Talk:Spalding Method

NPOV dispute
I am disputing the neutrality of this article due to some biased text (emphasis mine): Newyorkcityjay (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Students embrace quality literature and reading comprehension is facilitated by
 * students are taught the proper way (several instances of proper when relating to handwriting
 * The Spalding Method is ideal for teaching students

I was actually taught by Mrs. Spalding and I love her method. However, I can see the NPOV dispute. I agree with the article as it is written, but I do not have a neutral point of view. I am biased in favor of the method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.132.8 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the Spalding Method in action and that seems true to me, could you please tell me if you've seen it or not? Tails5 (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was taught with the Spalding method. I hated it. Literally more boring than watching grass grow (I do botany at uni so I really do mean that). The people who got the highest marks in English came to my school at the beginning of high school (Spalding was only used in primary school). It also had bad effects on my friend's accents. In retrospect I think could have been useful as a special education regime for people with learning disabilities or students with English as their second language, but was ineffective among normal, healthy students. I agree with Newyorkcityjay that this article is biased. (Of course, if I were to fix the article myself I would probably bias it the other way and the problem wouldn't be solved) Hypershock (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some more opinions on the matter as I was taught with the Spalding Method, and I had no learning disabilities, and I found it very good. Perhaps it just depends on the person. (Also, I think I've heard it's most effective with boys because boys want to know how the language works) Tails5 (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion as a teacher (have taught both regular ed and special ed), the Spalding method is very effective but only if taught correctly. Many teachers are not aware of how to properly administer it. Other teachers are forced to use this method and (in what I've seen) have a negative opinion. This is often reflected in their lessons thus making the method less effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.52.2 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a homeschooling mother of 4 boys. I have been homeschooling for 13yrs, my oldest is 17yrs old and my youngest is 7yrs old.

I have used different methods of reading, and studied many hours on different approaches since my 3rd son has some dyslexia. The Spalding method is an excellent method for those students that learn better by the immersion process. The Spalding method allows a person to roam within the sphere of the English language and provides all the opportunities to use all of the students senses so that optimum learning occurs. I think all children would learn well with Spalding method as long as it is applied at a speed and depth that challenges the student. Any program that causes a child to sit in "no man's land" for long periods of time causes the child to lose interest. But especially, Spalding works very well for students who think three dimensionally.

As for the statement of reading good literature, that totally depends on whether the implementer is using the suggested reading or whether they have chosen their own books.

For the statement that Spalding teaches proper writing methods......depends on who you speak to as to what is proper! Who dictates what is proper?

Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.178.39 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP... I have attempted to increase the neutrality of this article in the hopes of resolving the dispute. I do not, however, know how to remove the message once "someone" decides that the neutrality requirements have been met. I have also cited sources in the references section. Since I'm new at this, I sure would appreciate any direction at this point. Thanks! Matclaama (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)