedness and dyslexia,
although there are obviously lots of right-handed dyslexics and
lots of left-handed non-dyslexics.  According to currently accepted
theories, dyslexia is a result of a sort of ambidextrous brain --
instead of one side of the brain dominating in language activities,
both sides are strong, resulting in crossed signals.

re .45:

My wife, who's dyslexic and has trained to teach dyslexics, prefers
the term "teaching disabilities" to "learning disabilities."

I think that a lot of the "learning disabilities" that used to be present in 
left handed people have to do with the fact that they were encouraged, or 
forced, to do things in unnatural ways -- sometimes to the point of making them 
write right handed.  That's a pretty sure prescription for creating an 
artificial "learning disability".  Etymololgy alone tells you that left 
handedness has had a lot of negativism attached to it -- ("droit" = right, 
"gauche" = left, "dextra" = right handed, "sinistra" = left handed).  

Though there are still difficulties for left handed kids, such as desks, 
spiral notebooks, scissors, etc., I would hope we're beyond trying to fight 
nature now.  So while there may be some correlation, as Gerald has noted, at 
least there aren't so many "artificial" learning disabilities.

re: Learning_Disabilities Conference.  It isn't a real active one.  Once you 
get through reading all the notes that you are interested in, checking it once 
a week is quite sufficient to keep up.

Clay

    Maybe we should start new notes (if they don't exist already) on 
    learning disabilities and left-handedness.  
    

    
    Bonnie,
    I agree with you completely about different ways to learn.  I am
    certainly an example of that--as I'm sure many of us are.
    
    The problem really is the school system and our children.  Unless they
    learn to conform, they will be destined to be thwarted, frustrated,
    disinterested, and bored.  Not to mention the number it will do to
    their sense of self-esteem and to their ego.  I don't know--maybe the
    shcool system has changed since I was in it--maybe they're more
    accepting and less judgemental and stringent about learning a certain
    way.  Has anyone had direct experience?
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    Bonnie,
    
    Every school system is different.  Some are very rigid, some are
    very flexible, some are very experimental with new techniques, and
    some are deeply committed to going "back to the basics."  Every
    approach will be very right for some children and very wrong for
    others, and even in the worst school system you can stumble across
    the perfect teacher, or draw a lemon in the best system.
    
    So anything I could tell you about our experiences with our kids
    in the Nashua school system might or might not apply to your
    school system or your child.  Kat is by nature disciplined and 
    orderly.  She likes to know what she's supposed to do and what the
    limits are.  She's been very successful in traditional classrooms. 
    Steven is creative, inquisitive, and undisciplined, and while he
    prefers to have a routine, within that routine he needs a lot of
    control over what he does when.  And so far the teacher has been
    encouraging him to do supplemental things to take advantage of his
    creativity.  I don't know what would happen if he had to just sit
    when he was done with his papers. 
    
    I am all but positive that the idea of forcing a left-handed child
    to write with the right hand is a thing of the past. All of Kat's 
    classes had left-handed scissors available for crafts -- Kat is,
    like me, partially ambidextrous and always preferred the lefty
    kind -- and most of the desks at her school were the square table
    kind that don't have a right or a left.  
    
    They also seem to be more flexible about inclinding the kids'
    experiences into their lessons.  One of Kat's friends in the lower
    grades was on crutches from spina bifida; the teacher was 
    flexible about how long it took her to get from class to lunch and
    so on, and took time in the classroom to deal with some of the
    issues of the physically handicapped even though that wasn't on
    his lesson plan.  And with 28 different languages spoken in the
    homes of Nashua's schoolchildren, the issues of English as a
    second language are part of every day's instruction.
    
    With both kids I'm taking steps to make sure that they know that
    while school is important, it's not the only thing in the world so
    their self-esteem doesn't depend entirely on what classmates and
    this year's teacher think of them.  They've both participated in
    athletic activities they enjoy (gymnastics, little league, and now
    dance for Kat) and in music, and Neil and I make sure they know
    that reading and writing and so on are activities that adults use
    all the time, not just devices teachers invented to torture
    children.  Steven has lots of art supplies at home, and the time
    and freedom to draw whatever he wants (you should see the collage
    he made from a fist-sized rock and a handful of anthracite coal
    pebbles. . . )
    
    I guess the only answer is to be aware of your own child's
    personality and learning style, and of what the school system is
    doing and what the teacher's attitudes are, and make sure that
    what you're doing is reinforcing the child, not the bad messages
    from school. 
    
    It doesn't matter how good the system sounds on paper, it might
    not match a particular child.  For instance, I think in general
    open-concept classrooms, with activity areas and so on, produce
    happier more creative children who learn more and know how to
    apply it.  But Kat did not do well in that kind of environment. 
    She needed more structure.  
    
    --bonnie

Well, how embarrassing to have the child correct mom's grammar!

Kathryne (3) and I were watching Cinderella the other night and
I said something about the "mice".  She promptly informed me,
"those aren't mice, they're mouses!"

Sheeeesh, she did it twice!

Liz

    This morning while I was doing something else, I realized that one
    source of the Bonnie and bonnie disagreement was our definition of
    "good jobs."
    
    I'm from the same general economic and social class as Bonnie's
    Outward Bound students.  Rural rather than urban, but lower middle
    class and ethnic.  When I talk about a good job, I'm thinking of
    something that pays a steady wage.  Flipping hamburgers at
    McDonald's is NOT an emblem of failure where I'm from; it's not
    success, but it's better than a lot of friends and neighbors will
    be doing.  If you can advance to shift supervisor, or land a job
    cooking for a real restaurant, that's approaching success. 
    Careers, like being a mechanic or a bank clerk, are rarer still
    and harder to come by.
    
    E. B. White would be laughed out of your basic restaurant kitchen.
    
    Which does not mean, as I have stressed repeatedly, that we don't
    understand language, care about learning, or not wish to express
    ourselves clearly.  Or that grammar shouldn't be taught in school,
    in connection with writing.  But it's not a critical factor in
    what we consider important in our lives, the way it is if you
    think of a college education as the norm.
    
    This doesn't mean either way of looking at the world is right or
    wrong, only that it changes your perspective.
    
    --bonnie

   While I don't read it all that regularly anymore, there is already
   a left-handed conference that may provide some of the answers you
   are seeking:
   
                        IOSG::LEFT_HANDERS
   
    - Tom

    I heard some great grammar this weekend...
    
    I called to get some pizza delivered, and told the man (in his 20's)
    that I wanted to place an order.
    
    "Whatcha be wantin'?"
    
    I should've replied, " I be wantin' a pizza!"  :-)  

    re: .55
    
    That would have been the correct answer.  "I be wantin' a
    pepperoni pizza" (assuming that pepperoni was the flavor you
    wanted) would have been even better. 
    
    That's an example of what the linguists call "Black English
    Dialect", which would probably be more correctly called "Urban
    English" -- it's the dialect of choice for conversation in most
    cities, even one as small as Nashua.  
    
    --bonnie

    
    Actually Bonnie, I taught "Upward Bound," not "Outward Bound."  Upward
    Bound is a program (or WAS a program) that takes highly motivated,
    inner-city kids and puts them in an intensive college prepatory program
    for a year.  I could have never taught Outward Bound--I would have
    chickened out at the sight of a rope across two trees (I am king
    klutz)!
    
    Speaking of inner-city dialect--back maybe 10 years ago, one of my
    students said to me--after a particularly trying lesson....
    
    "Why Snap Ms. P., you done activated my dome."
    
    Bonnie
    
    

re: .57

>    "Why Snap Ms. P., you done activated my dome."
    
I looooooooooove it!!!

Clay