I am having trouble making sense of this statement. First what is the difference between "directly taught" and "arranged for". Is there a meaningful purpose for such a distinction.
When I think of "arranged for", what comes to mind are having books around that may or may not be utilzed or utilized in way in which reading is accessible to some and not others.
I would strongly resist an argument that a teacher's labor of "arranging for" is some way not "directly teaching".
I had never thought of the issue from this angle before. Thanks for helping
me make the connection back to our argument that the acquistion of reading
is a creative process which cannot be directly taught, but can be
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT