Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f9VLCJ008952; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:12:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:12:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <l03130303b805d1690f1e@[205.173.154.59]> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Arlyn Roffman <aroffman@mail.lesley.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3689] Re: No support for Phonetic awareness as X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: O Content-Length: 6431 Lines: 126 Where is the listserv monitor? This is getting ugly! Arlyn Roffman >Clifton Willard wrote: > >> Dear Brian, >> >> Are you so threatened that you cannot even directing your comments to me?? >> I am sorry that you are unable to give me the common courtesy that you >> would expect me and others to give you. It is too bad that you have so >> little respect for the members of this list. You put them in an awkward >> position by treating me so rudely. They deserve an apology from you. If you >> so sure that I am wrong, then why do you have to go to others for support??? >> >> If you have anything to say to me, have the courage to say it directly >>to me. >> >> Clifton Willard >> >> Dear Barbara, >> To begin with, I have a name, it is Clifton Willard. You must have missed >> that when you read the exchange that threatened you so much. I find it >> interesting that you did not reply yourself but felt it necessary to hide >> behind Brian Anderson. Your contempt for the people on this list is obvious >> as is your contempt for those that might have a different view from yours >> is telling in itself. >> >> "Since no two dyslexics are alike", >> If you believe this to be true, how can one method work for so many >> different people with dyslexia. People who have dyslexia or a reading >> disability are people first, not "dyslexics" as you call us. But then again >> that is consistent with your contempt for others. This does however provide >> you with every excuse for your hollowed OG+ 's failure to teach people with >> reading disabilities to read semantically. You can't do it. You can change >> the definition of reading any way you want but it still does not work. It >> will help most all elementary school children but not older students who >> are word for word silent readers. There is no research on adults or even >> young adults that shows unequivocally that it works. The reason it has not >> been adopted by every school system is because they know that. >> >> What harm you bring to people with reading disabilities by telling them >> that with the OG+ method they can learn to read. When they fail, I am sure >> have an explanation for every one. Generally it is the student's fault. >> When they do not succeed, they feel that they have failed. Because they >> believe you, they assume it must be them. What do you tell all the parents >> and students when it becomes apparent that they are not reading like the >> others??? You suggest that they need more OG. It OQ worked as you believe, >> then why is it not adopted by every school system and aggressively taught. >> Why are there any adults with reading disabilities or Dyslexia??? You still >> can't answer that question. I suppose you would like to replace the books >> on tape provided to students with reading disabilities from Recording for >> the Blind and Dyslexic with tapes from the your OG school. At a fee I am >> sure. What a shame. >> >> Clearly Ms Bliss, you do not have a clue about people with reading >> disabilities. >> >> Clifton Willard >> >> At 10:35 AM 10/24/01 -0400, you wrote: >> >Dear People: >> >I sent the exchange on Phonetic Awareness to my mentor, Barbara Bliss, who >> >teaches parents, teachers and tutors how to do Orton-Gillingham >>instruction. >> >She had, as do many members of this list, strong opinions. With her >> >permission, I am including her words directly below. >> > >> >From: "Barbara Bliss" >> >To: "Brian Anderson" >> >Subject: web conversation. >> >Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:29:31 -0500 >> >Words cannot express how I feel about the Web conversation you sent me! It >> >is very obvious that the man has little real understanding of dyslexia >> >except his own. >> > >> >He claims he spent a week in an Orton-Gillingham course and then arrives at >> >the conclusion that it "has no lasting effect, is not teaching reading, >>that >> >it substitutes tactile and auditory strategies for reading words!" >> >What a lot of harm this person is doing! OG is time-tested in schools for >> >dyslexics throughout the U.S. It has been replicated and expanded by >> >Project Read, by Lindamood-Bell (to focus more specifically on the "how" of >> >making speech sounds when specific students need this help.) The Wilson >> >Language System, the Slingerlands and Alphabetic Phonics Methods are all >> >successful classroom adaptations of OG. Since no two dyslexics are alike, >> >OG and its spinoffs make use of the multisensory factor to make up for >> >student deficits. Right now in many schools the Direct Instruction (DI) >> >method is being used successfully. This is a good phonetic method which >> >will enable many students to do better work. The dyslexics who are >> >seriously handicapped will also need OG or its spinoffs. Not because >> >phonics is not needed, but because they needed more specific Multisensory >> >instruction than DI provides. >> >Reading word for word is just part of the early process of reading which >> >smoothes out as the volume of reading increases to where reading becomes >> >automatic. Comprehension improves usually at the same time. If it doesn't, >> >the Lindamood-Bell system has additional help. >> >Wish I had more time to write and to "talk back" to this man. >> >Unfortunately, many academicians who read without effort simply cannot >> >understand dyslexia and seldom have an opportunity to work one to one for >> >any length of time with really handicapped readers. >> >Thanks for sending me this. I'll take it along with me to the IDA >> >convention Wednesday. >> >Barb >> > >> >Brian Anderson, Education Director >> >Madison Area Literacy Council >> > >> > >> >--=====================_88167019==_.ALT >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >> > >> > >> >Dear Don, >> > >> >Good Readers do not read aloud to themselves sounding out each word they >> >see (reading word for word). They are aware of the words as symbols for >> >meaning and can therefore read rapidly. It is not possible to read 300 >> >words per minute while sounding out each word as you see it. How fast can >> >you read aloud??? I doubt it is as fast as you can read to yourself >> >assuming you do not have a reading disability. Because a reading disabled >> >person perceives the same word differently each time they read it, they >> >cannot develop the engram to skip the sounding out process and go directly >> >to the meaning of the word they see.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:03 EST