I found this bit of news all over my regular reads this morning. Tiffany, Joanne Jacobs and Kimberly Swygert are all over it.

It seems that red is losing favor as the ink to use when correcting papers. It's too authoritarian and bold. It intimidates kids and could even harm their self esteem. Purple is soft and comforting and it is much better for their little psyches.

"If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening," said Sharon Carlson, a health and physical education teacher at John F. Kennedy Middle School in Northampton. "Purple stands out, but it doesn't look as scary as red."

...

A mix of red and blue, the color purple embodies red's sense of authority but also blue's association with serenity, making it a less negative and more constructive color for correcting student papers, color psychologists said. Purple calls attention to itself without being too aggressive. And because the color is linked to creativity and royalty, it is also more encouraging to students.

...

"I do not use red," said Robin Slipakoff, who teaches second and third grades at Mirror Lake Elementary School in Plantation, Fla. "Red has a negative connotation, and we want to promote self-confidence. I like purple. I use purple a lot."

Tiffany asks what Lovely Wife and I, as homeschoolers, feel about the red/purple issue. Well, Tiffany it's like this: We've found that it's best not to correct at all. Pointing out that a child has made an error can be very damaging to their self esteem. We review things with the child and for the correct answers we give positive feedback like "Yay! You got that one right!" For the ones that are not 'traditionally correct' we will say something like "Oh, wow! That is certainly an exciting alternative!" Using this method we can quickly build up our boys' self esteem without exposing them to damaging concepts like "being wrong".

Um...right. That actually hurt me to put down on paper. The reality is we haven't done much written correcting at all yet. Bear starts book school next week. For the writing that he had done, we're generally right there with him and we correct him as he's doing it. If he brings me something he's done and there are errors I'll point them out to him and we'll fix it together if a writing instrument is handy.

Verbally I'm using red ink though. I guarantee.

POINTS: 3 points to the first person to source the title of this post. No searching, y'all.

Posted by: Jim at 09:46 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I just bought stock on your page. Now get more hits so I can make money.

Posted by: pylorns at August 24, 2004 10:06 AM (FTYER)

2 I wish i knew. Sounds like something out of Civil Disobedience, but probably not. But, then i am emptionally scarred from seeing red marks on my papers in third grade, so i really don't know how i get through the days. :-D

Posted by: tommy at August 24, 2004 10:15 AM (MAoAh)

3 Here we go, coddling the children to death. This kind of thing makes me nuts...

Posted by: Paul at August 24, 2004 10:18 AM (vbP6L)

4 I'm guessing Mark Twain. That's it - that's all I have...

Posted by: Clancy at August 24, 2004 10:45 AM (EGVPL)

5 Nope, not Twain. This was a bit before his time.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 10:55 AM (IOwam)

6 No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody. --Andrew Jackson That's in my CommonPlace Book

Posted by: DeAnna at August 24, 2004 11:20 AM (IdVP4)

7 Hmmm... That's not who I was thinking. However, a quick Googling shows the quote is attributed to AJ as well as to my guy. Either it's a common misquote or AJ was quoting the older source. You get 3 points DeAnna, and this remains open for another 3 if anybody can get the other answer.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 11:32 AM (IOwam)

8 How odd... I just googled too and it's all about AJ. I'm dying to know who the real quoter is!

Posted by: DeAnna at August 24, 2004 12:12 PM (IdVP4)

9 Nevermind, found it. AJ totally plagiarized!

Posted by: DeAnna at August 24, 2004 12:17 PM (IdVP4)

10 Yeah, it looks like he did. I'm going to have to take those points away now. We can't reward cheating you know. Hehe. I tease. ;-)

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 12:23 PM (IOwam)

11 My "red and bloody," eh? Sounds like ol' Patrick Henry hisself.

Posted by: Victor at August 24, 2004 12:24 PM (3QS7e)

12 It's even before Patrick's time.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 12:28 PM (IOwam)

13 Nuh Uh! It wasn't MEEEE, it was Andy! He's the poopoo head.

Posted by: DeAnna at August 24, 2004 12:29 PM (IdVP4)

14 Can we google nowww.....pleeaase.

Posted by: Tiffani at August 24, 2004 01:16 PM (xpNFK)

15 Nope. If nobody gets it by tomorrow at some unspecified time I'll throw it open to searching.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 01:20 PM (IOwam)

16 Your mean!

Posted by: Tiffani at August 24, 2004 01:22 PM (xpNFK)

17 True, but I make up for it by being impossibly cute. Just ask Lovely Wife - she'll testify for me.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 01:25 PM (IOwam)

18 Tiffani, for half of the points, I'll give you a hint.

Posted by: DeAnna at August 24, 2004 02:12 PM (IdVP4)

19 shakesspere? (sp)

Posted by: pylorns at August 24, 2004 02:13 PM (FTYER)

20 Now, now, DeAnna. Behave. Nope. Not Shakespeare.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 02:15 PM (IOwam)

21 Jim - you never said sharing wasn't allowed. Cute as a button you are. (major sucking up-can ya tell?)

Posted by: Tiffani at August 24, 2004 02:46 PM (xpNFK)

22 To paraphrase my Papa, there's a lot of things I haven't said - that doesn't make them not so. (His version was actually "There's a lot of things I didn't do, that doesn't mean they were impossible".)

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 02:54 PM (IOwam)

23 With no cheating, I'm guessing Cicero. Or Julius Caesar. Or both. Or either.

Posted by: RP at August 24, 2004 04:05 PM (LlPKh)

24 Plato.

Posted by: pylorns at August 24, 2004 04:53 PM (FTYER)

25 Nope. He wasn't a Cicero or Caesar or Plato. Nor was he a contemporary of any of them. He came a bit later.

Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2004 06:02 PM (GCA5m)

26 How about Marx, Lenin, or Stalin?

Posted by: RP at August 24, 2004 07:13 PM (X3Lfs)

27 I googled it (so I'm ineligible) and I must say I was *very* surprised at first, then I thought about it...practical man, he was.

Posted by: Victor at August 24, 2004 07:59 PM (etHvD)

28 Nope. Not a Communist either.

Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2004 05:36 AM (GCA5m)

29 I too am shocked. I knew i liked him for good reson, though.

Posted by: tommy at August 25, 2004 10:00 AM (MAoAh)

30 Okay, y'all. Nobody got the answer so I'll throw it wide open. One point to the first person to report the quote source and you can use any means to get find it.

Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2004 10:50 AM (IOwam)

31 Martin Luther

Posted by: Clancy at August 25, 2004 11:36 AM (EGVPL)

32 Yay for Clancy for being the first person to check back in these comments! One point for you.

Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2004 11:41 AM (IOwam)

33 You suck!! I leave for an appointment ...come back...and the answer is already up and points are rewarded. I guess that's what I get for working. Damn.

Posted by: Tiffani at August 25, 2004 12:06 PM (xpNFK)

34 That'll larn ya!

Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2004 12:08 PM (IOwam)

35 So a few years down the line, teachers are going to stop using purple ink because it has negative connotations, and all correcting will be done in turquoise...for awhile...

Posted by: Susie at August 25, 2004 03:19 PM (mua5j)

36 Nah, they'll probably go puce before turquoise. Turquoise is too representive of the habitual opression of the Native American peoples.

Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2004 03:28 PM (IOwam)

37 And in the year 2040 they'll be studying why everyone hates colors.

Posted by: Claire at August 28, 2004 12:10 AM (l1oyw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment