Thanks! (I'll have to try your trick of searching by the author's name next time!)

It is called Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students by Sharon Crowley. Here is the listing on Amazon. It has one really "bad" review, but it was written by someone using the book for grad school, and he felt the book was too babyish. The comment following his review indicates the books is designed for upper high school or college freshmen students. Just wondering how it might compare to the Corbett book and/or the D'Angelo. (Maybe somewhat simpler to use? VP offers a free teacher's guide along with purchase. I'm wondering if that might help with planning/evaluating.) Off hand, it looks like Crowley incorporates the Progym while discussing other aspects of Rhetoric. (See the TOC here.) Thanks!

I agree that they are *wonderful* books, and they are chronological. But they don't really correspond to SOTW chapter by chapter. You would have to use one or the other out of sequence to keep them on the same topic. (ETA: Maybe that's not what you meant. I am answering from my perspective of having both a high schooler and a middle schooler doing "Ancients" but not studying the same topic each week. This is the first year I haven't used SOTW to coordinate their studies following the logic stage suggestions for the older one. It is good in one way, because my high schooler is able to study things much more deeply than he would be if the younger one was tagging along. But, it takes more of my time - both planning and implementing - and we can never do history all together. <Sniff!! Sniff!!!>)

I won't list mine. I basically have goals that are method (WTM) or curriculum dependent academically, and I think my kids will figure things out when it's time life-skill wise. Maybe I'm just too tired to think right now - LOL! But, Here is a thread that might interest you. There have been others recently on the high school board as well, but the first post in this thread is a definite must-read! hth!

nevermind. Looks great!!!

I think that's a good analogy. As long as your assertion can be proven by the text, it is "right" - but there can be many assertions made about any given text. It brought to mind SWB's assertion that too often our society skips the analysis (what is the author saying?) and jumps to the evaluation (do I agree with what the author?). It's so much easier to spout off our own pre-conceived view of the world than to try to understand someone else's. And, while one of the wonderful things about good literature is that it forces you to define your own thoughts more clearly, your own thoughts are somewhat irrelevant when the assignment is to explore the author's thoughts. I agree with the other poster who encouraged you to ask for evidence. Though I wouldn't want to do the teacher's job for him, maybe he is looking to see who is willing to step forward and ask the tough questions for themselves rather than being led along?

The Physics is the only course that is set up for a specific text (particularly, Saxon) according to the DIVE website. See the first paragraph of text below the video here. Are there really no experiments in the Physics? I know Saxon Physics is math-based, but seems like there would be a few.

I would say in high school, I expect the assertions to be backed up by the text. "I feel" (ha!) more comfortable discussing a theme that runs through the book, since that is really all the analysis I've had in high school or college. The theme might be supported by specific events in the book, literary techniques (symbolism or structure, for example), or characterizations. I am slowly trying to expand my repertoire to include all of the suggestions given by SWB in her handout on literary analysis. I think in high school we will *touch* on the author's life and worldview, and the historical happenings that shaped the author's life, as a context for the theme. But, it will be more of an introduction to that type of study, rather than a nitty-gritty dig through a work as you've described below.

which has been invaluable over the last 4 years, but for your example as a person. I have always admired your family dynamics (envied them!), and left it there knowing that *my* husband would never accept that kind of life. Still, it was an unspoken prayer, a deep desire, that we would become more of a one-ness and truly share our lives together. (Actually, I think I prayed your DH would write a book, which I could buy and give to my DH, and he could add it to the collection of books we've both bought over the years, which one day will a mint-condition antique which anyone wanting to study "self-help Christianity in the late 1900's" will be ecstatic to find on ebay. :lol:) Looking back, I think the first step of God's answering my unspoken prayer was reading the book Peacemaking for Families, which you recommended in WTM. I only finished the first part, but have earnestly tried to recognize and repent of all the times I sacrifice my DH and my DC to my own desires. That alone has brought forth great abundance in all our lives! Then, DH's family-owned business exploded. His sister quit her job in a fit of rage, and DH's step-mother had to come out of retirement. And in a twisted way, the economic slump has provided the oppportunity for me to now step in to that position - which was always part-time, but is now *very* part-time - LOL! So...We are going to DH's office today to start making plans to move our "home-school" to his office!! This is just...so much more than I could have ever hoped would happen. That we can be together as a family, and the boys will start learning how "the real world" works, that they will see me as something more than a "homeschool mom", that DH will be a much bigger part of all of our lives and not just an "add-on" at the end of the day. Wow!! Boy, I never imagined when I read Raymond & Dorothy Moore's books all those years ago that our "family business" would be a *real* business one day!! Yes, we even made cookies to sell - LOL - and DS cried when someone bought them all and there were none left! Never wanted to make cookies again - LOL! I know this will bring huge changes at home as well - and some of those changes won't be pleasant for all concerned. But, I thank you for breaking the mold of what a "homeschool mom" looks like - what a Christian woman looks like - and for your wonderful, quiet example of how to lead a life of balance.

Just the worm so far! :) I convinced the Science Chair to let me skip Biology in high school. Not for any true ethical concerns, just because I really do get queasy around any "body" that isn't functioning properly. Add to that my well-deserved reputation for *never* being able to do any lab "correctly", and Biology has been the huge Everest in my path to completing high school at home! We have a crayfish, a perch, and the infamous frog still to go - but both DS and I are feeling *much* better now that the first one's a done deal. Honestly, if I can do this, anyone can!

I would think that Grammar & Composition would count as "English 1" - at least, that is how I understand it from reading WTM, which recommends giving a credit for completing R&S or an equivalent program. The Great Books study receives *another* credit (if, of course, you are studying them for enough hours each week). That is how I am planning to give credits for my now-9th grader. His "English 1" Credit will include: IEW Phonetic Zoo (yes, this is needed) Vocabulary from Classical Roots (B and C this year) IEW's Grammar Program (Fix-It) IEW Writing (SWI-C, some TWSS, High School Essay, and Elegant Essay) Since we had finished R&S-8 last year, and we were still working with spelling and vocabulary, I chose more of a "Grammar Review" program. We spend probably 30 minutes daily on those components, and the writing is another 45 minutes to an hour. We spend another hour to an hour-and-15-minutes doing our Great Books Study, and I will give him a credit for that as well. I'm trusting WTM Ch. 39 "Paper Proof: Grades and Record Keeping" for this - p. 662 in the newest edition. And, you'll be fine using R&S-8. On p 482 of the new WTM, new-comers to the series are advised to use R&S-7 in 9th grade. hth~

but I have just completed my first dissection *EVER*!!! And I didn't even feel sick! And - amazingly! - we even found all the "stuff" we were supposed to find! Guess you can teach an old dog new tricks, after all! (And, *thank you*, Apologia!!!)

That is what I remember from hearing her live. (Kind of thinking out loud here. Sorry!) And, I told myself just to pick a chapter in the book and pretend like it's Rod & Staff, and we're going to apply it across the curriculum just as we've done for the past 4 years in logic stage writing. But, with R&S I had the option, if I couldn't think of a topic right off hand, of using one of their prompts. That gave me freedom to teach/learn the technique right away and then - whenever it seemed to fit naturally into our other subjects - to go back to it and practice it. And, I would just keep recycling through the various types of compositions over and over. I'm certain that is what I need to do with this. I have designated Spring Break as my "download and listen and study" week, so hopefully by then some others will have something of real substance to post!!!!

Bump... And, if you know, do the lectures give any help in taking the basic instructions in WTM (read, outline, write) and creating a weekly/daily plan? (That would be so nice since I have all the books here; I just can't for the life of me figure out how to go from the abstract to the concrete. For example, I just read through the Generalizations chapter in Rulebook for Arguments. There are warnings and tips and such I could see including on an outline. It's easy to understand, and good stuff to know. I just can't think of a single thing in what we're studying in history or science or lit right now that we would apply it to.)

The first 10 or so writing assignments in SMARR teach how to write a 5-paragraph literary analysis paper such as the one I posted here. The rest pretty much review grammar, although you are expected to continue writing papers throughout the course. I've greatly tweaked SMARR, but really do appreciate having the daily reading assignments already broken down for me. I have a plan (from someone else) using SMARR with HOAW, Spielvogel's Western Civilization, and the Foundations of Western Civilization lectures from The Teaching Company in my Google documents. I have another that gives a schedule for HOAW and some ancient literature (not SMARR) as well as biblical history. I haven't used either of these plans, so I can't comment on them. But if you email me directly, I'll be happy to forward them to you. Rhonda beee at g mail dot com

The advantage of using R&S with a concrete thinker is that it teaches in a concrete way. So, you won't "discover" math concepts or use many manipulatives at the 4th grade level or above. (I haven't used 1-3.) Your DC won't have to "show" that 6 x 7 = (2 x 3) x 7 = 42. They won't fill in "number wheels" where the sum or product is in the center, with various maths facts (which must be filled in) streaming out of it. They won't learn 2 different ways to do long division. They will do *lots* of mental math, and they will master fractions, decimals, and percents. And, that is the solid foundation you need for Algebra. hth! ETA: Meant to add: if your child is already an abstract thinker in the 3rd or 4th grade, R&S may not be the best fit.

Thank you, guys, for your feedback. I just couldn't think of anything concrete to say... LOL! The opening was from his original "essay" (cough, cough, sputter, sputter!!!) which was vague and rambling, and had indentations which had nothing to do with topic sentences. But the opening was just so cool, he couldn't ditch that. (And, for the record, it's not his first essay - just the first that I didn't hold his hand through the process. It is very different reading just the finished product vs. reading an essay we wrestled through together. I don't normally critique those afterwards - just guide as we go.)

How would you go about "debating his premises and conclusions"? (I am having a real brain-blip here.) FYI, if it helps....He did have to tell me his thesis and supporting point before writing the paper (the 2nd time - LOL!). I guess that's where I should really do the debating.

I know there are some mechanics errors in here (and the copy & paste messed up some of the format) - but this is the first essay that my DS has written (almost) completely on his own! (He told me his theme, and needed a 3rd character from the story, and I suggested Agamemnon.) So...what I'm looking for is what you would work on next. He just turned this in, and I want to give him encouragement and just one idea to help the next paper. I think we need to work on strengthening the concluding paragraph - but I'm not even sure *how*. Thanks! here it is.... No More Heroes Death, a word feared by the many. Death, a power no man can escape. Death, a great mystery man may never know. But, there are things more powerful than the shrouded mystery of death. Though death was terrifying even to the Greeks, shame was far worse. Many heroes of Greek mythology give up sound strategies for suicidal glory. Though facing death may sound like a heroic deed, for Greek heroes it may just be an escape to fame for cowards. The easiest of "brave" men to hate are probably rich and greedy kings. Agamemnon is a perfect candidate. Achilles seems to put it best when he states, " I do all the fighting and you got the lion's share." Glorying in his kingship, Agamemnon can refer to his birthright in case anyone doubts his courage or strength. Unsurprisingly though, Agamemnon is rarely seen on the field of battle. This Greek "hero" blames any and all flaws on the gods. Though correct in his assessment of Agamemnon, Achilles is just as despicable. Son of an immortal goddess, Achilles is so godlike that he seems to lack human emotion. He sacrifices droves of acheans for his own selfish glory. The fact that he's superhuman makes him all the more cowardly. Achilles has nothing to fear! He even knows whether he'll die or not. In the face of these facts, Achilles cannot be brave. When Achilles chooses his own death, it is simply his choice of shame or glory. And pride threw him to glory. Perhaps Greece's chances for a true hero is seen in Hector. He has no immortal goddess for a mother, like Achilles. He takes responsibility, unlike Agamemnon. He uses his responsibility to protect his family and through his birthright, protects his city. However, even "heroes" make mistakes. During the Trojan war, Hector ignores a sound retreat from a lieutenant. Many Trojans died that day. "Atoning" for his shame, Hector stands proud in front of Troy's gates to brave against Achilles. Here is where Hector falls short. He could've gone inside the city and fought another day, had he been able to bear the taunts of his comrades. His wife wouldn't be a widow, and his son wouldn't be fatherless. He left them for his own, selfish, glory. Shocking, how the most respected ancient nation cannot produce a hero. Agamemnon was greedy and irresponsible. Achilles was uncaring and proud. Hector, too, was proud, and it was this pride that killed him. There are no more heroes in ancient Greece.

Thanks!

Yes! My older DS struggles in Algebra (is repeating Algebra with Saxon after using Jacob's last year and BJU Pre-Algebra the year before). My younger DS is using R&S and even though some of the work isn't labeled "pre-Algebra", it definitely is. I noticed this last year; the thought processes that R&S teaches are vital to working Algebra problems. The advantage is R&S moves very slowly from concrete thinking to abstract, giving the child the time to reason out the why's of Math for himself. It will come when his brain is ready for it. Having said that, I *may* put my 6th grader into Saxon next year, because LOF & Chalkdust were both *huge* disappoinments at our house. Just not nearly enough repetitions or review for my Ds to retain anything. He'd be fine on the daily work, but bomb the tests. IMO, they are really good for kids who excel at Math, who understand the concepts and how to apply them immediately - and so don't need to practice it. So...since Saxon does provide the constant review we seem to need (and since Art Reed is such a *great* teacher!), and it will get us through high school, I may go ahead with it next year, even though I think R&S has laid a very strong foundation. Sorry - not very conclusive! But, I'd choose R&S over LOF for a child who isn't gifted at math.

Thanks a bunch! (don't know how I missed that since I tested my older kids...:tongue_smilie:) The placement test is very revealing.

Hey, Quiver! I'm having the same quandry. I am pretty convinced I'll just go head with Saxon K. Though, admittedly, I don't know *anything* about it or really any other K program. Could you please explain why you think the K Level will be too easy? (I guess I'm asking do you think it would be too easy for any average child. We will have finished all the R&S Preschool books that come with the MP package, but they are pretty much counting.)

I thought I should add that TQ covers only Western Civilization (the Ancient years cover only Egypt, Greece and Rome). You could actually spend an entire year on each book (Egypt & Greece are together, Rome is one book). Yet the topics are *much* more indepth than using SOTW, or using Kingfisher, and giving each topic one week of school. (For example, the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars are covered in one chapter of SOTW - maybe two entries in Kingfisher. But, there are 12 large topics for this same time frame in TQ, and 25 topics if you include the more detailed sub-topics.) This is my dilemma...because I want that depth of information, but I like the way WTM is set up studying all of world history equally for grammar and logic stages. In many ways, high school has been a 2nd grammar stage because, in de-emphasizing non-Western cultures, we are discovering so many more people and events and facts that we didn't have time to get to in my older DS's logic stage (he started hs'ing in 5th grade). I have tried to add some of this information into my younger ds's 6th grade year using the Guerber books and Caesar Augustus' World. But, it is so much reading! Much of it he just reads on his own. (Bad teacher! No - not really bad, just extremely busy!!!) And, because there is so much, it tends to run together. Ideally, at that age, it would take a year to cover these civilizations in that much depth; and I worry that maybe that much information in such a short time isn't really in his best interest. (If you don't *do* anything with the info, then why learn it? I suppose that is a debate for another post.) All that to say, especially if you have reluntant readers, I would be wary of trying to do all of TQ and all of WTM recs. Though one reason why I really like TQ is that you can use any teaching style and/or writing program you like while working through it.

I've been using TQ with my high schooler this year (among other things). And, yeah - I guess you pretty much nailed it. But, because my ds is in 9th grade, we are using materials that are much more mature - and delve pretty heavily into worldview. I'm not sure how relevant it is, but I wrote a short review of summing up the pros and cons on the high school board here. I haven't decided yet if I'll use TQ with my younger kids next year or not, so I will be interested to read how others use TQ with grammar/logic stage students.