Christophe Grandsire scripsit: > You are the one who claimed top-down methods were the best to teach everyone > spelling. Not at all! I claimed they were a workable method of teaching writing, at least when properly applied, and I certainly never meant anything I said (except for the remarks about Friere) to extend past English/U.S. > Your only argument in favour of the top-down method, that it works with adults, > is already weakened by the fact that it's proven that children and adults have > completely different approaches to learning, "Different" is not "completely different". My real argument is against over-generalizing, not for or against any specific result. I am not against rote learning for children, nor against systematic teaching of particular points. I do think that people, children or adults, learn better when the subject-matter is connected to their concerns. > Do you have any interest in raising the level of illiteracy among > American children? Certainly not. Illiteracy is a huge social cost. For example, it prevents one from enjoying such .sigs as the one attached to this message. -- Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far John Cowan coast and she with grameful sigh him answered that www.ccil.org/~cowan O'Hare Doctor in heaven was. Sad was the man that word www.reutershealth.com to hear that him so heavied in bowels ruthful. All [log in to unmask] she there told him, ruing death for friend so young, algate sore unwilling God's rightwiseness to withsay. _Ulysses_, "Oxen"