Got the strangest advice

des,

My personal opion is that little children cannot handle things like “the six syllable types”, etc. that is included in OG. So naturally, it would be easier to teach a rules-based program to older kids who can handle the rules. That’s exactly why a program like PG is easier to teach the younger kids. Then later, you have the luxury of teaching those rules if you feel the need. But to deny teaching the alphabetic code early just because a particular program is not geared to the developmental level of a young child is awful, in my opinion. We need the tools to teach different ages of children.

Janis

Well supposedly, I don’t know as I haven’t talked specifically with Susan Barton but she does have kids that do well in the program at around
5 1/2. I don’t know if it is the names of the rules or what. (Kiss the cat vs well with a /k/ sound you have to spell it like this…).
I still find the whole concept of having to “get thru something” absurd. You want the kid to get the code, and however that’s done is fine. Anything else thereafter is gravy at that age, but I still think it is extremely important. I just can’t see the kid getting further and further behind because of the limits of a particular program (and that’s what it sounds like to me).

Might be PG would be more appropriate at this stage, but I think the important thing is to get this kid to get the code as you say.

The other thing I heard at the conference was that intervention at an early age can actually prevent dyslexia. I’m sure that the dyslexia is actually there and shows up in foriegn language and spellling say, but the idea of preventing all the failure to me is the important thing.

BTW, this same person keeps trying to get me to take the ALTA training that she had. Not that i can afford it, but I did an observation of it. I was not particularly impressed. I thought she herself was good but the program had this kid who can now read multisyllable words practicing writing the sounds for “b”, “v” etc. It seemed like a strange use of time.

—des

I would give it a strictly mathematical argument. When I go through the full O.G. stuff with an older student, they end up reading, generally, at *least* at a sixth grade level.
Should be absolutely NO news to hear that it would take longer to get a second grader to a sixth grade level.

There are also multisensory approaches for the younger set which are much less rule based.

That’s where I think the advice came from. It was mathematical formulation. My problem is that sure it would take longer to reach a 6th grade reading level with a second grader, but are you trying to do that?
Or rather imo, I would not be trying to do that. I’d try to teach the code and some spelling.

—des

Okay, she might just have been feeling numerical… though she may also have a point. THere are those who think that many kids would do better to learn to read later, when more of their brains are mature — the ones whose brains aren’t wired to just suck up those sounds, but who can do fine when they have the other more sophisticated language skills developed. I have always speculated that it could be true, and that our schools are set up to give these guys so much emotional baggage that they’re predisposed to failure, but that without that, they might just do fine. There’s a lot of anecdotal tales from homeschoolers to support that, but anecdotal stuff will support anything, especially from objective folks like parents :)
But in some ways it’s easier to teach rules to younger students — some of ‘em really *like* rules. And they’ll sing *anything.” Consider the musical 1-1-1 rule:
http://gardenofpraise.com/spell1.htm

This one comes up regularly. There are two extremes, both to be avoided.

On the one side are the people who have no patience with kids being kids and needing time to grow. As an example of this, I just got an email from an acquaintance qwho says he is doing some volunteer in-school tutoring; another tutor is going to teach calculus in Grade 5. I tried to explain to him why this is a very bad move (develop splinter skills, develop bad attitude, not develop strong foundations, etc.)
On the other side are the people who just wait for children to blossom out with skills naturally. Certain schools of thought believe that it is a terrible thing to teach a child to read before age eight. Of course, any parent here can tell you that many kids actually need to have parents and teachers and they don’t all blossom magically. Many will tell you that if they had it to do over again they would get intervention four or five years earlier.

So what to do to reach a reasonable middle ground?
Well, most kids are in a very receptive psychological stage between the ages of four and seven or so. At this age they can memorize more material more easily than at any other time in their lives, and they often enjoy memorization. So this is the ideal time to get the knowledge of the alphabet, the basic code, and numbers. Sure, older kids can apply more logic and can do things faster — but a reasonably young age is a good time to do the foundation memorization work that older kids find dull. It’s a good idea in general to start on pre-reading skills when the child has a fairly good handle on the spoken language (severe language disabilities excepted), so age four on average is reasonable for *basic* stuff, in *small* quantities, i.e. the alphabet, one or two sounds represented by each letter, and five to ten minutes at a time. (Some language-gifted ratfinks may start earlier, but they will tell you who they are). You increase the amount and complexity of stuff you teach and the amount of time you spend on it as the child matures.

If we want to be mathematical about it, yes, it takes longer with a younger child, but the child not in school without all sorts of subjects to study has oodles of time available. Many five-year-olds at home are bored silly and will happily spend an hour or more a day reading.
So what if they go more slowly? Start at age five and do half a grade level per year, and at the end of Grade 1 you will be reading at a 2.0 level and will be far ahead of your class; start at age eight and do two grade levels a year and you will be behind your class and catching up until the beginning of Grade 7 (make yourself a chart of age/grade/reading level to prove this to yourself).

And if you can read when you are young, you can read all the wonderul children’s books, you will get language input and new concepts, and you will have all sorts of other advantages. Better to learn late than never, but *within reason*, early works better.

I agree with your logic, as usual, Victoria. I always like your math better. :-)

BTW, I talked to Susan Barton, who also found the logic of the start late thing ridiculous although she has heard it all before. She said she commonly uses the program on kids as young as 5 1/2. She even said she does not find that they take particularly longer. Little kids can learn this stuff given the right tools. I would guess some of this is that Barton’s program is not a pure OG method.

—des

“pure” is a relative term.

The Official Certifiers Of Things Orton-Gillingham have a rigorous royal pita requirement or twelve for anythign to be considered “officially” OG. Some things that are “OG Based” are only somewhat influenced by OG — hey, let’s include some fun with hair gel, that sort of thing. Barton’s is a lot more aligned with OG than that, though it doesn’t have the official stamp. There are also some sacrifices that you have to make if you can’t afford to put the teacher / parent through the kind of training I had — which was wonderful, but team teaching as an apprentice for a year is a little hard to come by (and that was only the follow-through!) Making really effective methods accessible to more people is a good idea, though of course you have the “oh, no, what will amateurs do with this???” problem. One of ‘em might even say “puh-luh” instead of “pl” or worse despite directions to the contrary… but I think that kid will still be better off than doing nothing, or some of the other ineffective (for kids with dyslexia) tools out there.