Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3B0jhU17402; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <ab.2bb85a1a.2bc76983@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: MWPotts2001@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:1489] Re: Boston Globe Online / Metro | Region / US fares well in world reading X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 705 Lines: 21 In a message dated 4/10/03 8:09:25 PM, DJRosen@theworld.com writes: << In every country, schools view teaching their students how to read as their highest priority. Hours spent teaching literacy are not directly related to success, according to the study." >> I feel like Alice in wonderland. Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser. I was unable to access the article, but I'm wondering if the word HOURS is the key to my confusion. Can it be that success is related more directly to quality intentional or purposeful literacy instruction than it is to the length of time spent on teaching literacy? If not, I think I was left behind. Meta Potts FOCUS on Literacy Glen Allen, VA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:16:45 EST