Mary wrote: Kim wrote: Mary wrote: You had a bad teacher. I could read before I started school, too, but the majority of my teachers recognized that "Dick and Jane" wasn't going to hold my interest so I always got sent to the library for my "reading time" while the other kids were struggling through the "Look at Spot. Spot can run...." bullshit and the mimeographed
I think you are looking for an "ear" vocabulary rather than a "eye" vocabulary. They eye vocabulary during the first 4 years of school is less than half that of the ear vocabulary. There is quite a bit of variance in the reported number of words that children understand. This reflects both the differences in children and differences in how the data was acquired. I would think that the ear
Jacq <jacqueline.smit@losttech.com> wrote: On Aug 12, 1:06 pm, Rosemary <mentally_subnor...@hotmail.com> wrote: "CJ Dunnaway" wrote: "Rosemary" wrote: "CJ Dunnaway" wrote: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storyc od e=403092&c=1 A British educator has proposed that schools stop penalizing students for
Bible study in schools Another had once said in a post: :|The Bible was the primary book used in schools. In some, maybe, not in all by any stretch of the imagination. :| Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven :|by his service as the first president of the :|Washington, D.C. :|public schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks :|for
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:57:43 +0000, Donna Whitman wrote: There's a huge difference between debating facts and TRYING to correct someone's grammar. I disagree. (And I corrected her *spelling*, not her grammar.) Regardless, when someone -- a member of a dog group that deals with German Shepherds -- can't spell the word "shepherd," I think that a *polite* correction is a *reasonable*
