Anyone use Michael Clay Thompson language arts and NOT like it?

[LanaTron]

considering using this next year...it would be a big switch, since I have three kids that would be using it...I could possibly get by with two different levels, putting #1 and #2 dc in the same level...

 

Anyway, mostly what I've seen on this board about this program is all positive. I'm wondering what the cons are.

 

If you've tried MCT Lang. Arts and didn't like it, can you tell me why?

 

Thank you!

[LanaTron]

giving my self a bump

[Elm in NJ]

We stopped using the Magic Lens after 4 weeks. It was too 'loosey-goosey' for my son. He needed more instructions and more structure. We loved the Vocabulary (Word Within) and we continued with that. I have never used the writing although we are going to do the poetry this year.

[emmsmama]

My beef when looking online is that it appears to be very expensive, depending on how quickly a child goes through levels. There are several different books for each level and several levels, so it appears that if your child goes through the whole program that you are going through a whole lot of $$.

[swimmermom3]

My beef when looking online is that it appears to be very expensive, depending on how quickly a child goes through levels. There are several different books for each level and several levels, so it appears that if your child goes through the whole program that you are going through a whole lot of $$.

 

Last year I spent $60 on Easy Grammar, $15 on a poetry book, $100 on writing/literary analysis and $10 on vocabulary. For me, it looks comparable. But that's me.

[JudyJudyJudy]

We stopped using the Magic Lens after 4 weeks. It was too 'loosey-goosey' for my son. He needed more instructions and more structure.

I keep going back and forth on trying this curricula, and this is my concern. I think sometimes we think we can just throw stuff at gifted kids, and they retain it, but one thing I found when teaching in public schools was that while gifted kids often saw the big picture, they were often missing fundamental concepts. I like curricula that don't assume anything and that don't leave anything out.

 

 

We loved the Vocabulary (Word Within) and we continued with that. I have never used the writing although we are going to do the poetry this year.

I'm considering getting just the vocabulary and poetics books. At what level did you start? If you didn't start at the beginning, did you feel that you were missing out?

[Spy Car]

I keep going back and forth on trying this curricula, and this is my concern. I think sometimes we think we can just throw stuff at gifted kids, and they retain it, but one thing I found when teaching in public schools was that while gifted kids often saw the big picture, they were often missing fundamental concepts. I like curricula that don't assume anything and that don't leave anything out.

 

I'm considering getting just the vocabulary and poetics books. At what level did you start? If you didn't start at the beginning, did you feel that you were missing out?

 

Do you feel they are leaving something out? I only know what I now from the "sample pages" but they look pretty deep. And well coordinated between the various components of the series. But I'm not a voice of experience at all.

 

I'm also thinking the explain it well, but then don't beat it to death approach will be a winner with my son. He is very much like me, and from what I've seen I would have loved the MCT materials.

 

Bill

[JudyJudyJudy]

Do you feel they are leaving something out? I only know what I now from the "sample pages" but they look pretty deep. And well coordinated between the various components of the series. But I'm not a voice of experience at all.

 

I'm also thinking the explain it well, but then don't beat it to death approach will be a winner with my son. He is very much like me, and from what I've seen I would have loved the MCT materials.

 

Bill

I truly don't know whether or not they leave anything out. That's just a concern that I have. I'd have to read through them completely to know, and I'm just not sure I'm willing to fork out money to try them when I'm on such a limited budget right now. I so wish I could go to a book store and read them before buying. :p

[Spy Car]

I truly don't know whether or not they leave anything out. That's just a concern that I have. I'd have to read through them completely to know, and I'm just not sure I'm willing to fork out money to try them when I'm on such a limited budget right now. I so wish I could go to a book store and read them before buying. :p

 

I've seen nothing but the highest praise for these materials from the people whose opinions I hold in the greatest esteem, so I'm not feeling concerned. But I would still love to thumb though them in a book store :D

 

It's taken great restraint not to order some of these now (when they won't be need for several years) just because I want to "see them".

 

Bill

[JudyJudyJudy]

Based on the samples I've seen, I'm definitely impressed with the vocabulary and poetics at all levels and the writing on the higher levels. I just wish I knew more about the grammar books.

[swimmermom3]

I keep going back and forth on trying this curricula, and this is my concern. I think sometimes we think we can just throw stuff at gifted kids, and they retain it, but one thing I found when teaching in public schools was that while gifted kids often saw the big picture, they were often missing fundamental concepts. I like curricula that don't assume anything and that don't leave anything out.

 

 

 

I'm considering getting just the vocabulary and poetics books. At what level did you start? If you didn't start at the beginning, did you feel that you were missing out?

 

Judy, I ordered Philosophy for Young Thinkers from RFWP a couple of weeks ago. My initial reaction was, "Is this all I get for my money?" "Thoughtful, probing, and carefully articulated instruction packed into a small space," is my assessment now. So I'm expecting the same if not more from the MCT material. Of course, my other reaction was "What if Mom of Swimmer Dude is not smart enough to teach this?" Aaagh!

 

I think it is sometimes easy to feel that we are covering "everything" only when we have big, thick, complicated TMs and workbooks. We've "gotten" something for all those curriculum dollars. You know from being in ps that one of the major complaints about math education in the US is that in trying to cover everything it covers nothing in depth and our kids are losing out.

 

Hmmm. This sounds a bit pushy. I'm really not trying to twist your arm into pushing the button with me.:D After all, there really is no joy in looking into the gorgeous oh-so-trusting blue eyes of your dh and saying, "About those previous curriculum purchases...I've changed my mind...:tongue_smilie:

Edited July 1, 2009 by swimmermom3
Mom of Swimmer Dude not smart enough to spell right.

[JudyJudyJudy]

LOL, Lisa. :D

[LanaTron]

Well, I think they are, and if they were in school, they might be in a GT program...but they are not academically advanced...could partially be my fault, or could be some minor LDs that I suspect...

 

Anyway...

 

I am thinking about this program not because my dc are gifted, but because it is just so disjointed to do a grammar program, writing program, spelling/vocab, and poetry and just hope my dc make the connections...this appeals to me because all the components are integrated. Also, what I am currently using just doesn't excite the dc...it's just workbooks, basically. MCTLA has more built in teacher involvement and discussion, which my dc really like (unless I go on too long about a certain topic...but I digress). I would very likely use it below grade level, at least a bit, just to get the elder two up to speed.

 

And don't anyone dare suggest Classical Writing...:tongue_smilie::lol: I've tried it before, and while I don't rule it out for the future, I'm not wanting to give it a go right now.

 

As to the money, as swimmermom3 said, I already fork out quite a bit for all the levels of all the different components...although I am having good luck finding what I need from the S&S board.

 

I'll be checking back to see if there's any more discussion here...but we're off to the library for now.

 

Thanks everyone!

[radiobrain]

Don't assume that your kids aren't gifted.

 

First of all, if your gut tells you they are, they probably are. Grade level & ability have nothing to do with it... and as many TG kids become under-achievers, or are "twice exceptional" (gifted in some areas, LDs in others) it becomes even harder to gauge. I don't want this to turn into a gifted or not gifted discussion... but my understanding is that most school gifted programs usually consist of these factors... more work (not necessarily "better" work, just a higher level, but still usually busywork) or helping the teacher teach the other kids. It is rarely about meeting their intellectual needs. People assume that being gifted means that everything is easy and you are better off. It usually is far more difficult. It is also not very glamorous as many TaG kids have intense emotional lives, and get frustrated easily (especially when they are perfectionists.) Just as with a child with a specific Learning Disability should have a curriculum that takes that into consideration, so should gifted kids... it is NOT just a matter of bumping them up a grade level. It is needing a different way of presenting the info.

 

That is why MCT is so different. It is presented in a way that is more likely to speak to a gifted kid, it also sort of assumes that they are able to understand it... not assume that they need to be drilled and beaten over the head with something.

 

Having been a gifted kid myself, raising two gifted kids (both VERY different!) and being on the board of a gifted enrichment program.... I really see all the good and the real hardship of having/ being one of these kids.

 

I would hope that first of all many of you know what I'm talking about, as you are living it... and secondly, those of you who don't have gifted kids, don't assume that it is like a cake walk and a bed of roses. We need to really try to find appropriate, adequate material for our kids just like you, or someone who's kid has severe LDs. It can be very hard.

 

All that being said (I could go on for days) I do not even believe in testing for Giftedness. If you HS you definitely don't need to, unless you want to get into Davidson or EPGY, and what knowledge you gain from it is probably not worth the $$. But everyone is different and it might be good for you. If you plan on sending your kids to school at some point, it might be good... but this is a HS board, so..... ;)

 

if you ever have any TaG questions, you should google Hoagie's.

 

Korin

[Elm in NJ]

My son is not gifted that is why the grammar probably did not work for him.

[abbeyej]

I'll go against the current. What I've read of the samples just plain doesn't impress me. People keep raving, and frequently when those threads pop up, I go back over there and read the samples again, trying to figure out what I've missed... And every time, I end up scratching my head, 'cause I'm obviously still missing whatever it was that I missed before. I'm open to being convinced, really!

 

But so far I look at them and think, "Well, none of what I'm seeing is particularly richer, deeper, or more challenging than what we've found elsewhere..."

[katilac]

Like abbeyj, I haven't found that the samples indicate that the grammar is more challenging than other programs. I have other issues with it, some aesthetic and some more substantial.

 

Glancing at the level for grades 3/4, I actually find that the style is pretty childish - - nouns looking for friends seems geared to younger kids, but maybe it's just that my kids don't really care for cutesy stories.

 

The handwritten look makes me cringe, and the editor in me shudders at the numerous short sentences and exclamation marks. Wow! We have a noun system! That's cool! I have extreme antipathy for faux excitement, :D.

 

I find some of the explanations/definitions to be very lacking. In Grammar Town, next level up, the book says "we use demonstrative pronouns to demonstrate." Thanks for clearing that up :lol:

 

When they introduce the parts of speech, parts of a sentence, phrases and clauses, they call them "the four ways of thinking about language" and I really dislike that. It's not an adequate or accurate definition, imo; they are tools of grammar, not ways of thinking about language (and certainly not THE four ways of thinking about language).

 

I do like their strategy of focusing on grammar at the beginning of the year, with follow-up practice, but that's a fairly common stragegy.

[PeterPan]

Lana, I've already said what Abbeyej said and got chewed out in another thread, so I'll just :) . As for your situation, could I humbly suggest textbooks? You just said you wanted integrated, thorough, easy to implement, with discussion, and reusable from kid to kid. That's BJU. BJU is MEANT to have discussion and interaction. They coordinate the subjects, carrying vocab from the history text into the reading curriculum to make sure kids are ready for it, writing skills into the science, etc. It's everything you said. Sometimes we try too hard recreating the wheel. And I want to humbly suggest that using something meant for gifted kids, kids who see a lot of things naturally and intuit and go to the next level naturally, might leave holes for kids who need more explicit, standard instruction. I wouldn't do that, but that's me personally. And I agree with Judy's comments about gifted education. It's easy to teach and leave holes like that. I went to school with kids who couldn't even find a DO or IO in a sentence, but they were in a gifted school!

[Julie in MN]

trying to figure out what I've missed... And every time, I end up scratching my head, 'cause I'm obviously still missing whatever it was that I missed before. I'm open to being convinced, really!

 

But so far I look at them and think, "Well, none of what I'm seeing is particularly richer, deeper, or more challenging than what we've found elsewhere..."

 

I haven't used these materials yet, but I can share what I'm "seeing" that might be missed by some of you.

 

Each of my kids is different. One is very formal and reminds me of several of you who can't relate to this style at all. Another is very detailed & probably would sink in MCT materials. My youngest, though, he's the one I'm hoping will respond.

 

My youngest can already speak and write better than his friends. He has no internal desire to learn advanced grammar just for its own sake. He is good-natured & always tries to make everyone happy, so I am worried that a tedious grammar book will be done for mom but hated & forgotten. I see potential for high quality language arts in him but I want to draw him into that.

 

Yes, a sentence or two in MCT materials may seem silly or over-exclamatory. But a sentence or 2 (or 100) in other grammar books may seem ridiculous to ds, as well.

 

It's kind of like honors classes in my oldest son's high school vs. honors classes I took in college.

 

(1) When my son entered high school, he wasn't sure whether to take honors English or standard English 10.

 

English 10 requirements: 10th grader

 

Honors English 10 requirements: Be willing to answer more questions on each book (the same books as English 10). Be willing to fill out a form explaining "why" you want to be in this class. Get your other teachers to recommend you for this class.

 

My oldest son did not cooperate with the application process because he saw no benefit except more boring work. I'm sure it could have taken him to a higher level in there, but the methods were just *more* of the same.

 

(2) In college, I wanted to take statistics but wasn't sure whether I should take the standard course or the honors one. On the first day, I went to the regular class and to the honors class, in order to compare.

 

In the regular class, hundreds of kids lined up in theater seating. The teacher began writing formulas on an overhead.

 

In the honors class, a dozen students sat around a table. The teacher began by saying, "I assume you all know the formulas. Or if you don't, I assume you can look them up. We're going straight to *using* statistics. You will be working with this data. I want you to develop your own hypothesis..."

 

I signed up for honors.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Julie in MN

[radiobrain]

I want to point out that, although MCT materials were written w/ gifted kids in mind, they are by no means "for gifted kids ONLY". They were written by a person who is obviously very passionate and knowledgable about grammar and the English language and wanted to fill a gap that he saw in it's implementation.

 

It also is NOT for everybody. I think it is an excellent program, but if you don't see it... you probably won't ever see it.

 

I look at some curriculum and want to cry when I see it, think it is horrible, but know that there are thousands of people who think it is great.

 

I also think that the website doesn't do the materials justice as THEY JUST CAN'T. They would have to publish the whole books, or at least most of them.

 

I think that if you see the sample pages and something *clicks* for you, it will probably work wonderfully. If you look at them and say.. hmmm, what is this?... it could go either way, and if you look at it and say BLECH! you probably won't like it at all. It is not as childish as it looks. It is more whimsical. Isn't the whole point of "Classical Education" not as many subjects, but doing those subjects very deeply? MCT gets down to the meat of the english language, sometimes it might come across as simplistic, but this is the framework on which to hang everything you learn from then on. Isn't reducing something to it's foundation and figuring it out, and WHY it is that way, important? I have learned all the little bits of grammar/ english that I seemed to have totally missed in school. And I went to a very oofty snoofty private school.

 

I would never expect everyone to like any ONE program. Also all our kids are different and learn and respond in different ways. Vive la difference!

 

 

korin

 

must try to get my kids to do some math, right now they are playing with the hose!

[Spy Car]

I think that if you see the sample pages and something *clicks* for you, it will probably work wonderfully.

 

When they finally posted the samples of the poetry books recently, I got really excited reading though all the samples. And that night had "poetry dreams". And thought about alliteration and consonance with the colorful graphics of the MCT book swirling in my head.

 

I can't wait to try this series.

 

Bill

[Colleen in SEVA]

Well, I do like MCT overall. It is a great fit for my oldest but I don't think it will be for my second oldest (though its too early to know for certain). It's not so much about a certain level of giftedness, but rather about learning style.

 

What I don't like about the MCT program is that it requires a big leap of faith (for lack of a better term), in the same way that choosing Life of Fred math does. I looked at the samples, read reviews (on both sides!), and gave it a try.

 

You may want to contact RFWP and ask if they will be at a conference near you so you can look through all of the materials (I felt a lot better about the lower levels once I saw where the program was heading). You could also post to a local homeschool group and ask if anyone who lives near you would let you borrow them for a few days.

[JudyJudyJudy]

What I don't like about the MCT program is that it requires a big leap of faith (for lack of a better term), in the same way that choosing Life of Fred math does. I looked at the samples, read reviews (on both sides!), and gave it a try.

This is part of my concern. I have seen far too many kids who were failed by new programs. I'm a huge believer in teaching grammar in depth, and I just wish that I felt confident that this curriculum does that. As I've said before, I'm impressed with the vocabulary and poetics, but based simply on the samples I've seen, I'm not impressed with the grammar. I change my mind daily about this, but as of now, I'm leaning toward giving the vocabulary and poetics a try.

[Mommy22alyns]

It's taken great restraint not to order some of these now (when they won't be need for several years) just because I want to "see them".

 

Bill

 

 

Well, your input would be very helpful... you could be a sort of ambassador! :D

 

I go back and forth on MCT, so I read all the threads on it with interest. LA is Becca's strongest suit, but we've done so well already with FLL. We're also likely to finish FLL 4 very early... what then?

 

It's also interesting to hear a "comparison" with LOF - I'm definitely considering LOF for Becca in several years.

[Quad Shot Academy]

From what I have seen of the grammar samples, it looks best for visual learners. Do those of you that have used it, agree with that?

[Spy Car]

Well, your input would be very helpful... you could be a sort of ambassador! :D

 

I go back and forth on MCT, so I read all the threads on it with interest.

 

I've never been able to figure out what all this learning style mumbo-jumbo (visual, visual-spatial, auditory, whatever else) really means :D

 

And you could try to explain it to me, but I might remain "obtuse". At least when it come to myself. Because if they asked if I was a visual learner, I'd say Yes. Auditory learner? Yes. What-ever kind of learner? Yes.

 

It's like the personality test. Where your asked to choose between polar opposites of your nature, and I want to choose both:001_huh:

 

What's all this have to do with anything? Who knows? Oh, yea, I remember. The one way I'm fortunate (I think) is what-ever learning style my son has it's basically the same as mine.

 

The materials he's most loved, I know I would have loved. What's thrilled him less, would have thrilled me less, I believe. So far I haven't tried anything that would kill him. But there are very popular programs out there for language arts that I think would kill him. Beat him to death. This is the wrong child for that kind of approach.

 

So what I want is a program is one that presents things very smartly and clearly. Goes as deeply as it wants, but doesn't "beat them over the head". I got concepts quickly as a child, he's the same. So go deeper, or move on.

 

I like the visual design of the books. Artfulness of design, together with clarity goes along way with me. "Elementary Greek" is a program I keep looking at (despite having no plans to study Koine Greek) in part because of the good design and clear concepts.

 

I digress.

 

I liked the interwoven stories in the vocabulary. The sample on the "arch" comes to mind.

 

The poetry series blew my mind because both my wife and I dreamed of something like this. Most "children's poetry" materials I've seen include a bunch of hackneyed old rhymes. Where MCT is dealing with great poetry. and making for making an appreciation for what is happening in a poem enhance an appreciation for poesy.

 

Anyway, at his point I'm quite excited. I've seen nothing else like these and they seem tailor-made to what I'm seeking.

 

Bill

[Quad Shot Academy]

I've never been able to figure out what all this learning style mumbo-jumbo (visual, visual-spatial, auditory, whatever else) really means :D

 

 

Bill

 

You are probably a very balanced individual then. :D I think you really notice it if you are deficient in a particular area. Here are a couple examples:

 

My son was doing Rosetta Stone in 1st grade and one day forgot to turn the speakers on. He did the whole lesson, just reading the words and never noticed that the sound was turned off. After I pointed it out, he said, "Oh, is that what they saying?" He had been doing it for 1 year and had not connected the auditory words with the pictures, just the written words! He hates for me to read anything to him; during his standardized test he tried to take the instruction manual from me, because he wanted to read it himself.

 

I remember taking a test in elem. school where I was being timed putting together a puzzle. I put together the puzzle quickly, but couldn't figure out what it was of. She would not stop the timer until I could identify the picture. I cried and cried and never figured out that it was a car that I was looking at. :tongue_smilie: Once she told me, I could see it. That is how I feel about the MCT bubble grammar pictures that I saw a sample of.

 

I don't know if that helps you any. :001_smile: It is really difficult to understand how someone else's brain works!

[Shawna in Texas]

From what I have seen of the grammar samples, it looks best for visual learners. Do those of you that have used it, agree with that?

 

 

Don't know. :tongue_smilie: The art is visually nice, but I don't really notice it unless I stare at it a bit. The reason I chose MCT LA was because it was mentioned a while back and I love looking at new curriculum. When the samples were put up, they looked sorta 'out there', but the Secondary series really caught my eye as being very rigorous. I wondered if I should do a little elementary for an introduction. When I joined the yahoo group, the thing that really sold me was the way MCT spoke about language and how he's so passionate about what he feels is an intuative way for children to learn. Now that we've gone through Grammar Town, it really wasn't as 'out there' as I'd thought. The story was a little dorky for dd at first because she already knew the parts of speech. The analysis is very straightforward. The vocab is very different than say, Vocabulary from Classical Roots, but I remember when Classical Writing came out before the guides and I guess it's sort of like that.

[JudyJudyJudy]

The vocab is very different than say, Vocabulary from Classical Roots, but I remember when Classical Writing came out before the guides and I guess it's sort of like that.

How do they differ? Which do you think is better?

[LanaTron]

Especially since there are so many different ways to be gifted!

 

I guess what I meant was that they are not academically advanced, and the older two do struggle in different areas (ds--anytime he has to write anything; dd--math/latin). I do suspect gifted with minor LDs...

 

anyway, what we are using now is working, I just wonder if they would get more out of an LA program that was more integrated...

 

thank you very much for your comments...anymore, I often forget to trust my gut.

[LanaTron]

Thanks, abbeyj and katilac. I wonder if the richness comes from the integration of all the components in the LA? That's what is appealing to me about this program.

[LanaTron]

Well, I didn't really think of just using one or two components...that's not a bad idea.

[LanaTron]

Thanks, OhElizabeth. I might take a look at BJU, but I prefer secular materials. If it's not too much, or not preachy or prostelitizing, I might could make it work for us.

[Miss Marple]

I just received the language arts (Magic Lens 1, Poetry, and Advanced Writing 1) and spent the evening looking through it. MCT does not handle grammar in the "usual" way. I find most grammar curriculum to be so onerous as if the subject is so lofty that one must flagellate oneself with drills in order to get it or so repetitively boring that one glazes over when considering grammar study.

 

MCT represents grammar as a very simple system. He proceeds to teach the 4 parts of grammar (8 parts of speech, word functions, phrases, and clauses) then punctuation, then he has the student practice identification throughout the rest of the year. His schedule has the 4 parts of grammar taught in the first month of use, then practice throughout the rest of the year.

 

Granted, I haven't actually used the program yet, but I think this just might be the ticket for my son who has a very high reading level, but cannot seem to grasp the grammar. He needs to see the big picture first, then fill in the details. I think MCT's program will do this. If my son can see where everything is going, can have all the tools at his fingertips, he learns more easily.

 

While grammar is grammar and most kids will probably do fine with a traditional approach, this program is a bit unique in its approach. Is it worth the $$? For me, yes because I have a student who cannot learn from traditional approaches.

[LanaTron]

Thanks, cynthia. This is why I think it might really work for my middle two dc, dd12 because I'm starting to get a strong feeling that she might learn better with a whole-to-parts approach (does MCT do this?), ds 9 because he thinks everything is "dumb," unless he can see an application for it.

[Shawna in Texas]

How do they differ? Which do you think is better?

 

 

I've only used the first two levels of Classical Roots. It was independent work and I had just given birth, so dd was pretty much on her own and we didn't make any flashcards or anything. Looking back over them, if I would have done flashcards or talked about the words MCT-style, it would have been good. I didn't have time for vocabulary discussions then and I didn't even cross my mind that it would be beneficial until Caesar's English. I'm fortunate that my toddler allows us to do school or I would have probably shelved all my MCT materials because the key, to me, seems to be the discussions we're having. I like MCT better be because I find it more interesting and dd likes to be able to discuss than to do paperwork all the time.

 

Anyway, I talk too much. I've only done through lesson 5 (out of 20) of CE. We do one chapter a week.

 

Week 1: Learn five Latin stems. It goes into what the stem means and modern examples of the stems. Then there is an analogy section. It talks about how to eliminate options (it gives you an analogy and the four choices to choose from), and how to put in into a sentence (student:class, Student is a member of the class.) It has an advanced word section that usually has two or more stems and usually fun to pronounce. It briefly talks about a writer. In lesson 1 it is James M. Barrie. That seems weird at first, but he connects it later. There's a small part on Spanish and relationships with Latin and English. A little bit of Roman history, a little proverbial, but led to some conversation even though it seemed unrelated to the vocabulary. A word search that we didn't do because dd refuses and a Latin phrase. After the stems are memorized, there's a quiz.

 

Week 2 is where it gets interesting for me. There's five words instead of stems. I personally love that he mixes up stems and words. He has good paragraphs defining the words. He gives a basic definition and he mentions several classics where the word is used and in what context. He asks really great questions about the context. Another 'Who's That Writer' section. He asks more vocab questions in the context of Animal Farm to Frederick Douglass. There's another Spanish section, a synonym section with questions, and rewriting sentences using the five words. There's a Latin quote, analogies, review, and cumulative quiz..

 

Week 3 is five stems in the same vein as week 1. Week 4 is five words with lessons the same as week 2.

 

I hope this helps.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Thanks, Shawna! Yes, that helps a lot. :)

 

At what level did you start, and what age is the child?

[Shawna in Texas]

Thanks, Shawna! Yes, that helps a lot. :)

 

At what level did you start, and what age is the child?

 

I started on the Town level a month before her 11th birthday. I would have started the next level, but I wanted to start with CE 1 rather than 2. I knew the grammar wold be mostly review, but there was enough new material to justify it.

[HappyGrace]

I am in the waffling camp. I have extensively looked at the samples, am on the yahoo group, and I think I've read every post here about it!

 

The vocab and poetry look excellent. The grammar is where I'm waffling. I love it, but I personally would be more comfortable using it as a supplement rather than a standalone grammar program. I would want to use the grammar though because of the beauty and cleverness of it, and the integration factor.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I started on the Town level a month before her 11th birthday. I would have started the next level, but I wanted to start with CE 1 rather than 2. I knew the grammar wold be mostly review, but there was enough new material to justify it.

I'm back to where I was before. I think I'll just stick with a more traditional approach to grammar, but I am leaning toward getting the MCT vocabulary and poetics. I, too, thought we should start with CE I. What about poetics? What is your view on the different levels of that?

[Shawna in Texas]

 

The vocab and poetry look excellent. The grammar is where I'm waffling. I love it, but I personally would be more comfortable using it as a supplement rather than a standalone grammar program. I would want to use the grammar though because of the beauty and cleverness of it, and the integration factor.

 

Well, we do Latin. I'm nearly convinced that's enough. Or I'm convinced that's nearly enough. It was the beauty, cleverness, and integration that did it. I think getting the package deal really sold me, though. :tongue_smilie:

 

And I'm glad we did it. We really did enjoy the grammar.

[Shawna in Texas]

What about poetics? What is your view on the different levels of that?

 

Only 2 weeks into that. We learned alliteration, assonance, consanance, internal rhyme, eye rhyme, and some other stuff I can't recall off the top of my head. I like poetry, but I hadn't heard of any of it except alliteration and I think it's called end rhyme. It's a visually stimulation book. We've been reading a poem a day from Helen Ferris' (?) book and we're noticing things we hadn't noticed. It's kinda fun picking it out. We don't do it into exhaustion, but we let things jump out at us. I certainly don't want it to be laborous.

[Shawna in Texas]

Well, we do Latin. I'm nearly convinced that's enough. Or I'm convinced that's nearly enough. It was the beauty, cleverness, and integration that did it. I think getting the package deal really sold me, though. :tongue_smilie:

 

And I'm glad we did it. We really did enjoy the grammar.

 

I should add that one of the reasons I chose this curriculum was because of the Secondary materials. Once you get to Magic Lens and beyond, it looks pretty challenging. I wanted a good enough foundation for that. I can't really speak of its completeness because of the Latin, though. It's hard to say what I would be attracted to had we not done Latin.