Hello - My name is Laura Davis. Anyone who has any pointers about using WRTR
with very young children, please speak up. I am working with my son, who is 4
1/2 years old.  He is very interested in learning to read, and has memorized
about 1/3 of the phonograms so far. Much of what I've read about the pace of
work is geared to 1st graders or Kindergarten level kids.  Is there any
difference for a younger child? Thanks!Laura

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi!

I am a homeschooling mama of 2(dd 7,ds 4). We used SSR&W when my
daughter was 5 and it seems to have been successful as far as reading
and most of the spelling goes. However, her writing is not quite
where I feel that it ought to be.

I am seriously considering the use of WRTR with both of my children.

My concerns: 1.That it will be too complicated...I am not the most
organized of people(tstl).

              2.My daughter is an excellent,EXCELLENT reader...with
great comprehension and speed.Also,when she reads aloud she really
gets into character(s). Will this program still be beneficial? (My
heart says,"Yes!",but I'd sure love some advice!

              3. My 4 year old really wants to learn to read.Is he too
young to start?(I'd hoped to work on this throughout the summer.


Lord willing,I will be purchasing the 4th ed + reading works within
the week.

Thank you sincerely for any help you may offer!:o)

(I really am nervous about teaching WRTR.)

Blessings,

Tracy

Tracy,
In my humble opinion, I would recommend that you just purchase the fifth edition
and study the first three chapters after you read throught the book.  I do not
believe the program is too complicated.  You must learn the procedure before you
teach.  See the lesson plans on their website www.spalding.org.  My oldest
daughter (age 10) is an excellent reader also.  I put her throught WRTR quite
quickly and brought her up from grade 6.2 to college level spelling within 3
months.  I do believe that is will be of benefit to your daughter.  You can
start with a preschooler.  You can use other mediums besides paper and pencil to
start with letter shapes. I will caution you in one area.  Before your youngest
child starts the word lists make sure he has correct penmanship.  The connection
in the brain that links the letter sounds (phonograms) with the manuscript will
be evident in his handwriting.  If the connection is not made properly it will
be evident in his handwriting.  Mrs. Spalding stressed proper manuscript
handwriting.  If anyone else would care to comment on handwriting, I believe
that would be of benefit to all.  Hope this helps.

Shalom,
Lynn
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: mama_is_queen
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 8:22 AM
   Subject: [WRTR-Teachers] Debating whether or not to use this program...help
please


   Hi!

   I am a homeschooling mama of 2(dd 7,ds 4). We used SSR&W when my
   daughter was 5 and it seems to have been successful as far as reading
   and most of the spelling goes. However, her writing is not quite
   where I feel that it ought to be.

   I am seriously considering the use of WRTR with both of my children.

   My concerns: 1.That it will be too complicated...I am not the most
   organized of people(tstl).

                2.My daughter is an excellent,EXCELLENT reader...with
   great comprehension and speed.Also,when she reads aloud she really
   gets into character(s). Will this program still be beneficial? (My
   heart says,"Yes!",but I'd sure love some advice!

                3. My 4 year old really wants to learn to read.Is he too
   young to start?(I'd hoped to work on this throughout the summer.


   Lord willing,I will be purchasing the 4th ed + reading works within
   the week.

   Thank you sincerely for any help you may offer!:o)

   (I really am nervous about teaching WRTR.)

   Blessings,

   Tracy



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 05/01/2003 8:36:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ldavi27@... writes:

> who has any pointers about using WRTR with very young children, please speak
> up. I am working with my son, who is 4 1/2 years old.

I started my son last year learning the 26 phonograms and teaching him to
write his letters and numbers. He was 4 1/2 yo. Anyway, I stopped after that
for a little bit. Now he is 5 1/2 and we will begin again in a couple of
weeks for good. As always, it just depends on the child. I have two boys ages
5 1/2 and 4 1/2. I will continue with my 5 1/2 yo...and I will begin with my
4 1/2 year old. He is so ready to learn. Well, both of them are. The reason
why I stopped with my 5 1/2 yo is because he is such a perfectionist. He puts
too much pressure on himself to do everything right THE FIRST TIME. Anyway,
this is a great program, I wouldn't use any other program. It wouldn't make
sense to use any other program. Okay, I probably rambled on longer than I
should have. LOL.

Donna


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 05/01/2003 9:47:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
shalomranch@... writes:

> If the connection is not made properly it will be evident in his
> handwriting.  Mrs. Spalding stressed proper manuscript handwriting.  If
> anyone else would care to comment on handwriting, I believe that would be
> of benefit to all.

So true! I don't have a lot to add, but I must say how wonderful this program
is. My 5 1/2 yo, when he learned at 4 1/2 to write his basic 26
phonograms...wow! That's all I can say is WOW! He has such wonderful
handwriting! Very neat and nice! I saw other children of friends of mine in
the 1st, 2nd, etc., grade and I couldn't help thinking (in my head, of
course)....Hunter writes wonderfully! WRTR is awesome! Tracy, I was nervous
at first, because I kept hearing about training and such as that. I've never
had training...you don't need it if you study it. I have a friend who uses
this program and she said...even doing it wrong, you can't go wrong. LOL.
Anyway, that was her words, not mine. I knew what she meant.....she wasn't
saying teaching it wrong...she meant the preparation in teaching it.

I would definitely do this program. Definitely get the 5th edition. You can
get it at buy.com for $13...no shipping cost either. I've been highlighting
in the book and making note in a spiral notebook...step by step what should
be taught next. It's much easier for me that way. I'm a very structured
person, so I need this.

Donna


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Laura, I'm Dy. We've been using WRTR w/ our ds since August, just before he
turned 4. We started out w/ phoneme recognition and games, and move a little
slower for a younger child than recommended for 1st grade. But once it starts
clicking, you can pick up the pace to suit your needs and keep your child
challenged and interested.

I was also concerned that focusing on the writing would deter his ability to
read as well as he did- tone, inflection, pitch- he was great at that when
reading aloud. Now, after using the program, I can see that it hasn't hindered
him at all- in fact, it's improved his confidence and skill tremendously this
year. He's reading much more now, higher level works, and his writing is great.

I can't stress enough on the penmanship issue- PROPER PENCIL GRIP! You'll spend
a lot of time working on it, but far less time (and tension) doing it that way
than if you allow him to learn to write using the fist grip (or similar) and
then going back to undo that. WRTR works with the senses together- they say it,
write it, feel it, see it- and it clicks.

That said, I do still feel like I'm learning something new every time I turn
around, so if someone w/ more experience can point out more detail (or if I've
really botched something up), I know they can help us both out. :-)

HTH- and I look forward to getting to know you, Dy
   ----- Original Message -----
   Hello - My name is Laura Davis. Anyone who has any pointers about using WRTR
with very young children, please speak up. I am working with my son, who is 4
1/2 years old.  He is very interested in learning to read, and has memorized
about 1/3 of the phonograms so far. Much of what I've read about the pace of
work is geared to 1st graders or Kindergarten level kids.  Is there any
difference for a younger child? Thanks!Laura

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This discussion brings up another point; my method with my younger child, dd
31/2 that was very keen.  She would sit in on the lesson to learn the phonograms
and I would give her sand, rice or salt to draw the letter in while my older
children were doing the proper penmanship practice in their notebooks.  I had
also tried her on a child size blackboard.  She started learning her phonogram
sounds and thought the making of the letters were fun using her special
instruments.  The reason why I bothered with the special instraments is to
maintain the integrity of the program; the multi-sensory technique, so that the
proper connections are made in the brain.  If anyone else has anymore more ways
of introducing the method to young children, I and others, would love to hear
about it.

Shalom,
Lynn
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: hjjdherring@...
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:40 AM
   Subject: Re: [WRTR-Teachers] Debating whether or not to use this
program...help please


   In a message dated 05/01/2003 9:47:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
   shalomranch@... writes:

   > If the connection is not made properly it will be evident in his
   > handwriting.  Mrs. Spalding stressed proper manuscript handwriting.  If
   > anyone else would care to comment on handwriting, I believe that would be
   > of benefit to all.

   So true! I don't have a lot to add, but I must say how wonderful this program
   is. My 5 1/2 yo, when he learned at 4 1/2 to write his basic 26
   phonograms...wow! That's all I can say is WOW! He has such wonderful
   handwriting! Very neat and nice! I saw other children of friends of mine in
   the 1st, 2nd, etc., grade and I couldn't help thinking (in my head, of
   course)....Hunter writes wonderfully! WRTR is awesome! Tracy, I was nervous
   at first, because I kept hearing about training and such as that. I've never
   had training...you don't need it if you study it. I have a friend who uses
   this program and she said...even doing it wrong, you can't go wrong. LOL.
   Anyway, that was her words, not mine. I knew what she meant.....she wasn't
   saying teaching it wrong...she meant the preparation in teaching it.

   I would definitely do this program. Definitely get the 5th edition. You can
   get it at buy.com for $13...no shipping cost either. I've been highlighting
   in the book and making note in a spiral notebook...step by step what should
   be taught next. It's much easier for me that way. I'm a very structured
   person, so I need this.

   Donna


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have done and still use Montessori materials, and think that cut out sandpaper
letters mounted on card stock are fabulous.  Knowing what I do now about
Spalding, I would make the letters EXACTLY like the printing shown in the book. 
But making the first set was a bit grueling, so we'll make do with close enough.
Laura Davis

Peter & Lynn Sherwood <shalomranch@...> wrote: This discussion brings
up another point; my method with my younger child, dd 31/2 that was very keen. 
She would sit in on the lesson to learn the phonograms and I would give her
sand, rice or salt to draw the letter in while my older children were doing the
proper penmanship practice in their notebooks.  I had also tried her on a child
size blackboard.  She started learning her phonogram sounds and thought the
making of the letters were fun using her special instruments.  The reason why I
bothered with the special instraments is to maintain the integrity of the
program; the multi-sensory technique, so that the proper connections are made in
the brain.  If anyone else has anymore more ways of introducing the method to
young children, I and others, would love to hear about it.

Shalom,
Lynn
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: hjjdherring@...
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:40 AM
   Subject: Re: [WRTR-Teachers] Debating whether or not to use this
program...help please


   In a message dated 05/01/2003 9:47:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
   shalomranch@... writes:

   > If the connection is not made properly it will be evident in his
   > handwriting.  Mrs. Spalding stressed proper manuscript handwriting.  If
   > anyone else would care to comment on handwriting, I believe that would be
   > of benefit to all.

   So true! I don't have a lot to add, but I must say how wonderful this program
   is. My 5 1/2 yo, when he learned at 4 1/2 to write his basic 26
   phonograms...wow! That's all I can say is WOW! He has such wonderful
   handwriting! Very neat and nice! I saw other children of friends of mine in
   the 1st, 2nd, etc., grade and I couldn't help thinking (in my head, of
   course)....Hunter writes wonderfully! WRTR is awesome! Tracy, I was nervous
   at first, because I kept hearing about training and such as that. I've never
   had training...you don't need it if you study it. I have a friend who uses
   this program and she said...even doing it wrong, you can't go wrong. LOL.
   Anyway, that was her words, not mine. I knew what she meant.....she wasn't
   saying teaching it wrong...she meant the preparation in teaching it.

   I would definitely do this program. Definitely get the 5th edition. You can
   get it at buy.com for $13...no shipping cost either. I've been highlighting
   in the book and making note in a spiral notebook...step by step what should
   be taught next. It's much easier for me that way. I'm a very structured
   person, so I need this.

   Donna


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

How did you cut the letters out of sandpaper?  Did you use scissors or an
x-acto-type knife or something else altogether?  What about cutting out the
"holes"?  I think this sounds really neat but I'm not quite picturing the
how-to. :)

Be blessed!
~Rachel <><
http://a2jc4life.my100megs.com

Dear Rachel, First you need a mirror image set of the letters you want to make. 
I think some copiers can do this (like a Kinko's place).  Then you cut out the
paper version, and glue each letter  to the Back Side (smooth side) of the sand
paper.  Then you cut around the image.  For holes, you can pinch the paper a
little to make a snip to get a start, then cut out the inner diameter of the
hole using scissors.
You then glue the result, sandpaper up, on a piece of cardstock.  It took me
about 3 evenings (1 hour each) to do a set of Uppercase and Lower case letters,
and numbers 1-10. Hope this helps!! Laura Davis
Rachel Ramey <A2JC4life@...> wrote:How did you cut the letters out of
sandpaper?  Did you use scissors or an
x-acto-type knife or something else altogether?  What about cutting out the
"holes"?  I think this sounds really neat but I'm not quite picturing the
how-to. :)

Be blessed!
~Rachel <><
http://a2jc4life.my100megs.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi, My name is Laura and I am replying to your post about using Reading
Works with The Writing Road to Reading.

  I have Reading Works which uses the 4th edition of WRTR  AND I have the
new 5th edition of WRTR and I would encourage you to get them all.  It
would be less expensive to buy just the 5th edition of WRTR which is
certainly far easier to understand than the old version but I am still
glad I bought my Reading Works.  Reading Works will hold your hand and
walk you right through.  First do this.... Then do this... Now look in
your WRTR on this page....   of course all the page numbers will refer
you to the 4th edition, not the 5th.

The author Jay W. Patterson is extremely faithful to the Spalding method
and ideology and not only tells you what to do but why to do it and why
it works.  His love of the method is so contagious that after attending
his workshop I cannot imagine using anything but WRTR.  RW is not another
method.  It is literally like having a friend who knows how to use WRTR
because he has been using it in a classroom for years come stand beside
you and help you do it.

I purchased the new 5th edition of WRTR as soon as it came out and it is
really nice, and I LOVE having the list of Ayers words alphabetized and
listed by parts of speech, although I can't figure out how to use "four"
as a verb ; )  I like the new way the Ayers list is laid out better, but
I still would not trade in my Reading Works.  I teach out of the 5th with
Reading works to consult and just check back to the old one when the page
numbers don't match.  Soon I will have all the new page numbers noted in
my RW and that will not be an issue anymore and I will give away my 4th
edition, but I will still keep Reading works.
You could study the 5th edition and do a great job with just that.  With
the help you would get on this list I am sure you would do fine.  For me
though, it was so nice to have something that worked "right out of the
box", especially as I was nervous about it too.  I did go to a workshop
and it was one of the most fun things I have done in my life, but I
didn't need it to succeed.

WRTR is beneficial with ALL levels of skill.  I can't believe how much
teaching it has taught me!  Mr Patterson and other teachers use it with
classes of advanced students and classes of struggling students.  One
thing I remember from the workshop is that "reasonable mastery is your
permission to move on."  So when your bright student "gets" something, go
on to the next thing.

No matter what you decide I sincerely believe WRTR is the absolute BEST!

laura in detroit


On Thu, 01 May 2003 12:22:13 -0000 "mama_is_queen"
<mama_is_queen@...> writes:
> Hi!
>
> My concerns: 1.That it will be too complicated...I am not the most
> organized of people(tstl).
>
>              2.My daughter is an excellent,EXCELLENT reader...with
> great comprehension and speed.Also,when she reads aloud she really
> gets into character(s). Will this program still be beneficial? (My
> heart says,"Yes!",but I'd sure love some advice!
>
>              3. My 4 year old really wants to learn to read.Is he
> too
> young to start?(I'd hoped to work on this throughout the summer.
>
>
> Lord willing,I will be purchasing the 4th ed + reading works within
>
> the week.
>
> Thank you sincerely for any help you may offer!:o)
>
> (I really am nervous about teaching WRTR.)
>
> Blessings,
>
> Tracy
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

I know it has only been a few days but I am really wondering about this
too!

laura, impatient in detroit

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 01:47:03 -0000 "only44me" <only44me@...> writes:
> Now I wonder why?  The old book has the 3 sounds.  The new book
> omitted the long 'o' sound!  I never liked that last sound anyway,
> LOL!  And according to ABC's ...not many words have that sound!
>
> Ellie.....do you care to commit as to why?
>
> Tammy
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

<< Dear Rachel, First you need a mirror image set of the letters you want to
make.  I think some copiers can do this (like a Kinko's place).  Then you
cut out the paper version, and glue each letter  to the Back Side (smooth
side) of the sand paper.  Then you cut around the image.  For holes, you can
pinch the paper a little to make a snip to get a start, then cut out the
inner diameter of the hole using scissors.
  You then glue the result, sandpaper up, on a piece of cardstock.  It took
me about 3 evenings (1 hour each) to do a set of Uppercase and Lower case
letters, and numbers 1-10. Hope this helps!! Laura Davis>>

Thanks!

Be blessed!
~Rachel <><
http://a2jc4life.my100megs.com

Hi there, I wrote in a while back and asked about using the 4th edition or the
5th.  Thanks for the response.  Before I jump into that, I'd like to see if
anyone has experience with both of these programs to give an opinion about them.
I've heard more about the Reading Words here, but I wondered if anyone is
familiar with the Spell to Write and Read (used to be "Teaching Reading at Home
and School").Does anyone have any advice or experience to share about these?  I
sure appreciate the help.  Also, this is embarassing, but I can't find where to
get the Reading Works.  I know I've looked at the site before, but I just can't
find it now! Thanks,Tricia

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have been unable to connect to their web site for days now.  I haven't
tried calling but plan to.  Their number (off my last receipt) is 218 583
2826

Laura

On Fri, 2 May 2003 21:54:14 -0700 (PD) trivia cox <path@yahoo> writes:
> Hi there, I wrote in a while back and asked about using the
> edition or the.  Thanks for the response.  Before I jump into
> that, I'd like to see if anyone has experience with both of these
> programs to give an opinion about them.  I've heard more about the
> Reading Words here, but I wondered if anyone is familiar with the
> Spell to Write and Read (used to be "Teaching Reading at Home and
> School").Does anyone have any advice or experience to share about
> these?  I sure appreciate the help.  Also, this is embarrassing, but
> I can't find where to get the Reading Works.  I know I've looked at
> the site before, but I just can't find it now! Thanks,Tricia
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Ah, interesting.

I just read this board from time to time, but I'm really
curious....they didn't by any chance finally let the "y" in happy
stand for the /ee/ sound, did they?

Just curious...not trying to resurrect old debates.....Rod

"y" will always be /i/. Always. ;-)

Ellie
   -----Original Message-----
   From: rodev [mailto:eversonnbend@...]
   Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 3:51 PM
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [WRTR-Teachers] Re: Revised WRTR has changed the sounds for 'oo'.....


   Ah, interesting.

   I just read this board from time to time, but I'm really
   curious....they didn't by any chance finally let the "y" in happy
   stand for the /ee/ sound, did they?

   Just curious...not trying to resurrect old debates.....Rod


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<< "y" will always be /i/. Always. ;-) >>

Another "just curious". :)  Can someone give me some examples of where "y"
says /i/ BESIDES
at the end of words where many of us have always heard /ee/ ?  Or is it only
at the end of a word?  Is the /i/ sound British English or something?
'Cause the dictionary says /ee/.   I'm not being argumentative, just
baffled. :)

Be blessed!
~Rachel <><
http://a2jc4life.my100megs.com

On Mon, 5 May 2003 08:37:31 -0400 "Rachel Ramey" <A2JC4life@...>
writes:

"'Cause the dictionary says /ee/.   I'm not being argumentative, just
baffled. :)"

"Can someone give me some examples of  where "y" says /i/ BESIDES  at the
end of words where many of us have always heard /ee/ ?  Or is  it only at
the end of a word?

Soap box warning!

How old is your dictionary?

Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of English Language in the "Directions
for the Pronunciation of Words"  says that  y says long i (fly, dry,
imply...of course) and says short i as in "cycle, synonym."

In Webster's Student Dictionary for Upper School Levels (can't find a
date but it has an ad in the back for Webster's New International
Dictionary, second edition, which I think is the one my grandparents
bought just after WWII) the pronunciation guide says short i again, as in
"lyric, nymph, pity, ready" and don't forget "anything"

BUT by the time we get to my college dictionary Webster's (again) New
World Dictionary Third College Edition (1988) we find comments like this:

  "some speakers replace the neutral schwa sound with the distinct vowel
sound of the spelled word.  For example, some speakers pronounce the i in
sanity with the distinct i that occurs in the word hit."

Replace?  as if the schwa was there first and some people used a distinct
vowel INSTEAD???

Here is the part that really gets me agitated: (next sentence)
"Indication of only schwa for a vowel like the i in sanity is not meant
to exclude the acceptability of  an alternate distinct vowel..."

So now instead of teaching precise and distinct pronunciation as Mrs.
Spalding did, we teach the slop and then say its okay if you want to be
precise and call it ALTERNATE????  Wouldn't it be better teach the
distinct pronunciation and then be accepting and understanding when we
all sometimes use the indistinct in normal speech?

But specific to the y as short i, if I look up pity or ability or anxiety
or anything the y's are all long e in this newer dictionary.  So what
seems to me to have happened is that the dictionary editors are now
backwards.  They used to say "This is the standard, this is correct" and
people conform or they don't but they know they don't.  There is no
judgment of speakers here on my part, just saying that people either
speak mostly like a dictionary or they do not.  All of us deviate to some
degree or another but the dictionary holds up a standard, rather, it used
to.  Now we simply list all the different ways a thing MIGHT be said and
whatever is used most commonly we call standard.  "We" as everyday people
I can understand but for the dictionary editors to do this drives me to
distraction

On a lighter note:   If you are in to STAR WARS you can hear the
character Qui Gon Jin (Liam Neeson) say "Don't touch anything "(he
pronounces it en-i-thin) in Phantom Menace.

Laura in Detroit, where we say such awful things as "gool" for the safe
place you run to when playing tag.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

symbol
gym
symphony
crystal
myth
rhythm
lynch
cyst
cylinder
hypnotize
physical
synonym
syllable

and many more.  I have a long list compiled by a SCTI in Louisiana, but I
don't have time to look for it right now.  I think now that you are aware,
you
will see them popping up all the time.

Happy teaching,
Gayle




In a message dated 5/5/03 5:53:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
A2JC4life@... writes:

<< << "y" will always be /i/. Always. ;-) >>

  Another "just curious". :)  Can someone give me some examples of where "y"
  says /i/ BESIDES
  at the end of words where many of us have always heard /ee/ ?  Or is it only
  at the end of a word?  Is the /i/ sound British English or something?
  'Cause the dictionary says /ee/.   I'm not being argumentative, just
  baffled. :)
   >>

And this is what the Spalding Web site says about Y:

Q. Why are baby and other words pronounced with the first (short) sound of i
when most
people say the second (long) sound of e?

A. The Spalding Method teaches children to analyze the written spelling of
words.
Spelling has remained relatively constant over the years while pronunciations
vary among
geographical regions and countries. In the English spelling system y and i are
used
interchangeably, but y and e are not. For example, in the words gym, rhythm,
system, we
use y to represent the first sound of i.

When teaching children to spell, pronouncing the word ba by (short i), helps
them to
write y, not e. Note that the accent is on the first syllable. When reading the
word for
speaking, you have a choice: have children pronounce the word as spoken in your
region
or maintain the original pronunciation which is consistent with the spelling.
Children
have no problem with the difference. They understand that pronouncing words two
ways
helps them spell and read.



Ellie

   -----Original Message-----
   From: LGGustin@... [mailto:LGGustin@...]
   Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 5:44 PM
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: Re: [WRTR-Teachers] Re: Re: Revised WRTR has changed the sounds for
'oo'.....


   symbol
   gym
   symphony
   crystal
   myth
   rhythm
   lynch
   cyst
   cylinder
   hypnotize
   physical
   synonym
   syllable

   and many more.  I have a long list compiled by a SCTI in Louisiana, but I
   don't have time to look for it right now.  I think now that you are aware,
   you
   will see them popping up all the time.

   Happy teaching,
   Gayle




   In a message dated 5/5/03 5:53:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
   A2JC4life@... writes:

   << << "y" will always be /i/. Always. ;-) >>

   Another "just curious". :)  Can someone give me some examples of where "y"
   says /i/ BESIDES
   at the end of words where many of us have always heard /ee/ ?  Or is it only
   at the end of a word?  Is the /i/ sound British English or something?
   'Cause the dictionary says /ee/.   I'm not being argumentative, just
   baffled. :)
     >>

         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<< symbol
  gym
  symphony
  crystal
  myth
  rhythm
  lynch
  cyst
  cylinder
  hypnotize
  physical
  synonym
  syllable >>


Thanks!  I knew there were many obvious ones, but I was drawing a blank. :)
And about the "y" at the end of words - thanks for the info about the 1828
dictionary.  We'll eventually be buying that.  I guess we need to make sure
it's sooner rather than later.

Be blessed!
~Rachel <><
http://a2jc4life.my100megs.com

When I first started WRTR with my five year old, he had a tough time
with the writing part.  It was discouraging.  So, I set it aside for
a while and did other activities to improve his motor skills.
coloring, dot-to-dot, etc.  Call these activities school too, and
his attitude toward learning will be great.  We just recently picked
the writing letters up again and he is pleased with his success.

Because we homeschool we can set a pace that is comfortable for our
children.  Give him a bit more time if WRTR writing is to tough.  I
would occasionally do the phonogram cards.  Just keep reading so he
loves books!

----- Original Message -----
   From: LaVern Martin
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 5:16 PM
   Subject: RE: [WRTR-Teachers] I Need Help!


   Okay, I need some input from you wise ladies.

   I have an ds8 who knows the phonograms inside out and upside down (all 70)
   when we do an oral or written review, BUT when it comes to doing the EA
   words or picking up an easy phonics reader, even one with simple
   cons/vowel/cons. words, he has a total meltdown, tells me he can't read,
   this is too hard, so on and so forth!  Has anyone else run into this?

   I feel at a loss because I feel that somewhere I have not done my job.
   Doesn't Romalda say that a teacher cannot say that she/he has taught unless
   the child has learned?  I have considered a possible vision problem in which
   the phonograms (within a word) might "jump around" making it hard for him to
   sequentially blend the sounds to say/read the word.  There are times when he
   will say each phonogram (within a word) if I isolate it for him within that
   word, but even after he says each phonogram, he doesn't "hear" the word that
   he just sounded.  This can happen even with a simple 3-phonogram word!  I
   don't understand why he can't *hear* the word that he just sounded.

   Is this something that just improves with practice?  Is it a developmental
   thing? Will it just "click" for him eventually?  We have only gone through
   EA Lists A-G, but because of the great struggle that it was for him, I am
   hesitant to go on.  I guess I expected it to go much more smoothly since he
   knows the phonograms so well.  I thought the phonograms would just JUMP OUT
   of the words at him because he knows them so well.  AFTER doing List A-G, I
   mentioned to him that perhaps we will do that list again, rather than go on,
   and that caused loud moaning and groaning!  Perhaps that wasn't a good thing
   to say.

   He is starting to feel like he will never learn to read, he is dumb, etc.
   This just isn't true and I tell him that, but my heart is going out to him,
   and I feel I have failed him in some way.  I know he is sensing my
   disappointment too and probably taking it upon himself no matter what I say
   to encourage him otherwise.  I'm not trying to find out where to place the
   blame, I just need to know where to go from here.  I don't want to do more
   damage if I am missing it somewhere.

   It's not as if he is a reluctant learner either.  Apart from not liking to
   sit still too long to do writing or Math, he LOVES learning and would  have
   me read to him for hours!  Because of all the reading we've done, he is
   bright for his age in many ways, but we've really hit a wall with the
   spelling.  Currently I am teaching him cursive as we continue to review the
   phonograms (via the cursive), but he is a bit board with all the phonics
   review because he knows them so well.  That is why I am anxious to move on!
   I don't want him to hate this process either, and he used to love it!
   Should I be playing phonics games with him or something?  But how is that
   going to help him with blending?

   As we continue to work on cursive for a week or so yet, PLEASE, PLEASE,
   PLEASE write and tell me what you ladies would do.  I love Spalding, but it
   has been crossing my mind that perhaps he needs a different program.  What
   should I do?  I ANXIOUSLY await all your replies, and if you need more
   information, please let me know.

   Regards,  Beth in PA

   P.S. - I do have the fifth edition and am working my way through it
   searching for something I may have missed.



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Did I just send that?  Sorry guys.

shalom,
Lynn
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Peter & Lynn Sherwood
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 12:41 PM
   Subject: Re: [WRTR-Teachers] I Need Help!



     ----- Original Message -----
     From: LaVern Martin
     To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
     Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 5:16 PM
     Subject: RE: [WRTR-Teachers] I Need Help!


     Okay, I need some input from you wise ladies.

     I have an ds8 who knows the phonograms inside out and upside down (all 70)
     when we do an oral or written review, BUT when it comes to doing the EA
     words or picking up an easy phonics reader, even one with simple
     cons/vowel/cons. words, he has a total meltdown, tells me he can't read,
     this is too hard, so on and so forth!  Has anyone else run into this?

     I feel at a loss because I feel that somewhere I have not done my job.
     Doesn't Romalda say that a teacher cannot say that she/he has taught unless
     the child has learned?  I have considered a possible vision problem in which
     the phonograms (within a word) might "jump around" making it hard for him to
     sequentially blend the sounds to say/read the word.  There are times when he
     will say each phonogram (within a word) if I isolate it for him within that
     word, but even after he says each phonogram, he doesn't "hear" the word that
     he just sounded.  This can happen even with a simple 3-phonogram word!  I
     don't understand why he can't *hear* the word that he just sounded.

     Is this something that just improves with practice?  Is it a developmental
     thing? Will it just "click" for him eventually?  We have only gone through
     EA Lists A-G, but because of the great struggle that it was for him, I am
     hesitant to go on.  I guess I expected it to go much more smoothly since he
     knows the phonograms so well.  I thought the phonograms would just JUMP OUT
     of the words at him because he knows them so well.  AFTER doing List A-G, I
     mentioned to him that perhaps we will do that list again, rather than go on,
     and that caused loud moaning and groaning!  Perhaps that wasn't a good thing
     to say.

     He is starting to feel like he will never learn to read, he is dumb, etc.
     This just isn't true and I tell him that, but my heart is going out to him,
     and I feel I have failed him in some way.  I know he is sensing my
     disappointment too and probably taking it upon himself no matter what I say
     to encourage him otherwise.  I'm not trying to find out where to place the
     blame, I just need to know where to go from here.  I don't want to do more
     damage if I am missing it somewhere.

     It's not as if he is a reluctant learner either.  Apart from not liking to
     sit still too long to do writing or Math, he LOVES learning and would  have
     me read to him for hours!  Because of all the reading we've done, he is
     bright for his age in many ways, but we've really hit a wall with the
     spelling.  Currently I am teaching him cursive as we continue to review the
     phonograms (via the cursive), but he is a bit board with all the phonics
     review because he knows them so well.  That is why I am anxious to move on!
     I don't want him to hate this process either, and he used to love it!
     Should I be playing phonics games with him or something?  But how is that
     going to help him with blending?

     As we continue to work on cursive for a week or so yet, PLEASE, PLEASE,
     PLEASE write and tell me what you ladies would do.  I love Spalding, but it
     has been crossing my mind that perhaps he needs a different program.  What
     should I do?  I ANXIOUSLY await all your replies, and if you need more
     information, please let me know.

     Regards,  Beth in PA

     P.S. - I do have the fifth edition and am working my way through it
     searching for something I may have missed.



           Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Duly note that in words such as mystic, cymbal, gym and syllable, where
y is pronounced as short i, it is part of a closed syllable, with a
consonant at the end.  Such is not the case when the y is at the end of
the word.  There's a genuine inconsistency there.

I would also question (one of those questions that can't be answered
without a time machine) whether people spoke without schwas, ever.
  Speech came before print. THat, of course, begs all kinds of questions
about choices of vowels and the evolution of language.   I'm thinking of
Chinese and such languages where things like pitch affect meaning of a
word with the "same" vowel sound and wondering if that could have been
true in English at one time...

This is not an argument that you will win :-) Mrs. Spalding's reasoning is
enough for me
(and I don't see your "genuine nconsistency"); if it's not enough for you, by
all means
feel free to teach something different.

Ellie
   -----Original Message-----
   From: motthebug [mailto:maps@...]
   Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:32 PM
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [WRTR-Teachers] syllables and gyms


   Duly note that in words such as mystic, cymbal, gym and syllable, where
   y is pronounced as short i, it is part of a closed syllable, with a
   consonant at the end.  Such is not the case when the y is at the end of
   the word.  There's a genuine inconsistency there.

   I would also question (one of those questions that can't be answered
   without a time machine) whether people spoke without schwas, ever.
   Speech came before print. THat, of course, begs all kinds of questions
   about choices of vowels and the evolution of language.   I'm thinking of
   Chinese and such languages where things like pitch affect meaning of a
   word with the "same" vowel sound and wondering if that could have been
   true in English at one time...




         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Ellie -

I'm not sure she's looking for an argument; simply understanding.  I, too,
have always wondered about the "y" saying /E/ at the end of words when it
clearly does!  Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the reason for
teaching the short /i/ is for spelling; thus when you say the word for
spelling, you pronounce the short i and the child knows to use y instead
since no English word ends in the letter i.  For example, for spelling,
think to spell b-a-b-i; but for reading, we say b-a-b-y.



Blessings, Diane
*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~* ~~~~*~~~~*
www.geocities.com/loveteachingx2
*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~* ~~~~*~~~~*





----Original Message Follows----
From: "Ray & Ellie Andrew" <emj718@...>
Reply-To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
To: <WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [WRTR-Teachers] syllables and gyms
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 18:06:28 -0700

This is not an argument that you will win :-) Mrs. Spalding's reasoning is
enough for me
(and I don't see your "genuine nconsistency"); if it's not enough for you,
by all means
feel free to teach something different.

Ellie
    -----Original Message-----
    From: motthebug [mailto:maps@...]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:32 PM
    To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: [WRTR-Teachers] syllables and gyms


    Duly note that in words such as mystic, cymbal, gym and syllable, where
    y is pronounced as short i, it is part of a closed syllable, with a
    consonant at the end.  Such is not the case when the y is at the end of
    the word.  There's a genuine inconsistency there.

    I would also question (one of those questions that can't be answered
    without a time machine) whether people spoke without schwas, ever.
    Speech came before print. THat, of course, begs all kinds of questions
    about choices of vowels and the evolution of language.   I'm thinking of
    Chinese and such languages where things like pitch affect meaning of a
    word with the "same" vowel sound and wondering if that could have been
    true in English at one time...




          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

I used the word "argument" loosely.

Many people DO pronounce y at the end of words as /i/, so it isn't *only* for
spelling.
I don't have a problem with it, and the amount of discussion on the subject has
always
surprised me (I guess because I do hear people pronounce it that way).

Ellie
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Diane McCarty [mailto:dianemccarty@...]
   Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 6:19 PM
   To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: RE: [WRTR-Teachers] syllables and gyms


   Hi Ellie -

   I'm not sure she's looking for an argument; simply understanding.  I, too,
   have always wondered about the "y" saying /E/ at the end of words when it
   clearly does!  Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the reason for
   teaching the short /i/ is for spelling; thus when you say the word for
   spelling, you pronounce the short i and the child knows to use y instead
   since no English word ends in the letter i.  For example, for spelling,
   think to spell b-a-b-i; but for reading, we say b-a-b-y.



   Blessings, Diane
   *~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~* ~~~~*~~~~*
   www.geocities.com/loveteachingx2
   *~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~* ~~~~*~~~~*





   ----Original Message Follows----
   From: "Ray & Ellie Andrew" <emj718@...>
   Reply-To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
   To: <WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com>
   Subject: RE: [WRTR-Teachers] syllables and gyms
   Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 18:06:28 -0700

   This is not an argument that you will win :-) Mrs. Spalding's reasoning is
   enough for me
   (and I don't see your "genuine nconsistency"); if it's not enough for you,
   by all means
   feel free to teach something different.

   Ellie
      -----Original Message-----
      From: motthebug [mailto:maps@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:32 PM
      To: WRTR-Teachers@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [WRTR-Teachers] syllables and gyms


      Duly note that in words such as mystic, cymbal, gym and syllable, where
      y is pronounced as short i, it is part of a closed syllable, with a
      consonant at the end.  Such is not the case when the y is at the end of
      the word.  There's a genuine inconsistency there.

      I would also question (one of those questions that can't be answered
      without a time machine) whether people spoke without schwas, ever.
      Speech came before print. THat, of course, begs all kinds of questions
      about choices of vowels and the evolution of language.   I'm thinking of
      Chinese and such languages where things like pitch affect meaning of a
      word with the "same" vowel sound and wondering if that could have been
      true in English at one time...




            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   _________________________________________________________________
   Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
   http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: "Diane McCarty" <dianemccarty@...>
"y" saying /E/ at the end of words
> when it
> clearly does!

It "clearly does" to some but not all.  This is why we "Think to Spell."
What is going on here is called a Regionalism.  It is a way we speak in a
certain region and as such it would be somewhat arrogant to think that
all English speakers do this.  None of us would take seriously the
suggestion that "ah" is a sound of the phonogram ar just because people
in one region say it this way.  Or that ir in tired should be pronounced
ar because some people do it that way or that the oi in toilet should be
long o because my friend from Texas says it that way.

No one wants to take away the regional "flavor" of our speech, but if we
do not learn to think differently than we speak we will only make things
harder for ourselves and those we teach.


From: motthebug <maps@...>
I would also question (one of those questions that can't be answered
without a time machine) whether people spoke without schwas, ever.
This is such a fun investigation.  Going again to Webster's dictionary
from 1828 there is a huge section in the front on how words should be
spelled and pronounced.  Evidently there was a great deal of debate at
the time and Mr. Webster was strongly opinionated.  He lists the choices
of several others at the time and why he thinks his is preferable.  The
section mentions both how words are said and how they should be.
Also you can investigate poetry.  Words considered to rhyme give clues to
how they were pronounced.  Of course that isn't absolute because poets
take liberties, but when we read:
Pussy cat pussy cat where have you BEEN, I've been to London to visit the
QUEEN
   we can be reasonably sure that the writer didn't pronounce been as
"bin" the way most Americans do.  That one is obvious since we have
modern speakers in Great Britain and Canada (Australia & NZ too?? ) who
all pronounce the word been with the double e that always says long e.
Different people have always spoken the same language differently.
Historically, people have judged where you stood socially by your speech,
enough so that movies can focus on it .... or your home could be detected
by your speech... enough so that everyone my father encountered in
business was sure he has a college degree from a well respected
university.  They were always shocked to find that what he really had was
a high school diploma and a mother who didn't mind sloppy speech on the
playground but insisted on precise pronunciation, enunciation and grammar
in the home. (and he's really really smart but that's a different issue)
They made their assumption based on the way he spoke.
As for schwas,  Mrs. Spalding talks about them on page 32 of the 4th
edition (I don't know the page # in the new one) and said that "the vowel
sounds in non-accented syllables should not be indicated by the schwa and
nearly all of them should be thought of as they are written.  The precise
vowel sound is lost to some extent in the rhythm of English speech" so
she recognized the fact of schwas happening in speech but the precise
sound should still be recognized.  Her beef was that the LINGUISTS who
should know this were using schwas all over as if it were the actual
sound to be thought of.  Too bad they didn't listen to her.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!