Jump to content

Menu

???s for O-G Certified Tutors


Recommended Posts

SandyKC, thanks, you've expanded my perspective on what makes programs work!  What is your take on the drilling of chunks like "fr", "ble", etc. ?  Recommend, don't recommend?   Also, is there a resource you can suggest for us to find these multisensory suggestions?  Are they in the tm for some of these curricula or is there a website or booklet you've found?  Are they in that Gillingham Manual you linked to me earlier?  

 

Do the students find it *confusing* to go through frequency rules to spell?  Wouldn't it be easier to use visualization?  Freed discusses this and suggests that dyslexics should be right-brain dominant (I know, that stupid phrase) and therefore VSL and have that visualization ability to tap into.  But if they have visual processing issues, their visual memory wouldn't be STRONG enough to make that effective.  Or maybe you *blended* visualization and rules with your student?  Do you put stock in it?

 
WOW! Ya'll are talking through it all fabulously! :-D  I hardly feel like I need to respond at all! HA HA! :D
 
Okay, so I'll start by answering these specific questions, since you asked directly. Then I'll see if there is anything else I feel I need to answer, but it sincerely looks like most bases are covered quite well.
 
What is your take on the drilling of chunks like "fr", "ble", etc. ?  Recommend, don't recommend?   
 
Drilling chunks--specifically blends like "fr" isn't required.  That is the /f/ with the /r/, so each component retains its original sound and the combination includes the pronunciation of each letter.  For "ble," that is slightly different because it has the 'e' on it, but that will be covered under the rules for "open syllables."  IN most cases, the blends and syllable chunks don't need to be covered.  
 
However, there are some syllables that are specifically covered.  For example, "-tion," "-sion," "-cion," "-tious," etc. they all are covered as chunks. 
 
So, personal opinion on recommend versus not--There is so much to drill on as it is, I didn't drill on any of the blends like "fr" or "bl," but I did drill on -tion and -tious. 
 
Also, is there a resource you can suggest for us to find these multisensory suggestions?  Are they in the tm for some of these curricula or is there a website or booklet you've found? Are they in that Gillingham Manual you linked to me earlier?  
 
Hmmmmm... The Gillingham Manual isn't the best resource for multisensory suggestions.  It is primarily finger-tracing, tactile-based in it's suggestions and the Orton Fellow that taught our class had a much broader list of suggestions.  It wasn't a written list, but many ideas she gave us.  We were challenged to come up with our own ideas of multisensory activities.
 
Give me a day or two and I'll see if I can write out everything I know of, have used, etc., and then I can post that list for the benefit of everyone.
 
Do the students find it *confusing* to go through frequency rules to spell? 
 
Students haven't seemed to be confused by going through the frequency rules.  Those are taught later in the cycle when the child has mastered the primary phoneme association for a particular letter(s).  Then when the second sound-letter association is taught, the child is also taught which is most-least common.
 
For example, the sound of "aw" and "au" : awe, awful, crawl, law, auto, August, etc. "aw" is the most common representation of the sound /aw/. 
 
Wouldn't it be easier to use visualization? -- yes and no.. For the most common words, YES.. however, you can't possibly teach a child every single word in the language through one-on-one visualization teaching. Therefore, when the child has learned the most common words, it is important for the child to know the frequency rules for writing words he's never seen before.  He may be wrong sometimes, but he's more frequently going to be right if he knows the frequency rules. ;)
 
Freed discusses this and suggests that dyslexics should be right-brain dominant (I know, that stupid phrase) and therefore VSL and have that visualization ability to tap into.  But if they have visual processing issues, their visual memory wouldn't be STRONG enough to make that effective.  Or maybe you *blended* visualization and rules with your student?  Do you put stock in it?
 
I think this part relates back to your child's primary learning style as your chosen means of teaching your child.  If a child has visual processing issues, it's highly likely he isn't going to be a visual learner, so teaching him through his strongest learning pathway is the best option, but if the teaching is trule "multisensory," it will include a blended approach.
 
If the child is a kinesthetic learner, he can jump on a mini trampoline while reciting a rule repeatedly while looking at a rule card or visualizing.  If he's tactile he can trace or write the rule in a textured media, which will include the visualization component.
 
What you wouldn't want to do is rely solely on visualization just because that is an effective avenue for most kids.  If your child has visual processing issues, then making another avenue the primary method will help your child learn better. ;)
 
Going to re-read through the thread and see if there is anything I can add to the conversation. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm going to just post real quickly to this message--for all-- I see I need to spend some time with this thread and replies, but I have to leave for a meeting shortly, and won't get back to this until this evening--probably until supper time!  If you "like" this, I'll get a notification and it will remind me to come back here and check later. ;-)  

 

I'm going to read through the rest of the replies here so I'll have them in mind when driving.. Then I can post good answers when I get back home. ;)

 

:D Off to the races shortly! 

THANKS, all... I just posted my reply to OhElizabeth .. so if you're interested, it's there. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy, thanks for taking the time to respond!!

 

Yes, that would be CRAZY AWESOME if you took the time to brain dump your ideas on kinesthetic.  I've been trying to google for them and for some reason I fail to turn up things even though I KNOW there must be lists out there.  

 

Ok, I think you finally sifted through in my brain the use of visualization vs. encoding rules, duh.  Of course the rules help you be more probable on the words you DON'T know, duh!!  So the visualization, for our purposes, should have a very TARGETED use.  That makes sense.  Even the VT therapist said that, that you can only had some limited number of things in your visual memory (I forget the number), so once you max it out you start dropping.  So this makes good sense.

 

Thanks for the take on chunking.  That seems conservative and rational to me.  

 

Yes, the visual processing issues are the elephant in the room with us.  I haven't begun addressing them and I know they're there.  And I don't know what I'm going to do about that because you can't do everything at once.  I've got the Kenneth Lane book, which has a TON of visual processing exercises, but I just can't add more on top of what we're already doing.  But you're right that it's going to hit a point where it's going to become a serious issue.  Right now it's just that fly nagging in my mind.  Maybe when we get through more of the S'cool Moves/Focus Moves stuff, then that time can fade and switch over to visual processing? 

 

So on paper, per the testing the SLP has done, visual is actually his 2nd best channel, behind kinesthetic.  I'm not sure how reliable it is, because of some of the visual processing issues.  I also don't know how extensive the visual processing issues are.  The dev. optom. wanted to check them and I let it go to the back burner because he has no convergence, etc. symptoms.  I feel like free is the better pricepoint on that right now, sigh.  Does that make sense?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to flash cards, those were absolutely the worst thing for my kids for years.  Helped not one iota and eventually demoralized them.  They came to hate them with a passion and there were frequently tears.  Once we started homeschooling I avoided them like the plague since the way the school had used them was such a dismal failure.  

 

Flash cards, just this year, are actually working pretty well, though.  I am just using them with math primarily but both kids seem to be doing better with flash cards.  One difference is yes, I think brain maturity.  The other difference is how they are being used.  I love the system that CLE uses for targeted flash card review tied to other things in a lesson, not just random or in isolation.  Barton uses flash cards in a limited way for site word review but again it is targeted and used in a very specific way with a limited number of words and is part of a larger piece, not just random or in isolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When DS was taking Wilson, I sat through an hour lesson to see what was happening.  The reading specialist presented the phonogram card in a very specific way to introduce the phonogram sounds.  DS sat directly in front of her, and she held his full attention.  The tutor spoke clearly and controlled.  When sonĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s attention drifted, the tutor coaxed his attention back.  In truth, the drifting and coaxing back while teaching seemed to be the hardest part.

 

LOE has you introduce the phonogram and then write it down on a board three times for the student.  I actually use the cards and we don't move forward until DD knows the sounds associated with them cold.  My understanding is that the sounds of the phonograms have to be mapped to the letters so the student can reach the ultimate objective of reading and spelling.  Neither of my kids have issues with the cards.

 

 Now, let's apply flashcards to math facts.  DS hates flashcards when they are used as the exclusive method for teaching.  He also hates them when there is a timed element.  When I remove those elements, DS is great with them.  In fact, Quizlet has been awesome this year, and DS could not survive biology, vocab, or Latin roots without them.  I simply wish that we had used Quizlet sooner when OhE mentioned it to me.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me as ps moves concepts/skills introduction to younger and younger ages, and standardized testing is more and more heavily emphasized, and the foundational skills are rushed through at faster and faster rates, there are going to be more and more children floundering and diagnosed as dylexic/dyscalculic/add.  And I have no clue what the long term ramifications of that will be but it can't be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me as ps moves concepts/skills introduction to younger and younger ages, and standardized testing is more and more heavily emphasized, and the foundational skills are rushed through at faster and faster rates, there are going to be more and more children floundering and diagnosed as dylexic/dyscalculic/add.  And I have no clue what the long term ramifications of that will be but it can't be good.

Don't worry, around here you'll be labeled as remedial within the first couple days of K5 if you can't read and immediately begin interventions.  No joke.   :svengo: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add that when I say flashcards didn't work when DD was younger - it wasn't because DD had an issue with using flashcards.  She had no particular attitude/attention problem with flash cards or anything like that. They just didn't do anything to help her remember whatever was flashed.  She didn't get better or faster at math facts.  She didn't get faster or better at phonograms (and boy, did we go through those darn cards a billion times). 

 

 I actually use the cards and we don't move forward until DD knows the sounds associated with them cold.
 

 

This is exactly what I mean when I say flashcards didn't work for DD when younger - if this was a prerequiste of that particular program then that program would not have worked for DD - because we would never have been able to move forward because DD would never have known them cold.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me as ps moves concepts/skills introduction to younger and younger ages, and standardized testing is more and more heavily emphasized, and the foundational skills are rushed through at faster and faster rates, there are going to be more and more children floundering and diagnosed as dylexic/dyscalculic/add.  And I have no clue what the long term ramifications of that will be but it can't be good.

 

The sad thing about this to me is - you could easily use standardized testing to figure out where and how a child is struggling and add in individualized work to improve their weak areas.  But do they use it that way?  No, of course not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, around here you'll be labeled as remedial within the first couple days of K5 if you can't read and immediately begin interventions.  No joke.   :svengo: 

A friend of mine last year had a 4 year old in 4k and a 5 year old in kinder and she was told the kids would need a lot of one on one help after school because they should both already be reading at least cvc words.  Both very bright kids but they were still working on letter sounds when she put them in school.  They had both been so excited about going to school.  Within a month they were both crying and begging not to go and they both were saying they were stupid and would never do well in school.   :thumbdown:  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine last year had a 4 year old in 4k and a 5 year old in kinder and she was told the kids would need a lot of one on one help after school because they should both already be reading at least cvc words.  Both very bright kids but they were still working on letter sounds when she put them in school.  They had both been so excited about going to school.  Within a month they were both crying and begging not to go and they both were saying they were stupid and would never do well in school.   :thumbdown:  :(

:eek:  That is crazy!  For all my unhappiness with how our school system handled DD's reading - they did not expect K'ers to be reading.  DD was considered ahead in 'reading' when she started K  - because she knew all her letters and a few letter sounds and could write her name.  By the end of K, they were expected to know all the letter sounds and be reading cvc words (and a number of sight words too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add that when I say flashcards didn't work when DD was younger - it wasn't because DD had an issue with using flashcards.  She had no particular attitude/attention problem with flash cards or anything like that. They just didn't do anything to help her remember whatever was flashed.  She didn't get better or faster at math facts.  She didn't get faster or better at phonograms (and boy, did we go through those darn cards a billion times). 

 

 

This is exactly what I mean when I say flashcards didn't work for DD when younger - if this was a prerequiste of that particular program then that program would not have worked for DD - because we would never have been able to move forward because DD would never have known them cold.

This....Thank-you...I finally understand what has concerned me about Spalding based reading instruction, and why O-G is better for our dyslexic kiddos.

 

Spalding based reading instruction seems more flash card and handwriting oriented, which supports visual learners and kinesthetic learners.  Spalding based programs require all basic phonograms to be memorized prior to the student opening a book.  This means the student is not getting as much reading practice and repetition they may need to support phonogram learning.  Add in any motor planning or working memory deficits and the program is not a good fit.  Basically, I realize what SandyKC was talking about.

 

BTW, Wilson uses flashcards to introduce the letter sounds.  After the introduction of the letter and sound, tons of multisensory instruction follow.  I just want to be clear.  The tutoring becomes quite specialized to the student, so I expect the tutor adjusts their teaching and the way info is presented with the student.  My son's certainly did.

 

Foundations includes high frequency lists and 6 readers per book but many students need much more.  In fairness to Foundations, games and movement are included with their teaching script, but the movements are not specifically targeted in an efficient way such as Wilson.   And even with the large motor movements suggested for struggling handwriters, the constant modification went on a backburner for us because I chose reading over painful handwriting practice.  It simply wasn't pratical for us to combine handwriting instruction with phonics.  This thread reminds me that I should try incorporting the handwriting now that DD has improved in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This....Thank-you...I finally understand what has concerned me about Spalding based reading instruction, and why O-G is better for our dyslexic kiddos.

 

Spalding based reading instruction seems more flash card and handwriting oriented, which supports visual learners and kinesthetic learners.  Spalding based programs require all basic phonograms to be memorized prior to the student opening a book.  This means the student is not getting as much reading practice and repetition they may need to support phonogram learning.  Add in any motor planning or working memory deficits and the program is not a good fit.  Basically, I realize what SandyKC was talking about.

 

This isn't really accurate.  WRTR/SWR expect students to be able to READ before picking up a book.  They're calling the WRITING Road to Reading and SPELL to Write and Read because the student spells and writes their way into reading instead of decoding.  There is no requirement of learning the phonograms before reading, because that's not the point.  You INTRODUCE the phonograms together upfront and APPLY them over and over, spelling words.  Neither program has students decode.  Both students anticipate the student applying the phonograms as they ENCODE words, write the words, and read back the words.  You read those words on flashcards to build fluency.  For the majority of students, this alone leads to reading and it is truly magical.

 

It's also not correct to assume that OG is multi-sensory and someone teaching SWR/WRTR is not.  It's all the teacher and what they bring to the table.  WRTR is slim on methodology and assumes a creative teacher.  SWR has a yahoo group with a files section with all kinds of ways people bring in multi-sensory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I selected LOE because it is scripted and has explicit phonogram instruction.  I was not aware of DD's motor planning issues when we started.  What is the best reading program to try with a new student when you know that their sibling has dyslexia/dysgraphia?  I'm just curious now.  

Ahh, now you're digging in!  I think most moms, if they taught the older dyslexic sibling and know the system, will find it easiest to carry down that system to the younger sibling, even if the younger dc isn't dyslexic.  Just more efficient that way, as it's not going to hurt them and the mom knows the system.  Because you got your evals later and used tutors, you learned Wilson but maybe not so much that you feel like you could teach it in your sleep and adapt it to a differently paced child, right?  Wilson also doesn't give you lesson plans, even on their Fundations, do they?

 

Why do you keep talking yourself out of SWR??  If you have access to it, why don't you try it?  You could do it with your Wilson methodology and markings, no problem.  SWR was AWESOME for my dd.  As long as there's no dyslexic (which you seem positive there's not), I don't know why you're letting this rattle you.  SWR is FINE.

 

As far as writing, I think the only serious options are HWT or EZ Write.  EZ Write is what our OT likes, and I ADORE, ADORE, ADORE, ADORE it.  I'm so over the moon with how we're approach this, using those foundational strokes.  When we start writing on paper (we're sticking to gross motor, etc. right now), I'm going to have to buckle down and order the worksheets and the font cd.  Anyways, I don't *know* if anything I'm doing will make a difference but I hope it will.  Dd's motor planning for writing has never become automatic and ds clearly has some issues.  What I'm trying to do is spend a LOT of extra time, like doing it every day, every day, every day, till the motor planning is so in his brain.  That's my theory, to get it automatic and super solid with gross motor before we ever try paper.  You may not have that luxury, but in reality you could try those big pads on an easel if you wanted.  I've stocked up on them, and I figure that will be a stage for us.  Walmart had them for $3-4 and I got a pile.  

 

There's something to the idea of callirobics and the motions with music or with metronome.  There's another loops thing like that I came across and have filed.  We just aren't there yet.  It's all in that idea of control.

 

EZ Write is kind of like Ronit Bird for handwriting.  Love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SandyKC, does dysgraphia confound learning to read?  I mean, if you compare a dyslexic to a dyslexic with dysgraphia, is the dysgraphic going to learn reading at a slower pace?

Well I'll tell you what I see with ds.  I think before EZ Write (which has you sort of subitize the strokes to form the letters), he just looked at a letter as an art project.  So details about where the lines were or this or that that would distinguish letters were just this massive visual memory exercise.  So if a dc is processing visually the phonograms that way, like they're pictures of flowers, then YES it's going to affect their reading.  When you break the letters down into strokes (what I'm calling "subitizing" them), the letters start to take on meaning, character, personality.  So then each one is fundamentally DIFFERENT and you can CONNECT it to a sound.  (sort of like faces of your family at Thanksgiving having names vs. faces in the JCPenny catalog)  

 

That's what I see with him.  Breaking down the strokes makes each letter MEAN something.  And we can do those strokes and say the sounds and it goes deep in his soul.  

 

Even if she's having pain or fatigue with the paper writing for spelling, you might try gross motor.  I did a LOT of spelling on a blackboard when my dd was that age.  We'd shake it up, like spell with letter tiles then write on the board then...  See if gross motor works for her.  Board writing was definitely good for dd.  We did that up through, well a lot of years.  Then we went to the 17X20 whiteboards from Board Dudes.  If she can't do gross motor comfortably, then I'm back to evals.  If you're having to accommodate beyond the normal, like say doing all typing, then it's time for evals.  I think it's fine to type, but if you're to that point it's time for evals.  (just my overly opinionated two cents!)

 

I don't know, what are  you seeing?  What are you wanting to do?  What problem are you trying to solve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I selected LOE because it is scripted and has explicit phonogram instruction.  I was not aware of DD's motor planning issues when we started.  What is the best reading program to try with a new student when you know that their sibling has dyslexia/dysgraphia?  I'm just curious now.  

 

IMHO, HWOT for handwriting, Cursive First for cursive (uses a clock, so incredibly visual, spatial, and multi-sensory), and AAR/AAS because they are colorful and scripted. There are also apps to get around the dysgraphia for AAR/AAS. At AAS level 3, we move into typing the dictations exclusively and only writing the lists, so the impact from the dysgraphia is really lessened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to go back to your question, most kids learn to read without writing at all.  It can be a totally visual/auditory exercise.  I don't think you can ascribe reading problems to writing problems, because the reading problems probably are actually due to reading problems.

 

Did the PT say she thinks there's actual DCD or dysgraphia going on, or is it just a touch?  I mean, there are degrees we're talking.  You *can* have motor planning issues (like dd does and ds to a degree) and NOT get a dysgraphia label.  Or you can have them to a sufficient degree that you get the label.  Or are you not sure because the practitioners have missed things in the past and you don't know who to trust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really accurate. WRTR/SWR expect students to be able to READ before picking up a book. They're calling the WRITING Road to Reading and SPELL to Write and Read because the student spells and writes their way into reading instead of decoding. There is no requirement of learning the phonograms before reading, because that's not the point. You INTRODUCE the phonograms together upfront and APPLY them over and over, spelling words. Neither program has students decode. Both students anticipate the student applying the phonograms as they ENCODE words, write the words, and read back the words. You read those words on flashcards to build fluency. For the majority of students, this alone leads to reading and it is truly magical.

 

It's also not correct to assume that OG is multi-sensory and someone teaching SWR/WRTR is not. It's all the teacher and what they bring to the table. WRTR is slim on methodology and assumes a creative teacher. SWR has a yahoo group with a files section with all kinds of ways people bring in multi-sensory.

Well, you need to quit identifying LOE with SWR because students in LOE Foundations don't spell first. LOE Foundations dictates the spelling words to the student and tells them how to mark the words at the end of the lessons. Foundations decodes through high frequency word lists, readers, and comprehension type sentences that come with the student work.  The student is expected to read the words. LOE Essentials may be an entirely different animal but what I am seeing with LOE Foundations, it is not like what you are describing with SWR.

 

No doubt SWR is truly magical for some, but I suspect that if I had used SWR I could have never made it work due the heavy emphasis on writing.

Edited by Heathermomster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'll tell you what I see with ds. I think before EZ Write (which has you sort of subitize the strokes to form the letters), he just looked at a letter as an art project. So details about where the lines were or this or that that would distinguish letters were just this massive visual memory exercise. So if a dc is processing visually the phonograms that way, like they're pictures of flowers, then YES it's going to affect their reading. When you break the letters down into strokes (what I'm calling "subitizing" them), the letters start to take on meaning, character, personality. So then each one is fundamentally DIFFERENT and you can CONNECT it to a sound. (sort of like faces of your family at Thanksgiving having names vs. faces in the JCPenny catalog)

 

That's what I see with him. Breaking down the strokes makes each letter MEAN something. And we can do those strokes and say the sounds and it goes deep in his soul.

 

Even if she's having pain or fatigue with the paper writing for spelling, you might try gross motor. I did a LOT of spelling on a blackboard when my dd was that age. We'd shake it up, like spell with letter tiles then write on the board then... See if gross motor works for her. Board writing was definitely good for dd. We did that up through, well a lot of years. Then we went to the 17X20 whiteboards from Board Dudes. If she can't do gross motor comfortably, then I'm back to evals. If you're having to accommodate beyond the normal, like say doing all typing, then it's time for evals. I think it's fine to type, but if you're to that point it's time for evals. (just my overly opinionated two cents!)

 

I don't know, what are you seeing? What are you wanting to do? What problem are you trying to solve?

I am not seeing a problem with DD. I am mad at myself for picking LOE. I picked up the BJU first grade readers and she is on C level, which is about half way through the books. I figure that is not bad since we are not even half way through the school year.

 

I know you love SWR. Maybe after a cooling off period, I will look it over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you need to quit identifying LOE with SWR because students in LOE Foundations don't even spell. LOE Foundations dictates the spelling words to the student and tells them how to mark the words. There are five spelling words per lesson with no mention of an Ayre's list or anything. Foundations decodes through high frequency word lists, readers, and comprehension type sentences that come with the student work. There is no dictation or spelling of the high frequency words either. The student is expected to read the words. LOE Essentials may be an entirely different animal but what I am seeing with LOE Foundations is not like what you are describing with SWR.

 

No doubt SWR is truly magical for some, but I suspect that if I had used SWR I could have never made it work due the heavy emphasis on writing.

Foundations wasn't out yet and was only a blip in her mind when I spent time at the LOE booth to look at LOE a couple years ago.  I think she wrote it that summer and they started the beta in the fall or something.  Yes, LOE Essentials, for an SWR user, (if I'm remembering correctly) was basically like SWR on steroids.  Much more multi-modal, but still word lists, plowing through, one book for a wide level.

 

Her Foundations thing I think she wrote to market to schools, so then she departed from her SWR training and developed this merging of decoding and spelling.  So what you're describing in your LOE Foundations lessons, where you dictate 5 words, mark, and read them back, is EXACTLY what you would do with an SWR lesson for that age.  It sounds like, from what I've seen online and heard you say, that she adds work on decoding.  I think she also uses patterns or word families or something to organize the lists, rather than the frequency approach of SWR/WRTR.  So what she *adds* distinguishes her, yes.  

 

Hold it, she adds high frequency words to the lessons as well?  So they spell through certain lists and decode through others?  I just haven't looked at it in ages.

 

I think Eides (LOE) said she created her own unique frequency word list based on her own research, so it's distinct from Sanseri's (who did her own) and Spalding 4th edition which I think also updated or modified Ayres.  

 

There's no decoding element to SWR at all.  If you want to decode, it wouldn't satisfy you.  The writing isn't really an issue, because you can totally work around it.  CONCEPTUALLY these programs are almost identical.  If you *understand* SWR you can pick up AAS, WRTR, LOE, blah blah, and get going pretty quickly.  You can carry over cards from one to another, manipulatives from one to another.  They have niches and differences, but it's all superficial things.  Like to me, a really COOL reason to use SWR is if you want the dictation sentences in the Wise Guide.  They're TERRIFIC.  So if you realized you really wanted them, that might outweigh say the letter tiles of AAS or the scripting of LOE, and then you'd decide you'd bring over the letter tiles from AAS or that you could live without the scripting.  It's trade-offs.  It's why I said you could use your Wilson techniques you're already familiar with and bring them over to SWR.  But the only reason to do that would be if you really loved the Wise Guide, honestly.  SWR is totally barebones and meant to BECOME what you want it to become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foundations wasn't out yet and was only a blip in her mind when I spent time at the LOE booth to look at LOE a couple years ago.  I think she wrote it that summer and they started the beta in the fall or something.  Yes, LOE Essentials, for an SWR user, (if I'm remembering correctly) was basically like SWR on steroids.  Much more multi-modal, but still word lists, plowing through, one book for a wide level.

 

Her Foundations thing I think she wrote to market to schools, so then she departed from her SWR training and developed this merging of decoding and spelling.  So what you're describing in your LOE Foundations lessons, where you dictate 5 words, mark, and read them back, is EXACTLY what you would do with an SWR lesson for that age.  It sounds like, from what I've seen online and heard you say, that she adds work on decoding.  I think she also uses patterns or word families or something to organize the lists, rather than the frequency approach of SWR/WRTR.  So what she *adds* distinguishes her, yes.  

 

Hold it, she adds high frequency words to the lessons as well?  So they spell through certain lists and decode through others?  I just haven't looked at it in ages.

 

I think Eides (LOE) said she created her own unique frequency word list based on her own research, so it's distinct from Sanseri's (who did her own) and Spalding 4th edition which I think also updated or modified Ayres.  

 

There's no decoding element to SWR at all.  If you want to decode, it wouldn't satisfy you.  The writing isn't really an issue, because you can totally work around it.  CONCEPTUALLY these programs are almost identical.  If you *understand* SWR you can pick up AAS, WRTR, LOE, blah blah, and get going pretty quickly.  You can carry over cards from one to another, manipulatives from one to another.  They have niches and differences, but it's all superficial things.  Like to me, a really COOL reason to use SWR is if you want the dictation sentences in the Wise Guide.  They're TERRIFIC.  So if you realized you really wanted them, that might outweigh say the letter tiles of AAS or the scripting of LOE, and then you'd decide you'd bring over the letter tiles from AAS or that you could live without the scripting.  It's trade-offs.  It's why I said you could use your Wilson techniques you're already familiar with and bring them over to SWR.  But the only reason to do that would be if you really loved the Wise Guide, honestly.  SWR is totally barebones and meant to BECOME what you want it to become.

Thank-you for clarifying.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not seeing a problem with DD. I am mad at myself for picking LOE. I picked up the BJU first grade readers and she is on C level, which is about half way through the books. I figure that is not bad since we are not even half way through the school year.

 

I know you love SWR. Maybe after a cooling off period, I will look it over again.

Aww, why are you mad at yourself over LOE???  There's NO reason to be!!!  You had a huge learning curve to go through, were shell-shocked from a confidence-shaking experience with your ds.  I say LOE *taught* you that you *could* teach your dd, and in that sense it has been GREAT!!  And she's reading, which is GREAT!!!  So now it's just a change.  Making a change is not saying you made the wrong choice.  It's just saying now is time for a different choice.

 

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think about it, the more I think FP's suggestion to you of AAR/AAS is insightful and right on.  It has the scripting you want to feel more comfortable, tiles so you can back off the writing, and it's a well-respected program that you can speed to your heart's content.  That STRUCTURE would make you feel more comfortable.  I did AAS 1-6 with my dd after VT because we were totally burnt out on SWR, and I LOVED how organized AAS is.  For someone who needs structure, scripting, or just plain to lower their stress and know they're getting it done, Rippel really NAILS it.  

 

I don't "love" SWR, lol.  I used a LOT of things trying to help dd over the years.  It's really easy to burn out, and the flexibility of SWR really lends itself to burnout.  If you like the structure of scripted lessons, know yourself!  

 

You know, if you have access to SWR, what you might do is get my Quick & Dirty Guide to SWR from lulu.  It's free.  Download it, read it, throw out every BUT from your mind and replace it with I KNOW HOW TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, and then TRY it for a couple days.  Just try it.  Use every alternative method you think suits your dd (type, whatever), use your Wilson markings if you like them better, and just SEE if what you gain with it (the awesome Wise Guide sentences basically) balances out what you LOSE (scripting, clear structure for review, confidence to know you're doing it right).  

 

Then make your decision and be in peace.  Or decide, you know, I looked at that manual, vomited, and gave it back to the person who loaned it to me!  And be in peace.  You can teach your dd from ANY of those things.  In reality, her pace is HER and not the materials.  You can always double lessons or go faster if she's bored.  

 

I always say get the curriculum that you can actually TEACH, the one that gives you the STRUCTURE THAT YOU NEED in order to be successful.  Just because I was cool with winging it (and have this huge character flaw that I can't follow instructions on a sequential program, haha), doesn't mean you're that way.  I mean, look at me.  I'm looking at 9 levels of Barton and hyperventilating and asking for one cheat book to do it all my own way!  That's my style.  I have to try REALLY HARD to go sequentially and be patient with lots of steps.  AAS/AAR would have been insane for someone like me, lol.  Now watch and it will turn out to be a good fit for ds, lol.  I'm not averse to looking at it, but I know myself.  I have to do all kinds of chicanery like tell myself that the other lessons do not exist and that I'm NOT ALLOWED to look at them.  It's so hard for me to stay in the moment otherwise, lol.

 

Pick the program that gives you the tools you need to succeed.  If you need scripts, get scripts.  Then be at peace.  You have NOT made a mistake.  You are doing GREAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huzzah.  What would happen if you switched from the LOE Foundations leveled books to the Essentials (many levels, one book)?  Would that give you the ability to jump forward more quickly but keep the structure you like?

 

Dunno, just suddenly occurred to me.  Trying to figure out what problem precisely we're solving, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, HWOT for handwriting, Cursive First for cursive (uses a clock, so incredibly visual, spatial, and multi-sensory), and AAR/AAS because they are colorful and scripted. There are also apps to get around the dysgraphia for AAR/AAS. At AAS level 3, we move into typing the dictations exclusively and only writing the lists, so the impact from the dysgraphia is really lessened.

Remind me, just because I'm not being brilliant.  Are you saying AAS has apps or are these other apps?  Maybe a list somewhere?  Pretty please?   :001_wub: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huzzah.  What would happen if you switched from the LOE Foundations leveled books to the Essentials (many levels, one book)?  Would that give you the ability to jump forward more quickly but keep the structure you like?

 

Dunno, just suddenly occurred to me.  Trying to figure out what problem precisely we're solving, lol.

I think I am going to email Eides and request some feedback.  DD is reading books that are recommended in level D. BTW, level D is not available yet.  Since you explained the differences with SWR and Foundations so well, I am tryng to figure out the ultimate direction to take for spelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am going to email Eides and request some feedback.  DD is reading books that are recommended in level D. BTW, level D is not available yet.  Since you explained the differences with SWR and Foundations so well, I am tryng to figure out the ultimate direction to take for spelling.

Ahhh, so you're hoping maybe she has a beta going or something?  That would be nice.  Has she been cranking 'em out, one a year, and you just got ahead of her?  How does she slide over to AAR?  Have you looked at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been an OG tutor for about 15 years. I received my training through a board certified OG fellow. This is what I know to be true about pure OG. It is not a program or a methodology that can be boxed up, packaged and sold, although that is easy and allows wider access to more people. OG is about a highly trained tutor who is able to diagnose and prescribe as much as she needs to, as little as she has to in order to remediate reading and spelling. Each lesson is tailor made for the individual student, depending on strengths and weaknesses. No two lesson plans are alike. Depending on the student, I usually spend 1-2 hours just writing the lesson plan for the next session, and none of it can be done in advance because each new lesson is using diagnostic information from the previous lesson. A good tutor will instinctively pull from many resources in order to achieve results. Yes Barton, WRTR, SWR and LOE are OG based and can do wonders for many children, but they are only as good as the mom or tutor who are implementing them and tweaking them to fit the individual needs of the student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh, so you're hoping maybe she has a beta going or something?  That would be nice.  Has she been cranking 'em out, one a year, and you just got ahead of her?  How does she slide over to AAR?  Have you looked at it?

I have not looked at AAR yet.  

 

Foundations feels like it goes half the way and does nothing 100%.  So there is decoding,,,There is not enough practice...So there is 5 words per lesson of dictated spelling.  I still don't feel like that is enough practice.  

 

Level D should be out by the end of 2014.  When we started, Level A and B were both available.  

 

Correction:  I just went the LOE forum and there is an early release version of D that is available by request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So every week you're doing 4-5 lessons?  4 lessons and a review day?  Now every program is different (and remember we were NOT decoding), but with SWR in 1st I think we were pushing 30 words a week.  We did 10-20 a week in K5 and went up to 30-40 the following year.  40 is considered a pretty standard amount in SWR.  Sanseri's theory is brisk pace to help the student get the big picture.  This is for a non-dyslexic student obviously, whew!  

 

I'm just agreeing that your gut could be telling you'd she'd benefit from whatever it is you're wanting. LISTEN TO YOUR GUT.  YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SEEING.  There's definitely more than one way to do it, and part of it (I keep harping about this) is the potential and ability of the student.  If she has the ABILITY to go deeper, apply harder, cover faster, whatever, then dragging along waiting for LOE might not cut it and might leave you dissatisfied.  

 

If you went to AAR (which I obviously haven't used), you'd at least have all the levels and the ability to pick up the pace.  Rippel (of AAS/AAR) is NOTHING if not thorough.  She's really impressive with how organized and thorough she is.  I'd be interested to hear what you think if you check it out.  You could give her a buzz and figure out placement.  I think she has some money back guarantees, so you could just *try* it or try it and compare.  

 

Just think it might be frustrating if you have to then wait ANOTHER year for LOE E.  If you're planning to pick up the pace, that won't work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Elizabeth- my suggestion is for you to bring LIPS into everything you teach. If you have seen such success with it then you need to continue filtering all future reading and spelling concepts through that powerful ear-brain connection. You've already done the hard work of wiring the brain to create files with labels for all vowel and consonant sounds. Now, with whatever program you use, you need to "add to the pre-set files". Does that make any sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been an OG tutor for about 15 years. I received my training through a board certified OG fellow. This is what I know to be true about pure OG. It is not a program or a methodology that can be boxed up, packaged and sold, although that is easy and allows wider access to more people. OG is about a highly trained tutor who is able to diagnose and prescribe as much as she needs to, as little as she has to in order to remediate reading and spelling. Each lesson is tailor made for the individual student, depending on strengths and weaknesses. No two lesson plans are alike. Depending on the student, I usually spend 1-2 hours just writing the lesson plan for the next session, and none of it can be done in advance because each new lesson is using diagnostic information from the previous lesson. A good tutor will instinctively pull from many resources in order to achieve results. Yes Barton, WRTR, SWR and LOE are OG based and can do wonders for many children, but they are only as good as the mom or tutor who are implementing them and tweaking them to fit the individual needs of the student.

Agree wholeheartedly.  100%.  I wish every single child with dyslexia was able to have that type of very carefully constructed, targeted instruction.

 

But I am so grateful that something as scripted as Barton exists because where I live there has not been a single tutor or teacher that had any real clue how to help my kids, even the two women who were private tutor "dyslexia specialists" or the specialists through the school system.  The tutoring my kids received was a dismal failure and terribly demoralizing and made them very resistant to additional targeted instruction.  

 

Having something scripted enough that a layman like me could implement it was a gift.  I am so grateful.  And as I have progressed in the program and done additional research and read many posts on this and other boards my understanding and ability to implement techniques that are not strictly tied to Barton has increased.   And my children started to turn around reading and spelling almost immediately after we started the program, unlike anything that had been tried prior.   Would my kids have progressed faster and moved more effectively through the process of learning to read and spell with a highly trained tutor such as you describe?  Probably.  I would have loved for them to have that kind of help.  I tried hard to get them that kind of help.  It didn't work, so I had to find another path.

 

Barton and other programs like it may not be perfect, but there is something to be said for being able to implement an OG based program at home instead of always relying on outside tutoring.  Being able to work in smaller segments 5-6 days a week has really been of great benefit, for one thing.  Just 1 hour twice a week historically was not very effective but part of that was almost certainly the tutor/program being used, as well.  I feel much better working through a program with them myself now.  I KNOW where the kids are struggling and I KNOW when we need to slow down or repeat.  And we can spend every single day of the week working if we need to without it completely destroying my family financially or being impossible to do since the tutor is not available.  I also own the material so I can repeat lessons any time I wish.  After all the bad advice, inaccurate information and overall tutoring failures, I trust my judgement more than the "experts" we tried over and over to hire to help the kids.  I would be more than willing to revisit the idea of someone else stepping in at some point, but I will never again just blindly trust that the "experts" actually know what they are doing.  They will need to prove to me that their knowledge and experience and ability, and the techniques they are using, are better than the options I currently have available at home.  

 

If I had a tutor available that could implement a plan such as you describe, I think I probably would go ahead and try it, depending on cost.  When having a tutor such as you describe is not an option, either because they aren't available in the area a person lives, or the cost of that option is just too high (and yes Barton is also expensive but I was spending far more on tutoring than I will have on Barton), something like Barton gives parents a fighting chance to help their kids.

 

Best wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Elizabeth- my suggestion is for you to bring LIPS into everything you teach. If you have seen such success with it then you need to continue filtering all future reading and spelling concepts through that powerful ear-brain connection. You've already done the hard work of wiring the brain to create files with labels for all vowel and consonant sounds. Now, with whatever program you use, you need to "add to the pre-set files". Does that make any sense?

YES, YES, YES!!!  This is what I'm really getting concerned about!!  So you're saying KEEP using the LIPS faces all the way through and don't ditch them because they're ORGANIZING the sounds in his brain?  That is a BRILLIANT take, thank you!!  Yes, you're right.  That is literally what it seems like is happening.  

 

It's his apraxia.  With LIPS I can take the speech therapy sensory input prompts (touching the muscles on his face) and connect them to the pictures.  So he feels it, analyzes it, and then can connect it to letters.  His working memory is low, but he GETS the code when we connect it this way.  

 

So what I'm finding is that now that we have more mouth faces (we started vertical path in LIPS and are adding a few each week), it's very challenging for him to do the Barton skills (break-replace-remove, identify the change, etc.) with square tiles.  We're doing that with the LIPS faces, and that he can do with difficulty.  To do all that processing AND remember the sounds AND remember where they were under the blank colored tiles (as opposed to mouth faces) is just basically impossible for him right now.  So I'm ASSUMING if we perservere with the LIPS faces, doing those skills, eventually it will get easier, maybe by the end of the week?, and he'll be able to transfer over to the colored squares.  That's the next magic step I'm looking for.

 

Wow, I'm just thinking through this.  So the mouth pictures organize it in his brain.  I'm thinking through all the consequences of that and how you could carry it through.  It's really cool, so then when you have the frequency rules Sandy talked about, out come the mouth pictures.  You could literally keep going with them, forming the words with mouths and going through the rules. Thank you!!

 

So here's my question.  We know he's not typical in that sense and that I'm having to add and bring up this stuff to support his need to use his speech and motor planning to get it all to connect.  Is there are particular variant of OG I should be looking for that makes it easier to do that?  I guess what I anticipate is using Barton but thinking through how I need to do each lesson step to make it work for us.  It doesn't sound like LIPS use is going to fade.  Is there a program I'm not realizing that makes it easier to do that?  I'm a crazy theoretical person, but I've also started to value my LIFE lately, lol.  Sometimes I think I could go either way, lol.  I'm finding it really easy to outline the skills in Barton 1 and bring them down to LIPS.  It just makes sense to me, doesn't scare me at all.  (I'm a pretty confident teacher.)  Is there something I could do that would make that process easier/better/more efficient? Anything you've come across that actually addresses the instruction of kids with apraxia and dyslexia?

 

Definitely thank you for your advice and comment.  I really appreciate the validation.  Our psych was a bit of a dork about things, harping on how parents shouldn't tutor, blah blah, and it really rattled me.  I've had to suck up, get back to me YOU CAN DO THIS, and get it going.  He wants to see us back in the spring to retest, so I've got this accountability point.  I'm not letting it rattle me as far as pressure for results, but I do think he means show EFFORT, consistency, diligence.  So it's sorta like Aslan in Narnia "All that can be done, shall be done."  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... because where I live there has not been a single tutor or teacher that had any real clue how to help my kids, even the two women who were private tutor "dyslexia specialists" or the specialists through the school system.  The tutoring my kids received was a dismal failure and terribly demoralizing and made them very resistant to additional targeted instruction.  

THIS.  I honestly don't see how a tutor of any variant (Barton, Wilson, OG Fellow, whatever) who doesn't ALSO get his speech therapy methodology (PROMPT, something that requires extensive training) could POSSIBLY connect to him the way I am.  It wouldn't matter how much I paid.  Even LIPS alone isn't doing it.  It's LIPS *plus* PROMPT together that gets this synergy.  

 

And yes, I'm very open to that suggestion that better training in the methodology would help me work with him more efficiently or effectively.  I also have this small problem of valuing sleep, lol.  My compromise at the moment is to outline Barton.  She seems very attentive to details, and ds seems to do best with very careful attention to details, where every step is very carefully thought out so nothing is ever more than he is ready to make for that next step.  ONE little step that is too much, and he melts.  He tries so hard, but he just melts.  Like yesterday, I tried going to the colored squares with him, and he just COULDN'T.  I think that's also why Ronit Bird math works for him, because everything has little conceptual steps that build, the next step always being doable if you nailed the prior step.  It might not be as fast as another methodology could have gotten him there, but those steps seem to create a dynamic that works for him, sort of "errorless learning" as Lecka described it.  That seems to work REALLY WELL for him.  I'm not honestly sure I could recreate it so well without terrific loss of sleep, lol.  

 

Don't pay much attention to me, lol.  I think I'm just talking things through.  That psych really rattled me.  I think I need to do some mental EFT or draw a picture and put stickers on his face or something, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So every week you're doing 4-5 lessons?  4 lessons and a review day?  Now every program is different (and remember we were NOT decoding), but with SWR in 1st I think we were pushing 30 words a week.  We did 10-20 a week in K5 and went up to 30-40 the following year.  40 is considered a pretty standard amount in SWR.  Sanseri's theory is brisk pace to help the student get the big picture.  This is for a non-dyslexic student obviously, whew!  

 

I'm just agreeing that your gut could be telling you'd she'd benefit from whatever it is you're wanting. LISTEN TO YOUR GUT.  YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SEEING.  There's definitely more than one way to do it, and part of it (I keep harping about this) is the potential and ability of the student.  If she has the ABILITY to go deeper, apply harder, cover faster, whatever, then dragging along waiting for LOE might not cut it and might leave you dissatisfied.  

 

If you went to AAR (which I obviously haven't used), you'd at least have all the levels and the ability to pick up the pace.  Rippel (of AAS/AAR) is NOTHING if not thorough.  She's really impressive with how organized and thorough she is.  I'd be interested to hear what you think if you check it out.  You could give her a buzz and figure out placement.  I think she has some money back guarantees, so you could just *try* it or try it and compare.  

 

Just think it might be frustrating if you have to then wait ANOTHER year for LOE E.  If you're planning to pick up the pace, that won't work...

We only go through two lessons per week.  I believe the pattern is five lessons and then review.  

 

You asked earlier about the high frequency word lists and dictation.  The five word dictation exercises include words from the high freq lists and words within the workbook exercises.  The high frequency word lists contain about 15-18 words.  

 

I guess I am digging in.  I'm definitely hiking up my big girl panties...I realize that most of my issues are things that can be remedied.  So here is the plan.  Email and solicit input from LOE's creator.  I need to start reading the LOE forum.  I am going to add to the dictation exercises from the high freq list.  I feel better when DD reads from books and practices what she knows, so DD will keep reading/decoding.  I will go ahead and explore the Wise guide and the dictation sentences that you keep mentioning.  

 

I need to add more work gently and test whether DD can handle additional pencil work.  I keep reflecting back to when we began reading and harping on the fine motor.  The fine motor circumstance has changed considerably during the last four months.  DD is also in the early stages of KWT.  I'm going to review AAR/AAS and look at all the handwriting recs.

 

Thank-you everyone.  Blessings, h

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, people are amazed that he LIKES school.  I mean, think about that gift, to be dyslexic and have apraxia and this and that, and LIKE school!!  It's the gift I don't want to take away.  But I think the reason we've had so much success is that "errorless learning" thing Lecka talks about, that it's always itsy bitsy, TEENY TINY steps that you KNOW he can do.  And he makes huge mental leaps on the side.  But every step is SO small, so intentional.  It seems to be huge for him.  

 

I love the little steps that leave him AWESOME.  He has nothing to compare himself to, so he doesn't know when he gets head bumps and high 5s for these tiny steps that he's behind/remedial/slow.  To him he's just getting praised, successful, working hard, and getting rewarded.  I don't know, it warms my heart.  I love working with him.  

 

One thing I'm concerned about is that Barton's levels actually seem to be insensitive to that dynamic and are willing to have a student stay a long time at one level, working over and over, struggling.  I need those steps so minute he doesn't realize he's struggling. I could be misperceiving Barton dramatically and clearly I have no called to talk with her about it yet.  She would probably have advice.  I'm just saying to me that potential is there when you're using a scripted program instead of starting from a conceptual base and creating your own lessons.  The script seems WILLING to have a suck it up buttercup approach, and that's not good for him. Might be for some child, but not very my socially delayed, super bright, child.  Inside he's more like a 4 1/2-5 yo, NOT a 6 yo.  But super, super bright and even with a good processing speed (75th percentile, wow!!!).  That's probably why I have to handle him so delicately, because of the social delay/immaturity.  There IS NO suck it up buttercup ability to harness, not right now.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree wholeheartedly.  100%.  I wish every single child with dyslexia was able to have that type of very carefully constructed, targeted instruction.

 

But I am so grateful that something as scripted as Barton exists because where I live there has not been a single tutor or teacher that had any real clue how to help my kids, even the two women who were private tutor "dyslexia specialists" or the specialists through the school system.  The tutoring my kids received was a dismal failure and terribly demoralizing and made them very resistant to additional targeted instruction.  

 

Having something scripted enough that a layman like me could implement was a gift.  I am so grateful.  And as I have progressed in the program and done additional research and read many posts on this and other boards my understanding and ability to implement techniques that are not strictly tied to Barton has increased.   And my children started to turn around reading and spelling almost immediately after we started the program, unlike anything that had been tried prior.   Would my kids have progressed faster and moved more effectively through the process of learning to read and spell with a highly trained tutor such as you describe?  Probably.  I would have loved for them to have that kind of help.  I tried hard to get them that kind of help.  It didn't work, so I had to find another path.

 

Barton and other programs like it may not be perfect, but there is something to be said for being able to implement an OG based program at home instead of always relying on outside tutoring.  Being able to work in smaller segments 5-6 days a week has really been of great benefit, for one thing.  Just 1 hour twice a week historically was not very effective but part of that was almost certainly the tutor/program being used, as well.  I feel much better working through a program with them myself now.  I KNOW where the kids are struggling and I KNOW when we need to slow down or repeat.  And we can spend every single day of the week working if we need to without it completely destroying my family financially or being impossible to do since the tutor is not available.  I also own the material so I can repeat lessons any time I wish.  After all the bad advice, inaccurate information and overall tutoring failures, I trust my judgement more than the "experts" we tried over and over to hire to help the kids.  I would be more than willing to revisit the idea of someone else stepping in at some point, but I will never again just blindly trust that the "experts" actually know what they are doing.  They will need to prove to me that their knowledge and experience and ability, and the techniques they are using are better than the options I currently have available at home.  

 

If I had a tutor available that could implement a plan such as you describe, I think I probably would go ahead and try it, depending on cost.  When having a tutor such as you describe is not an option, either because they aren't available in the area a person lives, or the cost of that option is just too high (and yes Barton is also expensive but I was spending far more on tutoring than I will have on Barton), something like Barton gives parents a fighting chance to help their kids.

 

Best wishes.

I am happy for Barton too.  I see many local families in limbo because they cannot afford Wilson and don't know about Barton or understand the importance of intervention.  Up until I came to the boards, Wilson was my only option.  What has not been mentioned is the hugely emotional aspect of working with your own child.  

 

Have a great day all!  I have got to get started this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We only go through two lessons per week.  I believe the pattern is five lessons and then review.  

 

You asked earlier about the high frequency word lists and dictation.  The five word dictation exercises include words from the high freq lists and words within the workbook exercises.  The high frequency word lists contain about 15-18 words.  

 

I guess I am digging in.  I'm definitely hiking up my big girl panties...I realize that most of my issues are things that can be remedied.  So here is the plan.  Email and solicit input from LOE's creator.  I need to start reading the LOE forum.  I am going to add to the dictation exercises from the high freq list.  I feel better when DD reads from books and practices what she knows, so DD will keep reading/decoding.  I will go ahead and explore the Wise guide and the dictation sentences that you keep mentioning.  

 

I need to add more work gently and test whether DD can handle additional pencil work.  I keep reflecting back to when we began reading and harping on the fine motor.  The fine motor circumstance has changed considerably during the last four months.  DD is also in the early stages of KWT.  I'm going to review AAR/AAS and look at all the handwriting recs.

 

Thank-you everyone.  Blessings, h

This sounds great!! Yup, boots on, big girl panties, suck it up!!  I LOVE your inspiration on how to problem solve with LOE!!!  You're right that you could go back and dictate any/all of the words from those frequency lists, absolutely!!  You could also start at the beginning (A1) with the Wise Guide and plunge right in.  If you do this, do it on the alternate days for your LOE lesson introductions.  That will make it more like challenging application.  For my dd, dictation was really good at improving mastery.  

 

What you might do is try say 3 sentences from the Wise Guide (not too much, not too little) and do them gross motor, on a whiteboard or chalkboard.  Nothing says ALL her writing has to be fine motor, even if things are improving.  Or type.  Or make it SUPER COOL and attach her ipad/laptop/whatever to the tv and use a super cool font like big purple and do the sentences for dictation that way!  That would be super fun, because she'd feel them (typing), see them, read them.  And it's a fuzz of VT exercises for bonus, because she's looking at her screen close and then reading them the 2nd time on the tv screen.  We homeschool in the basement where the big tv is, so that would work for us.  She'd read them twice that way, getting in more practice.

 

One of Sanseri's key concepts is it's NOT about the level of words you're dictating but about how well it has gone into their brain.  So when you dig in on those frequency lists and APPLY those LOE rules over and over (to the frequency lists, to the Wise Guide lists), you're GOING to move her reading and spelling forward, even beyond the level of the words she's spelling.  Seriously.  I saw this over and over.  It's about a simple thing well done.

 

So yes, I LOVE your solution!!!!  Go for it!!!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS.  I honestly don't see how a tutor of any variant (Barton, Wilson, OG Fellow, whatever) who doesn't ALSO get his speech therapy methodology (PROMPT, something that requires extensive training) could POSSIBLY connect to him the way I am.  It wouldn't matter how much I paid.  Even LIPS alone isn't doing it.  It's LIPS *plus* PROMPT together that gets this synergy.  

 

And yes, I'm very open to that suggestion that better training in the methodology would help me work with him more efficiently or effectively.  I also have this small problem of valuing sleep, lol.  My compromise at the moment is to outline Barton.  She seems very attentive to details, and ds seems to do best with very careful attention to details, where every step is very carefully thought out so nothing is ever more than he is ready to make for that next step.  ONE little step that is too much, and he melts.  He tries so hard, but he just melts.  Like yesterday, I tried going to the colored squares with him, and he just COULDN'T.  I think that's also why Ronit Bird math works for him, because everything has little conceptual steps that build, the next step always being doable if you nailed the prior step.  It might not be as fast as another methodology could have gotten him there, but those steps seem to create a dynamic that works for him, sort of "errorless learning" as Lecka described it.  That seems to work REALLY WELL for him.  I'm not honestly sure I could recreate it so well without terrific loss of sleep, lol.  

 

Don't pay much attention to me, lol.  I think I'm just talking things through.  That psych really rattled me.  I think I need to do some mental EFT or draw a picture and put stickers on his face or something, lol.

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

We only go through two lessons per week.  I believe the pattern is five lessons and then review.  

 

You asked earlier about the high frequency word lists and dictation.  The five word dictation exercises include words from the high freq lists and words within the workbook exercises.  The high frequency word lists contain about 15-18 words.  

 

I guess I am digging in.  I'm definitely hiking up my big girl panties...I realize that most of my issues are things that can be remedied.  So here is the plan.  Email and solicit input from LOE's creator.  I need to start reading the LOE forum.  I am going to add to the dictation exercises from the high freq list.  I feel better when DD reads from books and practices what she knows, so DD will keep reading/decoding.  I will go ahead and explore the Wise guide and the dictation sentences that you keep mentioning.  

 

I need to add more work gently and test whether DD can handle additional pencil work.  I keep reflecting back to when we began reading and harping on the fine motor.  The fine motor circumstance has changed considerably during the last four months.  DD is also in the early stages of KWT.  I'm going to review AAR/AAS and look at all the handwriting recs.

 

Thank-you everyone.  Blessings, h

Good luck and best wishes.  You are an awesome mom.

 

 

Btw, people are amazed that he LIKES school.  I mean, think about that gift, to be dyslexic and have apraxia and this and that, and LIKE school!!  It's the gift I don't want to take away.  But I think the reason we've had so much success is that "errorless learning" thing Lecka talks about, that it's always itsy bitsy, TEENY TINY steps that you KNOW he can do.  And he makes huge mental leaps on the side.  But every step is SO small, so intentional.  It seems to be huge for him.  

 

I love the little steps that leave him AWESOME.  He has nothing to compare himself to, so he doesn't know when he gets head bumps and high 5s for these tiny steps that he's behind/remedial/slow.  To him he's just getting praised, successful, working hard, and getting rewarded.  I don't know, it warms my heart.  I love working with him.  

 

One thing I'm concerned about is that Barton's levels actually seem to be insensitive to that dynamic and are willing to have a student stay a long time at one level, working over and over, struggling.  I need those steps so minute he doesn't realize he's struggling. I could be misperceiving Barton dramatically and clearly I have no called to talk with her about it yet.  She would probably have advice.  I'm just saying to me that potential is there when you're using a scripted program instead of starting from a conceptual base and creating your own lessons.  The script seems WILLING to have a suck it up buttercup approach, and that's not good for him. Might be for some child, but not very my socially delayed, super bright, child.  Inside he's more like a 4 1/2-5 yo, NOT a 6 yo.  But super, super bright and even with a good processing speed (75th percentile, wow!!!).  That's probably why I have to handle him so delicately, because of the social delay/immaturity.  There IS NO suck it up buttercup ability to harness, not right now.

 

This part is a "yes" and "no" for me.  If you implement the program the way it was intended, and the program is a good fit for your child (no underlying additional issues that cause this to be a poor fit) then you can easily take each part very slowly, as slowly as the child needs, and when there is need for repetition and review extra words and lessons are built in so you can just smoothly move back through the material without the child knowing they are repeating a lesson.  There can be lots of tiny successes.  We certainly have had that here.  But DS has additional underlying issues that are causing him to trip up.  He needed to stay with LiPS longer and with more depth.

 

if you do like many parents do and just keep marching forward checking off boxes without confirming mastery and retention then you run into struggles later on and have to go back.  At that point it is probably obvious to the child that they are repeating and that they are struggling.  Or you do what I did, which is also a colossal mistake, and that was to stop consistent lessons for an extended period of time.  Which meant we had to go back and review before moving forward again (like the pattern in ps school of having to review at the beginning of each school year because of all that is lost over the summer only with dyslexics that is even more of an issue).  The kids know they are having to review, but at least I can blame it on our goofed up schedule this summer, not their difficulties with Level 4.  

 

FWIW, having already done over half of Level 4 then going back and reviewing Level 3 again before beginning Level 4 a second time has actually helped DD to move more smoothly through Level 4 this time around.  She seems to have needed the extra time to let the material sort of percolate through her brain.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Btw, people are amazed that he LIKES school.  I mean, think about that gift, to be dyslexic and have apraxia and this and that, and LIKE school!!  It's the gift I don't want to take away.  But I think the reason we've had so much success is that "errorless learning" thing Lecka talks about, that it's always itsy bitsy, TEENY TINY steps that you KNOW he can do.  And he makes huge mental leaps on the side.  But every step is SO small, so intentional.  It seems to be huge for him.  

 

I love the little steps that leave him AWESOME.  He has nothing to compare himself to, so he doesn't know when he gets head bumps and high 5s for these tiny steps that he's behind/remedial/slow.  To him he's just getting praised, successful, working hard, and getting rewarded.  I don't know, it warms my heart.  I love working with him.  

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

 

DS has so many emotional scars because he went from being utterly confident that no matter how hard the material he could find a way through to being utterly dejected and convinced he is incapable in just a matter of months.  I applaud you for recognizing how crucial your child's confidence and belief in self are.  I just really, really wish DS's teacher and his own father had valued those things above checking off boxes and "keeping up" with the other kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I am curious about Barton.  How do you check for mastery?  Is there a test or some sort of timed reading with a ratio invoved?

 

OhE, it would appear that I will have to use the A1 list you mentioned because I loaned out Level A to a friend a couple months back.  Crud...DH took my car to the body shop this AM.  I never removed the materials from the car.  UGHH..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

 

DS has so many emotional scars because he went from being utterly confident that no matter how hard the material he could find a way through to being utterly dejected and convinced he is incapable in just a matter of months.  I applaud you for recognizing how crucial your child's confidence and belief in self are.  I just really, really wish DS's teacher and his own father had valued those things above checking off boxes and "keeping up" with the other kids.

And it's really easy for me to talk big, when we aren't doing stuff like standardized testing yet.  I'm sure that will create mental pressure whether we WANT it to or not.  :(  But stories like yours bolster me up and make me determined!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I am curious about Barton.  How do you check for mastery?  I there a test or some sort of timed reading with a ratio invoved.

 

OhE, it would appear that I will have to use the A1 list you mentioned because I loaned out Level A to a friend a couple months back.  Crud...DH took my car to the body shop this AM.  I never removed the materials from the car.  UGHH..

:lol:    Isn't that just the way it always is?   :laugh:  You'll survive.  She won't die waiting another day, lol.  Can he stop by the shop and get it out of the trunk on his way home?  

 

Yes, starting at A1 will be awesome.  Use the methodology you're already familiar with and comfortable with (LOE plus Wilson) and don't give anything worrrywart from SWR even a 2nd thought.

 

Only one brilliant thing to add.  IF she is decoding those high frequency words and doesn't have them automatic, then after you do them via dictation get them onto quizlet and start drilling them.  Anything high frequency that she has encoded, worked through, and fully understands, needs to go on cards to get drilled for automaticity.  

 

You're doing great!!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I am curious about Barton.  How do you check for mastery?  Is there a test or some sort of timed reading with a ratio invoved?

 

OhE, it would appear that I will have to use the A1 list you mentioned because I loaned out Level A to a friend a couple months back.  Crud...DH took my car to the body shop this AM.  I never removed the materials from the car.  UGHH..

Have to respond later but hugs for the missing material....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even using scripted programs, it is easy to present things so that it is not so obvious "here we are, still on these two pages."  It may take being intentional.

 

This is part of why I like doing different, short things.  The things are not all presented as "here we go, making our way through the workbook."  It is a lot of different activities, that are not "page 1, page 2, page 3."  So there is not that vibe of "when will we get to page 10, when we get to page 10 we are done with this part, or supposed to be done with it."  It is easy to have some things be with different materials and not the workbook.  It is easy to copy a page from the workbook and just have that page out for a while, it is presented differently when it is one page, there is not the sense of "we should be turning this page and moving on." 

 

I can be a fan of scripted materials, and still expect to adapt my use and presentation. 

 

I think the motivation side is so important, and the success cycle -- where when things are going well, you feel confident. 

 

I think it is also very possible, to take a really smart kid and make him/her feel like a dummy just by asking them a lot of questions they do not know the answers for, or by not liking their answer even if it is a valid answer.  It is possible to do at any level. 

 

I think my son's ABA therapist does errorless learning in a really good way, it is part of DTT (discrete trial teaching) and it is a main part of ABA.  But not everyone even does DTT the same way.  There are people doing DTT who disagree with errorless learning, who are going "no, no, no, no, no, no" to kids.  But my understanding is that it came about from trying to teach kids who take a huge number of repetitions to learn very basic things, so that there is a huge risk of them becoming discouraged and giving up, and also a huge risk of them not understanding what it is that they are supposed to be doing.  I think a lot of things it sounds like you want to keep in your things, are DTT kinds of things.  But -- the main thing is to watch the child and follow the child's lead.  If the child has a good attitude, then you know things are going well.  If the child is starting to not have a good attitude, then you need to make a change.  The change can be in teaching technique, pacing, reinforcement, amount of review, curriculum, etc, but you just keep trying until the child has a good attitude again.  I really like it.  But you always adapt to the child.  But -- the therapist may not be an expert in every thing the child needs to learn, so scripted lessons can still be a blessing. 

 

Overall I think there are some generally good practices, but they are always meant to be individualized to the child, they are not just "let's do this program" and expect it to work. 

 

I do not think Barton is that way, and I do not think Reading Mastery is that way, even though they are scripted.  Someone can choose to not adapt them, but I do NOT think that there is an implicit expectation that you WILL not adapt them or will not NEED to adapt them.  Reading Mastery has a built-in way of adapting for groups, they say to put the kids in new groups so that they can always be at just the right level ---- and it is known as about the most heavily scripted program out there (my understanding).  It is heavily scripted, but still has a built-in way to individualize to the child's level.  But I am glad my son is not doing it that way -- he still needs one-on-one just to really focus when something is hard for him, it is easy for him to get distracted (this is my younger son).  And he is not really doing it now and did not get really far in it, but I think he is going to be starting it again soon, and I do think it looks good for him.  But it will be heavily adapted, even though it will also be done following the script and hand gestures.  B/c if you see someone getting lost -- why would you just keep going?  If you know someone does not remember something even though they may have passed the program's internal progress check yesterday, why would you keep going?  If you can see (from data collection for someone really doing hardcore ABA or with a child where it is hard to keep track of their patterns) that there are consistent patterns of difficulty in one area, and ease in another area, why would you not adjust your instruction, even while still using the scripts and hand gestures?  

 

It does not make any sense not to, and it is all over the manual for RM to do this but to do it by adjusting the ability groups when there are not enough teachers to do it one-on-one.  Which -- I don't think is ideal, but it is implicit in the program, too, that not every child will progress through it in lockstep.

 

My older son is also, maybe, prone to despairing if he sees a big workbook.  He can think "it is too much."  But it is so easy to break things down into a smaller set and then be all "yay, we finished that part!"  That is included in a lot of programs, but it is easy to do, too.  Just copy the pages out of the big book, and call it the unit, or whatever, so that finishing the unit will seem like a big deal.  Or copy half the unit.  Or barely even have the child dealing with the directly copied pages, and doing more of the activities, so they are not even really deeply involved with the program which is functioning more as a teachers manual than as a workbook for the child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...