Of what value is it for the teacher to analyze spellings such as "THES AFTERNEWN it's going to rain. It's going to be fair TOMORO." or "FAKTARE's can no longer OFORD making play DOW" (Bissex, 1980, p. 46)? Can stage models of invented spelling lead to better assessment of children and more informed literacy instruction? Almost 20 years ago in the November 1982 issue of The Reading Teacher, I presented a developmental spelling classification system designed to shed new light on invented spelling (Gentry, 1982). I wanted to help teachers better understand how English spelling develops and to explore new and better classroom practices for fostering spelling competency.

At that time invented spelling was just beginning to be appreciated. Today, encouragement of invented spelling for young developing writers is considered good teaching practice. It is widely supported by research (Clarke, 1988; Ehri & Wilce, 1987; Huxford, Terrell, & Bradley, 1992; Read, 1986; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) and endorsed by professional organizations (International Reading Association, 1998). In spite of this support, the merits of invented spelling are still vehemently debated. Further exploration of developmental aspects of spelling continues to be relevant to good teaching practice.

This article will address four interconnected aspects of invented spelling as we look back in time and forward to the future: (a) assessment using the Gentry model, (b) assessment using the Bear and Templeton model, (c) controversial assessment issues, and (d) new uses of invented spelling for literacy assessment in the future. In this retrospective and look forward the thread connecting the past, the present, the controversy, and the future of invented spelling is literacy assessment. I will begin with an assessment of a stage model I presented in 1982 (Gentry, 1982). I will then critique a second model presented by Bear and Templeton (1998). I believe that contrasting these two models will help clarify what constitutes developmental stages of spelling more accurately and help quell some of the controversy surrounding invented spelling. Section three of this retrospective comprises a look at the controversy. Finally, I will look forward to new ways invented spelling may be used for literacy assessment in the future. Like miscues in reading, invented spelling may be "windows into the mind" (Goodman, 1979, p. 3) that allow the observer to assess and teach not only spelling, but also important aspects of phonemic awareness, phonics, writing, and other essential elements of literacy.

Assessing the Gentry model (1982)

Developmental stages of spelling should have ecological validity. In my view, the five stages of invented spelling described in the 1982 article still depict well the day-to-day functioning of most children as developing spellers in primary and elementary school. Each stage represents how the speller conceptualizes inventing a spelling in qualitatively different ways throughout his or her spelling development. The stages describe what the speller apparently knows or does not know and does and does not do.

The 1982 article cited spelling samples from Glenda Bissex's book GNYS at WRK, a case study of her son Paul's writing development from 5 to 11 years of age (Bissex, 1980). Bissex collected her data independently from researchers working on developmental spelling; consequently, the data contained no developmental spelling bias. Yet her data clearly illustrated the 1982 descriptions of developmental spelling stages.

The classification system reported in the 1982 article and the illustrative invented spelling samples from Paul in the Bissex study are summarized in Figure 1.

Work that led to developmental stages of spelling grew out of Piagetian theory and the notion that aspects of cognitive development proceed by way of qualitative stagelike change. This theory aligned classic studies of children's classification of speech sounds by Charles Read (1971, 1975), with a body of spelling research conducted by Ed Henderson and some of his students (Beers, 1974; Gentry, 1977, 1978; Henderson, 1981; Henderson & Beers, 1980; Templeton, 1979; Zutell, 1975, 1979), and with independent research conducted by Carol Chomsky (1970).

Looking at spelling in this new way not only shed light on how children think about orthography early in their spelling development, but it also gave rise to an expected sequence of spelling behavior. In the words of David F. Bjorklund, a contemporary scholar in cognitive development, "Stage theorists are generally concerned with the sequence of behavior, not with the specific age at which a particular ability develops. Ages are viewed merely as guideposts to when certain developmental accomplishments can be expected, not as required milestones" (1995, p. 86). The sequence developed in these studies showed that spelling competence should be expected to increase with age, but a range of spelling abilities may be displayed at any given age.

The existence of new guideposts for what could be expected of inventive spellers was powerful information indeed, and it became more powerful as curriculum changes in U.S. schools and elsewhere moved to greater attention and more time spent on the process of writing (Caukins, 1981, 1986; Graves, 1979, 1983). Researchers and practitioners discovered that children could do much more with spelling and writing at early ages, and that this activity had positive impact on reading (Adams, 1990; Bear, 1989; Chomsky, 1970; Clarke, 1988; Gill, 1992; Goswami, 1988; Morris, 1981; Perfetti, 1992; Richgels, 1995; Strickland, 1990; Zutell & Rasinski, 1989), writing (Bissex, 1980; Clay, 1979; Dyson, 1988; Graves, 1983; Sulzby, 1985; Temple, Nathan, & Burris, 1982), and spelling development (Bear, Invernizzi, & Templeton, 1996; Bolton & Snowball, 1993; Frith, 1980; Gentry, 1997; Gentry & Gillet, 1993; McCorriston, 1991; Schlagal, 1989; Treiman, 1993; Wilde, 1992; Zutell, 1979). Documents such as Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, the 1998 joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children, have recommended that young children experience writing with invented spelling and over time move to conventional forms (International Reading Association, 1998). Contemporary developmental spelling classification systems help track students' performance and inform instruction (Bear & Templeton, 1998; Bolton & Snowball, 1993). It has become important work, included in compilations of standards and benchmarks (Gentry, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). With widespread acceptance of invented spelling, clear and qualified descriptions of developmental stages are needed in order for teachers to reach their full potential for using invented spelling in assessment.

Were the 1982 stage classifications of precommunicative, semiphonetic, phonetic, transitional, and conventional spelling (Gentry, 1977, 1982) really stages? To be stagelike, Bjorklund (1995) postulated that develoment must meet certain criteria, as follows:

(a) Differences among stages must be qualitative in nature.

(b) There must be substantial homogeneity of functioning within a stage.

(c) The transition from one stage to the next must be abrupt. (p. 89)

Let's apply each of the criteria to the 1982 model.

Criterion 1: Differences among stages must be qualitative in nature.

Precommunicative, semiphonetic, phonetic, transitional, and conventional spelling do differ qualitatively. Children's invented spelling differs qualitatively at each of the developmental stages, and the way the child is thinking at each stage differs qualitatively. HIDC, E, EGL, EGUL, and EAGLE are examples of qualitatively different spellings of the same word respective to the sequence of development. Figure 2 demonstrates how children's thinking may change qualitatively as they progress through these stages of spelling development.

Figure 1

Criterion 2. There must be substantial homogeneity of functioning within a stage.

There appears to be homogeneity of functioning within the 1982 stages. That is to say, the child thinks basically the same way whenever he or she invents a spelling at a particular stage. She or he may list random letters (precommunicative), or use a sound-based strategy as the dominant strategy (phonetic spelling, by ear), or use a visually based strategy as the dominant strategy (transitional spelling, by eye), but we do not see a child using a hodgepodge of these strategies indiscriminately-spelling one word by ear, the next word by eye, then listing random letters and so forth (Gentry, 1977). The exception is the child who has a severe spelling disability who may, in fact, use heterogeneity of functioning-a hodgepodge of strategies used indiscriminately (Gentry, 1997).

I agree with Treiman and Cassar, who have argued that stages are never purely sound based or visually and morphologically based for developing spellers (1997). But the Bjorklund criteria (1995) and the Gentry descriptions of stages (1982) call for "substantial" homogeneity of functioning of a "dominant" strategy. This would not preclude the existence of some minimal effects other than the dominant strategy. For example, children may be more likely to spell /ar/ as r than to spell tell /el/ as l (Treiman, 1993, 1994), but these minimal effects seem to have little practical bearing on day-to-day classroom assessment or on the issue of homogeneity of functioning.

Figure 2

Criterion 3: The transition from one stage to the next must be abrupt.

Without a precise definition of "abrupt" it is difficult to assess this criterion. By one definition, spellers are functioning in a particular stage when half or more of the invented spellings match the description for that particular stage (Gentry, 1982; Gentry & Gillet, 1993). Transition has been observed to be abrupt in the sense that once spellers invent a majority of their spellings at a particular stage, they are not likely to revert to using a majority of invented spellings that reflect an earlier stage requiring less cognitive sophistication (Gentry, 1977, 1982). For example, we don't observe first graders who were phonetic spellers in January moving to transitional spelling in February, but then reverting to phonetic spelling in March.

Teachers should expect some variability at upper levels of invented spelling. As children develop more word-specific knowledge and more strategies for spelling, one might expect to see more variability in how spelling information is handled. It is not unusual, for example, to see a phonetic spelling appear in a piece of writing where most of the invented spellings are transitional. It is also normal for learners in certain contexts-when they are tired, frustrated, or not motivated-to use fallback strategies and a lower level of spelling than is typical for them. In my view, some variability and occasional fallback strategies are normal and do not affect the "abrupt transition" consideration. Based on-these observations, the 1982 stages do meet the "abrupt transition" criterion.

Assessment of the Bear and Templeton model (19981

A recent article by Bear and Templeton raises a question: What makes a spelling stage? Although Bear and Templeton provide excellent recommendations for spelling and word study to accompany a developmental model, they identify stages that, in my view, may be better characterized as descriptions of invented spellings within stages, not spelling stages themselves. In the 1982 article, I postulated as follows: "It may be that the major cognitive changes necessary for spelling competency are accomplished by the end of the transitional stage and that further growth is an extension of existing strategies" (Gentry, 1982, p. 194). Bear and Templeton, based on work by Henderson (1985), presented within-word, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy as following Stage 3. This is where their model diverges from that reported in the 1982 article. The analysis that follows demonstrates why discrepancies in what is designated as a stage have important implications for assessment. I believe more precise definitions of stages will improve assessment and abate controversy.

To contrast the Gentry and Bear and Templeton models, let's return to the Bissex study. Glenda Bissex carefully documented and discussed her son Paul's spelling, writing, and reading from age 5 to 11 in the now classic study, GNYS at WRK: A Child Learns to Read and Write published in 1980 by Harvard University Press. In a later article (1982), I analyzed this precocious youngster's spelling to demonstrate how it advanced in developmental stages from the time he began to write at home without formal instruction. Let's look at samples of Paul's spelling and contrast the Gentry model to the Bear and Templeton model.

At age 6 years 1 month, Paul, who was an advanced speller, produced a weather forecast from Newspaper 1-THES AFTERNEWN IT'S GOING TO RAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE FAIR TOMORO-and a news item in Newspaper 4-- FAKTARE's (factories) CAN NO LONGER OFORD MAKING PLAY DOW (dough) (Bissex, 1980, p. 46).

The analysis below using the Gentry classification clearly establishes Paul as a Stage 4 transitional speller at that time in his development. The description of transitional spelling in Figure 1 is in agreement with Bissex's own anecdotal characterization of what was happening with Paul as a writer and speller at the time.

Analyzing Paul's samples using the Bear and Templeton model, however, gives a different, and, in my view, confusing picture. So much variability results in the Bear and Templeton classification that it is difficult to determine what stage he is in.

Although the Gentry and the Bear and Templeton classification systems are essentially the same for the first three stages, the classification systems differ beyond Stage 3, as illustrated in Figure 3. 1 believe clarification of the differences in the two systems will help teachers make more accurate assessments of children's invented spelling and perhaps clear up some of the controversy surrounding this subject.

Applying the Gentry classification 1977 1982, 1997)

In contrasting the two models, we can begin with an observation with which both models agree. Once a considerable number of sight words are learned-typically in first grade-- visual and morphological influences appear in children's invented spelling (Henderson, 1985). Once this happens, Bear and Templeton describe resulting changes in spelling as three distinct stages beginning with within-word pattern (their fourth stage), where children "analyze the spelling of single-syllable words more abstractly" (1998, p. 227). Examples of the within-word stage include SEET or SETE for seat, NALE for nail, ROAP for rope, CRIE for cry and CRALL or CRAUL for crawl.

Applying the Bear and Templeton classification (1998)

According to their model, when letter patterns within single syllables are understood, learners come to understand syllable patterns. The foundation for this understanding is laid when students grasp the consonant-doubling/e-drop principle as it applies to simple base words and suffixes: bat+ ing= batting, but rake+ ing= raking. (Templeton & Morris, 1999, p. 106)

This is construed to be a fifth stage called syllable juncture, characterized by spellings such as HOPING for hopping, ATEND for attend, and CONFUSSHUN for confusion.

Finally, students move to a sixth stage reflecting "the fact that words that are derived from a common base word or word root usually keep the spelling of the base or root constant" (Bear & Templeton, 1998, p. 228). Hallmarks of this stage are SOLEM for solemn, OPPISITION for opposition, and CRITASIZE for criticize.

The two models concur that the patterns described above appear in invented spellings and that children should be taught how these patterns work in English. But in the Gentry model, within-- word, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy are not considered as stages. Does calling them stages lead to confusing assessments like the one of Paul's Newspaper 1 and Newspaper 4 samples cited above?

Figure 3

One way to address whether within-word pattern, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy constitute separate stages is to apply the Bjorklund criteria to the last three stages of spelling development in the Bear and Templeton model. This model is presented in Figure 4 as it appeared in their 1998 article (Bear & Templeton, 1998, pp. 225-226).

Criterion 1: Differences among stages must be qualitative in nature.

One might argue that within-word pattern, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy invented spellings (Stages 4, 5, and 6, respectively) are qualitatively the same and therefore do not meet criteria necessary for designation as separate stages of developmental spelling. SEET or SETE for seat, CONFUSSHUN for confusion, and APPEARENCE for appearance (examples of within-word, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy, respectively) may be invented spellings constructed by children who match the sounds in words to patterns they have seen in English spelling. "I have seen -un in fun, so why not shun for the last syllable of confusion" might be a child's logic when thinking about how to spell confusion (i.e., CONFUS plus SHUN equals CONFUSSHUN).

There are differences in the level of difficulty of seat, confusion, and appearance as well as differences in how frequently the three words appear in children's writing. These are differences in the quality of the words that may be accompanied by differences in when they should be taught (i.e., instructional level). But there may be no differences in the quality of the mid-year second-grade speller's thinking when SEET, APPEARENCE, and CONFUSSHUN appear in the same piece of second-grade writing. I would argue that invented spellings described as within-- word pattern, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy are functions of the type of word being spelled, not a function of a developmental stage of spelling.

Type of pattern, difficulty of word, and word frequency all have an impact on decisions for good spelling instruction, so noting within-word pattern, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy is useful. But addressing these types of invented spellings instructionally may be a different concept than the notion put forth in the Bear and Templeton model that fifth to twelfth graders are likely to be in a derivational constancy "stage," third- through eighth-grade spellers in a syllable juncture "stage," or first to middleof-fourth graders in a within-word pattern "stage," and that each of these "stages" is a qualitatively different way children think about spelling. In my view, the type and timing of instruction Bear and Templeton recommend for within-word, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy invented spellings relate to instructional level of the speller as defined by Morris, Nelson, and Perney (1986); Morris, Blanton, Blanton, and Perney (1995); and Gentry (1997). For example, within-word patterns are more likely to be studied in second grade with secondgrade-level spellers using second-grade-level spelling words while derivational constancy patterns are more likely to be studied in fifth grade with fifth-grade-level spellers using fifth-gradelevel spelling words.

While the within-word pattern, syllable juncture pattern, and derivational constancy pattern word studies are needed at an appropriate time in the speller's development, they may not be "a developmental stage through which learners pass" based on knowledge corresponding to alphabet, pattern, and meaning (Bear & Templeton, 1998, p. 224). There appear to be no qualitative differences between within-word, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy invented spellings, and, consequently, no stage that corresponds to these patterns.

Criterion 2: There must be substantial homogeneity of functioning within a stage.

Homogeneity of functioning for stagelike development is a requirement within a stage. It would not be met if there was homogeneity between stages. One might question if the child's thinking is any different when he or she invents ATEND (Bear/Templeton Stage 5) than when he or she invents AMMUSEMENT (Bear/ Templeton Stage 6). If the same function is in play as he or she invents the spelling by choosing letter sequences he or she has seen in print, ATEND (syllable juncture, Stage 5) and AMMUSEMENT (derivational constancy, Stage 6) would exhibit homogeneity of functioning between stages and not meet Criterion 2.

Criterion 3: The transition from one stage to the next must be abrupt.

The abrupt transition criterion is not met in support of separate within-word pattern, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy stages. At the same time a second grader invents spellings such as SEET, CRALL, and NALE (Bear and Templeton Stage 4), she or he might very well use HOPING for hopping, ATEND for attend (Bear/Templeton Stage 5), or even CRITASIZE for criticize (Bear and Templeton Stage 6). The fact that there are likely to be more within-word patterns versus derivational constancy invented spellings found in second-grade writing as opposed to fifth-grade writing may be a function of the difficulty and word frequency of these two categories of words, and not relate to spelling stage. Fifth-grade-level spellers should have mastered most of the frequently occurring within-word patterns they use in their writing because these patterns are easier to spell and occur more frequently than derivational constancy patterns. Nevertheless, second or third graders do use derivational constancy spellings such as BENAFIT and CRITASIZE at the same time they are using within-word patterns such as SEET and CRALL, as was evident in Paul's Newspaper 1 and Newspaper 4 samples. No abrupt transition is observable.

Ages (or grade levels) can be guideposts to when certain developmental accomplishments can be expected (Bjorklund, 1995), and appropriate spelling instruction and word study may well be matched to the signs of development (Bear & Templeton, 1998; Bolton & Snowball, 1993; Gentry & Gillet, 1993). Recommendations for word study from the 1998 Bear and Templeton article are based on this premise. A review of the Bear and Templeton model, however, might raise questions regarding the breadth of "ages/range of grades" they have reported (see Figure 4). Are the broad ranges such as Pre-K to middle of first grade for prephonemic (precommunicative) spelling, K to middle of second grade for semiphonemic (semiphonetic) spelling, and early first to early third grade for letter name (phonetic) spelling to be construed as "what is expected?" While children may be observed to display spelling abilities substantially above what is expected under optimal conditions or below what is expected under restrictive conditions, under reasonable conditions the range of what is expected with invented spelling is a relatively narrow range. It would not be expected, for example, for children to be doing prephonemic spelling (random letters) in the middle of first grade. It would not be expected that a child would use TP to spell top in the middle of second grade or NAT to spell net in early third grade. Any child functioning at the upper extremes of the Bear and Templeton ranges would be developmentally off track.

A developmental model should help teachers better understand what is expected at a particular grade level-for example, that Stage 1 prephonemic (precommunicative) spelling is a middle-kindergarten-year benchmark, that Stage 2 semiphonemic (semiphonetic) spelling is an end-of-kindergarten benchmark, and that Stage 3 letter name (phonetic) spelling is a middle-firstgrade benchmark (Gentry, 1997, 2000; International Reading Association, 1998). There is fairly good agreement regarding what is expected. The position statement for IRA and NAEYC, Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children (International Reading Association, 1998), for example, listed "sound out and represent all substantial sounds in spelling a word" (i.e., Stage 3 letter name or phonetic spelling) as a first-grade goal (p. 200). The same document provided discussion of what research reveals for kindergarten and used an example of Stage 2 semiphonemic or semiphonetic invented spelling, "SWM for swim," as the standard for kindergarten (p. 204).

Figure 4

Grade-connected markers should communicate to teachers that there is such a thing as developmentally appropriate goals for invented spelling. I fear broad ranges that place randomletter invented spelling (Stage 1, prephonemic) in the middle of first grade, or NAT for net (Stage 3, letter name) in early third grade may falsely give teachers and parents the impression that encouraging invented spelling is synonymous with low standards. On the other hand, careful clarification of stages and age ranges associated with stages should lead to less dissension and less controversy surrounding the use of invented spelling.

Controversy over invented spelling and assessment

Controversies over invented spelling have often irritated teachers and administrators, but they may be deftly sidestepped if efforts are made to keep parents and those outside the classroom well informed. In addition to careful clarification of stages, a key to ending controversy may be better communication. Teachers must communicate which skills and knowledge children should be acquiring at young ages and how invented spelling is balanced with developmentally appropriate instruction for conventional spelling.

When I have opportunities to speak to parents in schools where invented spelling has been controversial, I find negative attitudes often change once parents have a better understanding of how developmental stages of invented spelling inform instruction and enhance assessment of literacy skills. The key to the change in attitude seems to be in demonstrating a balance of encouragement of invented spelling with instruction in conventional spelling. For example, parents of a first grader who visit the classroom should not only see that their child has lots of opportunities to write using invented spelling in authentic meaningful context, they must also see evidence of the teaching of correct spelling. They might see a word wall with high-frequency words being practiced often so that many of the words are being learned in the conventional spelling. They might see use of manipulatives such as letter tiles, which children use to learn patterns and form correct spellings. In the first half of first grade they might see wall charts displaying word families of high-frequency phonograms illustrating the same regular phonics pattern. Parents often are reassured when they see these correct forms being learned. In January they might see spell checks on words such as hen, pet, yes, bed, and get, or did, it, in, if, and him. Parents might be shown their child's spelling journal of words he or she can spell correctly.

These observations are very much in concert with recommendations in such highly touted reports as Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children:

The practice of encouraging children to spell words as they sound (sometimes called invented or temporary spelling) has been shown to hasten refinement of children's phonemic awareness (Adams, Treiman, & Pressley, 1998; Treiman, 1993) and to accelerate their acquisition of conventional spelling when it is taught in first grade and up (Clarke, 1988). (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, p. 188)

In my experience, good communication with parents about invented spelling is a powerful way to eliminate much of the controversy.

New uses of invented spelling for assessment

Researchers and practitioners are discovering that invented spelling is directly connected to other aspects of literacy development such as the child's phonemic awareness or knowledge of regular phonics patterns (Adams, 1990; Bear & Templeton, 1998; Cunningham, 1995; Cunningham & Cunningham, 1992; Ehri, 1993; Henderson, 1990; Juel, 1994; Richgels, 1995) and that instruction and learning in these areas might very well go hand in hand (Bear et al., 1996; Gentry, 2000; Moats, 1995). Does invented spelling reveal an individual's phonemic awareness, knowledge of regular phonics patterns, and other aspects of literacy development?

Richgels was one of the first researchers to recommend the use of children's (and teachers') invented spelling in beginning reading and writing instruction (1987). He continued to look at possible ties between invented spelling and early word reading in a 1995 study and quoted other researchers who were exploring the possibilities (1995):

If beginners can do this (spell inventively), then they ought [italics added] to be able to use their letter knowledge to recognize and remember relations between boundary letters in spelling and sounds in pronunciations and in this way commence learning to read words. (Ehri & Wilce, 1985, p. 165, reported in Richgels)

If prereaders can do this (spell inventively), then they should[italics added] also be able to use letter names to detect phonetic cues in learning to read words by sight. (Scott & Ehri, 1990, p. 153, reported in Richgels) Richgels went on to state that "children's discovery of invented spelling and their progress through its several developmental stages (e.g., Gentry, 1978, 1982; Morris, 1981) may amount to self-directed phonemic awareness training and practice (e.g., Mann, Tobin, & Wilson, 1987; Stage & Wagner, 1992; Zifcak, 1981)" (p. 99). I believe this promises to be a very productive line of research for the future.

What ought to and should be happening in the future with invented spelling? First, I believe invented spelling might be used more directly in teaching and assessing both phonemic awareness (Adams, Treiman, & Pressley, 1998; Treiman, 1993) and knowledge of regular phonics patterns (Cunningham & Cunningham, 1992). Secondly, I suspect more could be done to make the type and timing of phonemic awareness and phonics instruction developmentally appropriate (Juel, 1994), by matching it to developmental stages of spelling.

One practical example of assessment possibilities is found in using invented spelling to assess phonemic awareness. If teachers expect first graders to demonstrate full phonemic awareness by midyear, this benchmark is easily assessed by looking at the child's invented spelling. It can be stated unequivocally that a child who is a Stage 3 phonetic speller (letter name) has phonemic awareness since the spelling represents all the phonemes in the spoken word. Figure 5 shows this to be the case. It's interesting to note that Stage 3 phonetic spelling is often an exact duplicate of the dictionary phonemic transcription of pronunciation.

To quickly assess phonemic awareness, I often use what I call "The Camel Test." Camel is a word most first graders have in their spoken vocabularies by midyear, but they are not likely to have seen camel often in print. In January, I ask the first grader to spell camel. If she writes "C-A-M-L," she's likely to have phonemic awareness (i.e., she is aware of the four phonemes and can take the process one step further by matching a letter to the phonemes to produce a Stage 3 phonetic spelling). If the child knows the correct spelling of camel, I substitute a word such as eagle (EGL), bacon (BAKN), or magic (MAJEK) (Gentry, 2000).

Invented spelling may also be one possible way to assess knowledge of regular phonics patterns. Invented spelling, for example, can aid first-grade teachers in being very aware of what a student knows about phonics and whether knowledge of regular phonics patterns is developing. If the expectation is that by midyear the child should demonstrate that he or she is beginning to read regular c-v-c short vowel patterns (e.g., pup, run, bib, and web) and words with combinations of consonant sounds (e.g., milk, hand, nest, and stamp) and that he or she should recognize some high-frequency, regular, longvowel patterns (e.g., v-c-e in bake and bike) and a few high-frequency vowel combinations (e.g., meat, need, boat), invented spelling may demonstrate that the child not only reads these patterns, but also takes this knowledge a step further and uses it in writing (Gentry, 2000). How children handle phonics patterns in inventive and conventional spelling ought to be one powerful indicator of the phonics knowledge that they access when they read.

Figure 5

Figure 6

For example, a great deal of phonics knowledge is demonstrated in a story Julie (a pseudonym) wrote in November of her first-grade year, presented in Figure 6.

Almost every time Julie attempts to spell a c-v-c short vowel pattern she spells the word correctly as in pig, met, man, and sent. She puts phonics knowledge to use when she writes GIV for give, SED for said, BILD for build, UV for of, BUN for the first syllable of bundle, and MUTH for the first syllable of mother. The invented spellings clearly show that Julie has a lot of phonics knowledge. But she is limited and neither confident nor consistent in her use of phonics. Monitoring her development and continuing approriate phonics and spelling instruction in first grade would strengthen her development (Gentry, 2000).

Over the past 20 years invented spelling has had a powerful impact on our teaching as well as on our thinking about how literacy develops. Expect a continuation of the impact of invented spelling in the future. Researchers and practitioners are making good use of developmental spelling models to bring developmentally focused, engaging literacy instruction into the classroom. We must continue to explore developmental aspects of learning to spell, particularly how invented spelling relates to early reading and to essential literacy elements such as phonemic awareness and phonics. We must recognize the great promise of invented spelling for assessment. These explorations will move us into a new millennium of better literacy instruction.