I was referring to the grammar stage for SOTW, since that's what it's designed for, although it can be used up through 8th grade. Since my 11 yr-old and I went through all four volumes in grades 1-4, and her younger siblings are in the process of doing that, she listens to the SOTW reading (we all sit on the couch together), and then when it's time to use the AG for questions, narrations, map work, etc., she does the work that that is outlined in TWTM for the dialectic stage (with some modifications). However, even without using SOTW, I still think the four year history cycle used all the way through (so three times in grades 1-12), does more justice to history than squeezing it into three (or less) year cycles, but I know there are many homeschool curricula which have a greater emphasis on American history (and homeschool families who value that more), so in order to allot more time to that, they have to condense world history. Or they do it to allow a year for geography or something else history related.

I think that because you're not involved with CC may be why you're not experiencing the attitudes that I'm talking about. It's since I joined that I've had an inside view of it. Also, when I've googled criticisms of CC, they have been very hard to locate, with the exception of a few threads on this forum. The blog post I had linked from my original post was one of the few. I find that a bit suspect. I'm not saying that everyone who is in CC hasn't exercised their critical thinking skills, but being intelligent isn't the same as being independently minded, though one could argue that homeschooling itself is evidence of that. I would say that as homeschooling has become more mainstream, it's not so countercultural, therefore there are a lot of people (particularly those drawn to co-ops, me included) who are more willing to get on board with something because of the community/support aspect, and trusting the experience/judgement of others, particularly if it sounds right and their kids are enjoying it. And just because something "works" for one's family (it's "working" for all three of my kids) doesn't mean it's objectively valuable, though again, I'm not saying it imparts no value. I would really like to hear from the families who did CC - a full cycle (or three) of Foundations - and how at the dialectic and rhetoric stages, they reaped the fruits of that labor of memorization. I am skeptical that all that time spent on memory work in every subject - divorced from context - is that much of a boon. I would also like to hear from those who completed Challenge after completing Foundations, and how that worked for their students who are now graduated and in college (assuming CC has been around long enough for there to be such people - I don't know).

See my previous replies to other comments re: context. Though I do think it works better with science than history, so I can see your point there. I researched the pronunciation for Henle again and apparently it can use either type. When I googled it last time, I had read that it uses ecclesiastical, but now it appears that may have been a misunderstanding because a companion CD for the course uses that pronunciation. I will edit my original post to correct that. It is true that no curriculum is perfect, but CC is in the unique position of not actually being a curriculum, but a methodology, and one which is based on a community model. I think that can generate its own set of problems...

I am sorry if I came off too strong - it's partly a reaction to the "CC can do no wrong" attitude I've experienced, as if it's immune from criticism, and anyone who questions its methods is labeled a naysayer. I also just get frustrated with the way I see people not thinking for themselves and just following a herd mentality. If we're going to do that, we may as well go back to school.

I would argue that 24 history sentences is not enough bones, and in order to keep up the pace, important periods in history have to be skipped. SOTW has 42 chapters and we'd have to read several per week to keep up with that pace (as it is, we can barely get through one chapter a week, supplementing it with the complementary materials). And the science jumps all over the place, so I wouldn't find continuity with that either. Then again, maybe it could work well for those who don't put the same emphasis on history that our family does. I'll blame SWB for that ;)

I do have different reactions to how it's taught in each of my three kids' classes - masters is my favorite because of the tutor, the level below that is my least favorite, and my youngest's class is probably in the middle. Still, the bottom line is that no matter how it's taught, it is limited by the formula. I just don't think drilling memory work and skimming the surface of science/fine arts is the best use of three hours with kids in a group learning setting.

The rumors are true for my oldest, who is in the masters class (and has been through the SOTW 4 year cycle once, so she already has the context). It's partly her tutor's personality (I love that he can't help himself!) and that there are only four students in the class…but it's still obvious to me that he's holding back due to the constraints of time and the program. My daughter wanted to do the Memory Master program because she is so good at memorization, but I agree that it adds an element of competition that I don't think is beneficial at the younger ages. That's interesting that you are split on Essentials. I appreciate that you are thinking critically - that's my biggest issue with some other homeschooling moms - that they don't trust themselves (or they trust themselves too much - maybe I fall into that camp!), so they embrace a particular system (and I've probably been guilty of this somewhat with TWTM) in its entirety simply because it was created by an experienced/education homeschooler and because lots of other people follow that system.

Because of her integrity and ability to articulate so well, I believe she could tactfully give feedback on the pros and cons of CC, or at least on how compatible it is with the Well Trained Mind approach to classical education, much like the articles comparing/contrasting with Charlotte Mason which are on the WTM website.

The games themselves have age designations. And when I say age, I mean age range. It's not a hard and fast rule - I'm just in the idea stage. It will also depend on who actually participates. Obviously if we have a smaller group, we'll be flexible. But if you have an 11 year old and a 5 year old playing a strategy game, that's not exactly fair to the younger one or challenging to the older one.

In order to add in the context, like you're talking about, I would have to stop reading straight through the Story of the World, because I don't have time to both teach to CC's 3 yr cycle and SOTW/WTM's 4 yr cycle. If I did that, that would move us too quickly through history - as it is, even on the 4 yr cycle, it can feel rushed. There's no way to adequately cover the the years between history sentences in one week (hence SOTW having 42 chapters versus CC's 24 sentences). My oldest, who has been through the SOTW 4 year cycle once, is the only one who already has the context. Also, because she's at the masters level and there are only four students in her class, her tutor (who also can't help it because of his personality) does tend to flesh out the material a bit, though it's obvious to me that he's holding back due to the constraints of time and the program. It may be that storing this knowledge for future use works (or at least for some), but for whatever reason, my conscience decries the methodology. The only areas where the memory work makes sense to me are geography, math (but only if the equations are said in their entirety rather than just the answers chanted, which is how it's being done in our classes), and the timeline. Science I'm probably neutral about. Maybe because FLL and Memoria Press Latin have worked so well for us - where content is married to context (albeit gradually, especially with Latin) - I don't see the value in the language portion of CC. And one thing that really bothered me was when they were playing a review game, and my daughter's team lost because they added "it" to the list of pronouns, since it wasn't on the original CC list. There have been too many cringe worthy incidents like this - from inaccuracies to mispronunciations. The value placed on memorization comes at the expense of meaning and excellence.

(just wanted to say that I edited my previous comment, adding more content to my first paragraph)

Thanks for the "likes" and supportive comments, as well as other perspectives. I said "Emperor's New Clothes" because it seems like it's taboo to criticize CC, and I intuit that there is an element of people drinking the koolaid, so to speak. Also I think a more technical/formulaic approach to language does work better for people who aren't as language oriented - particularly IEW - I saw more value in that than EEL, which reminded me of our Latin curriculum - I much prefer the FLL approach to grammar. It was just ironic that it lost me in the one area where I am confidently competent. And I really tried to "get it"! My daughter was totally able to do both programs, but I worried that it would stilt her writing (also did some research on that, so I'm not alone in thinking that), and use up too much of our time on grammar, which she already gets so well (thanks in large part to FLL). WWE has been a mixed bag for us - didn't actually use it much with my oldest, but she is able to do WWS (which I switched her back to, along with R&S for grammar, when we quit Essentials), works well with my youngest so far, but my middle child has struggled (she is the most creative, right brained of the bunch so far, but a year ahead in everything except writing), so we just switched to Writing with Rhetoric (from CAP), which she loves. The hard part about quitting is that my kids like it - they are good at it (my oldest has the memory of a steel trap, while my younger two enjoy the singing & hand motions), they do the work at home nearly autonomously, and they enjoy the group setting. If I didn't have to sit through the classes with them (except for presentations - my favorite part), I'd be tempted to let them finish the year, but the angst I experience each week just tells me it's not healthy to continue. We have always been part of a co-op, since shortly after beginning to homeschool four years ago, so they are used to having a group learning experience one day a week. This has always put time pressure on us, because we don't have any wiggle room during the week, so I don't feel as free to go on field trips (though we do from time to time) or have spontaneous get togethers or other non-structured activities. I've been curious what it would be like to have another day each week, so I'm going to see how that goes for this next "semester." Meanwhile, though, I've been reflecting on what what I think would be the best way for kids to learn together, and I've come up with an idea that I'm calling Gameschooling. We would spend the morning playing educational board games (groups based on age, with an adult playing or overseeing each group), probably rotating through several subjects/games each time, then have lunch together, followed by an outdoor activity like capture the flag, a nature scavenger hunt, a sport, or another form of exercise or nature study. I'm hoping to "beta test" this in January, probably doing it once a month through the spring. If it goes well, it could become a weekly or bi-weekly co-op, maybe even adding in hands-on activities alternating that with games.

This is our first year, and now as we reach the halfway point, I've decided we will not be returning in January. I'm not saying it has no value, but I have concluded that it is neither classical nor a conversation, at least at the Foundations and Essentials levels. I found this blog post which sums up a lot of what I've been struggling with, so I shared it on my Facebook page, and someone gave a partial rebuttal in the comments, to which I responded this (which kind of nutshells my issues with it): I beg to differ about Essentials - I started out as a tutor and quit after three weeks because it was so counterintuitive to my literary/writerly self! Both programs (EEL & IEW) were created and/or implemented by technically minded (rather than language oriented) people - an engineer (Leigh Bortins) and Suzuki violin teacher (Andrew Pudewa). I was tearing my hair out trying to wrap my brain around their systems, formulas, overinflated (particularly EEL) approaches to grammar and writing. The end all be all to classical education is not memorization! I actually am beginning to think that CC gives classical education a bad name, because of what it's reduced it to. I wish Susan Wise Bauer would weigh in on what she thinks of CC. Context and memorization go hand in hand. They do not need to be divorced from each other. And I think that those who try to marry them by doing CC and then basing their curriculum on it at home are going to have big gaps in history and disjointed approaches to the other subjects. As for Challenge, my 11 year-old is already ahead of where she would begin in A with literature, history, latin, and logic. Not to mention that we would have to dump the Well Trained Mind history and science cycles to do Challenge, since they are not at all followed, which to me means that it's not actually classical. I won't even go into the mistakes in the curriculum or how there is never any "time" to discuss context in class or creative ideas to approaching the memorization. I also dislike how they drill classical Latin pronunciation - we have been using Memoria Press Latin which uses an ecclesiastical pronunciation, so that is confusing for my kids, as they are forced to say it differently in class than at home (and for my son, who hasn't started Latin yet, will have to unlearn it). (I also had blogged this after our first month). Has anyone else thought of the Emperor's New Clothes when it comes to CC as classical education? Editing to say that what I mean is that is it possible that its value has been exaggerated, while its flaws have been overlooked? (see further replies from me in this thread for elaboration)

I posted a link to my blog with a picture and then pinned it here, in case anyone wants to save it on Pinterest.

So glad it's helpful :)

I'm thinking about attempting to read through all the works in The Well Educated Mind over the next four years, starting with medieval times (where we are in our history studies this year), and concluding with ancients (the year that my oldest begins the rhetoric stage), so I was pleased to find this chronological list, and am posting in case anyone else might want to follow the same reading plan. The book organizes the reading list by genre, and within that chronologically, but I would rather read different kinds of literature from the same time period, especially since that will flow with our history studies.

In case anyone else is thinking of trying to make it fit the classical approach, here's the comment exchange between Dr. Wile and me on his blog: Literary Mom says: August 20, 2013 at 6:10 pm When I first started homeschooling four years ago and heard you speak at a conference in Santa Rosa, CA, I was really impressed, but I thought I would have to wait until middle school to use any of your materials. Meantime, I have used all of the Exploring Creation books with my oldest (now entering 6th grade) a few with my younger ones, except chem/physics (which wasn’t out when we needed it), so I am thrilled to be able to dip into your new series this year (before my oldest moves into your previous curriculum), and am just wondering if you think my approach will work… We use the classical method of studying a different branch of science each year. There is no Exploring Creation book for earth science, which is what we’re studying this semester, so I ordered A Child’s Geography (really a misnomer) which is recommended by Jeanne Fulbright, as well as Christian Kids Explore Earth and Space (we’ll do space next semester). What I’d like to do is combine those with the sections of your books that fit into earth science. Do you think I could make that work? Then, in subsequent years, I would again use the sections that fit with whatever branch of science we’re studying. I realize this somewhat goes against the unifying theme, but since the lessons aren’t chronological (like history), I don’t think it would necessarily be a problem. I hope you won’t either, since I already ordered your book But I do want your honest opinion. jlwile says: August 20, 2013 at 7:34 pm I think you could make that work, Literary Mom. Day 3 has some stuff about rocks and soil, and Day 4 is all space. Day 2 deals with water, which would fit in well when you are studying the oceans. Then, when you study biology, you can do the rest of Day 3 (plants) and Days 4 and 5. Then when you study light, you can do Day 1.

I don't see anything like this in the forums. Does it exist?

I don't see anything like this in the forums. Does it exist?

Good to know - thanks!

This is very helpful input - thank you. I'm sort of processing right now the idea of not being so black and white, of easing up a bit on the classical approach (not that we've ever followed it rigidly), and letting it be more eclectic. I just don't want to be so spread out that we don't have any continuity or depth.

I edited the above to correct the name - Odyssey of the Mind (not brain) and add a bit about the logic stage / problem solving to the 5th paragraph (the one about philosophy).

My homeschool group started a co-op four years ago, which we've been part of since then. This coming school year, I decided to make a change and try Classical Conversations (it's new to our area). I will have three children (ages 6,8,11) in Foundations and I will be an Essentials tutor (teaching my 11 year-old and 1-2 other students - it's a small group). Now it turns out that our homeschool group co-op is going in a whole new direction and will be doing Odyssey of the Mind over this next school year. I am wondering if it's realistic...or even healthy...to attempt to do both, since that would take up two mornings (plus an afternoon) each week, leaving us with only three mornings for actual homeschooling, and one of those days is Saturday (our weekend is Sun/Mon), which historically has been difficult to preserve for lessons, though I tried this past year, since it felt like we really needed four days (mornings and partway into the afternoon, then quiet time and extracurriculars). I'm hesitant because this is our first year with CC and with me being a tutor, so I don't want to take time away from what's needed to put the most in to that, but on the other hand, the co-op chose OM (Odyssey of the Mind) partly to remove the burden of teaching from the parents. I wouldn't even have to coach or assistant coach - I could just help out, so there shouldn't be any prep work or homework. My other reservation is philosophical. In a way, it seems like these two programs are diametrically opposed - sort of like conservative vs. liberal, Christian vs. secular, history vs. future, knowledge vs. creativity, wisdom vs. innovation, convention vs. technology. Or, remove the "vs." and could they could be seen as complementary? God is full of paradoxes, so maybe this is like that. And OM does use critical thinking, problem solving skills, so that could fit with logic...but in the classical model, that wouldn't happen until the middle grades, whereas OM includes grammar stage kids. And the lack of adult direction (kids come up with everything on their own) doesn't seem like it would be compatible either...unless all the kids were being taught logic as a separate course to inform their decisions. Then throw in Susan Wise Bauer's view that it's better not to join a co-op at all. Well, at least that's what was best for her family. Since we have been WTM'ers from the beginning, her opinion is worth its weight in gold. And having experienced a co-op these past three years (in fact, the only time we weren't in it was our very first semester and that was just with one child, so I really don't know any different), I can see where it can be problematic. Still, for us, I've felt that the benefits outweighed the downsides...at least until this past year, which was part of what prompted me to make the change to CC. Some others in our homeschool group are doing both, but they are generally less rigorous at home (more Charlotte Mason than WTM) and have younger children.

Thanks so much - I will look into all of the above!

We actually own that book, though I haven't read it yet, but I think it would fall more under "character building." I'm looking for a book whose whole purpose (or at least a significant section) is helping kids learn how to have a structured time alone with God. Thanks, though, for trying to help me :)