Old folk etymology connected it with Latin latere "to lie hidden," and a fable of Saturn.

https://t.co/yoKS1pS7bB

Ah LL Vatican City. 😀

https://t.co/iaHyHNwoRq
https://t.co/5W6uD42JCR
You man know what ANUS means right? Butt hole.

https://t.co/wohS2rs1VV
You man know what Propaganda means, right?

https://t.co/wohS2rs1VV
You man know what the Illuminati eye means? ANUS. BUTT HOLE.
The Annu-Elohim created the Annunaki races about 568 million years ago in reaction to the creation of the Elohei-Elohim Human Guardian race. The Annunaki were created with the intention the vessel through which the Christiac Human race would be destroyed.
Aint gonna happen.
The Illuminati eye means BUTT HOLE.

https://t.co/VcssYcvJ3k
@threadreaderapp pls enroll

More from Education

An appallingly tardy response to such an important element of reading - apologies. The growing recognition of fluency as the crucial developmental area for primary education is certainly encouraging helping us move away from the obsession with reading comprehension tests.


It is, as you suggest, a nuanced pedagogy with the tripartite algorithm of rate, accuracy and prosody at times conflating the landscape and often leading to an educational shrug of the shoulders, a convenient abdication of responsibility and a return to comprehension 'skills'.

Taking each element separately (but not hierarchically) may be helpful but always remembering that for fluency they occur simultaneously (not dissimilar to sentence structure, text structure and rhetoric in fluent writing).

Rate, or words-read-per-minute, is the easiest. Faster reading speeds are EVIDENCE of fluency development but attempting to 'teach' children(or anyone) to read faster is fallacious (Carver, 1985) and will result in processing deficit which in young readers will be catastrophic.

Reading rate is dependent upon eye-movements and cognitive processing development along with orthographic development (more on this later).
This seems like a positive base from which to #BuildBackBetter


https://t.co/OwpgNh8mEu


https://t.co/7eOi1Bv3bM


https://t.co/GhxVgLuWJE


https://t.co/ymHp910wrC

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x