Our family has finished homeschooling, but we used Classical Writing up to just about half of their Plutarch level with the last two of my four children. We were VERY happy with it, both with the fabulously rich content and with the results. The series integrates the Language Arts so that words, sentences, paragraphs and whole essays are read, analyzed, and imitated. Classical ideas about the topics of invention are included which help students to think more deeply about the topic. Models progressively increase in difficulty in order to lead students to both better comprehension and better writing. That is really how it worked in our family. We made Reading, Rhetoric, Latin and Math the center of our homeschool, doing some work with each every day so that my kids wrote several times a week. These two of my children are now in college and can write well. My other two, older children who are now both graduated from college, only used the first couple of levels and the poetry books. The rest had yet to be written in time for them to use them. We finished the progym with Composition in the Classical Tradition. Both of these also wrote several times a week during most of their homeschool experience. Both of them are excellent writers also. Please note that we also really focused hard on grammar, going through Shurley 5 and Mary Daly's Diagramming in one year to nail down definitions and beginning syntax and then went on to finish Harvey's Grammar to learn the rest of beginning grammar and to get good at parsing. My last two children started CW Aesop concurrently at that time. We also did in later years three years of logic.

I agree with the posts about studying grammar thoroughly either before or alongside of. I disagree with the post about CW causing too much pain. On the contrary, everyone I know that has done CW's Aesop, the program's easiest level, has LOVED it. I myself have used it with students who range as young as 4th grade and as old as Srs in high school. The writing portion of Aesop takes away the problem of invention by having students imitate fables and other short stories. Students are free to embellish or to change up elements of the story as long as the message of the story remains the same.

I have used this for my two younger sons who are now graduated from high school and are attending college. The whole CW series is fabulous! if you don't mind (or if you are like me, you like) teacher/parent involvement. I learned as much as they did. It is integrated, thorough, and challenging. Because of these characteristics, it can at first seem messy or confusing. Two things that help prepare parents and teachers for this are 1) previously studied grammar that is thorough and clear-cut, something like Shurley 6 or 7, and 2) doing the first two CW levels, Aesop and Homer. You could for high school students use the Older Beginners version of these two levels which combine the two into a schedule that can be done in one year. Condensing the Older Beginners version into one semester is an alternative that I have done when I taught it at a co-op last year. It was a lot of work, but doable. To me it is incredibly worth all the amount of time.

Teaching logic. When to start? What kinds of logic to focus on and in what order for teaching. What is the use of logic? What curriculum? Tips for teacher preparation and tips for teaching in homeschool setting. Tina McClellan, a member in the beginning days of the forum, might make a wonderful speaker for this.

Looking at this in the light of informal logical fallacies, I also wonder if we are considering whether we want to commit the fallacy of composition. This fallacy is about inferring something that is true about a part of the whole is also true about the whole. In many cases what is true of a part is not true of the whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Thanks, Katharine! That post really helps me in my own thinking about this messy thread. I think you did it by first dividing it well with the liberty idea. Somehow I missed reading your post here before I posted below about dividing the topic. You have done better than I did imho.

Could we make some divisions in this topic? Can we apply this to not so public people that we heartily disagree with in some areas in the first place, before we are duped about what we disagree with, people like SWB who is a Christian? Some people adamantly disagree with her in that area, yet will buy her books and use her ideas and recommendations. Are they supporting her Christian beliefs if they do this? I myself look to many people who post here and heed their advice on certain subjects and yet firmly and unequivocally consider some of their other ideas as dangerous. For one example, I wish a certain male member of this community could have taught my children math. I would have paid him to do so, yet I do not consider his views on other things nearly as well. If I had been able and the opportunity had been there, I would have tried my best to follow his ideas about teaching math. If I had, would I have been also, at the same time, automatically endorsing and teaching his other ideas? If I recommend to others that they read his posts on math, am I recommending that they read and follow his other ideas too? Sometimes I think this and the original thread are quite a lot about being duped. If we could take that part of the discussion away, the topic is clearer. Or we could divide it along those lines. We could ask if there is a difference between using a curriculum whose author we we know from the start we disagree with in certain areas and using a curriculum whose author we find out later that we disagree with.

I wrote this post at the original thread before I saw that there was a spin-off: I understand the need for removing citations. However, years ago his booklet on Classical Education inspired me in that it made clear to me what it would take to actually school in a very classical way. I would still, myself, recommend his book to anyone interested in schooling that way. To me, this is a "meat" book. I also recommend the Omnibus with caveats. His other books or ideas may be considered "bones" that I don't need. All things are my teacher. ( I Corinthians 3: 21 [context inclusive]) Perhaps there is a book just as good as his booklet on Classical Education. Does anyone know of one? I would love to read it and perhaps recommend it. What I wanted years ago was a book that was clear and helpful in setting the parameters of education before Dewey and would also relay what it takes for someone to approach this way of educating. Yep, that book accomplished just that. In fact I have just recommended it to someone today. Not only is it clear, but it also contains Dorothy Sayer's complete influential essay. What I WASN'T looking for was to be associated with someone that had a good reputation with everyone, like that association would make or break our schooling. Not that I mind that kind of association per se. I wasn't looking for the opposite either. Neither I nor my now-finished homeschool nor my present-day tutoring has anything else to do with Douglas Wilson. His other ideas are no reflection on us or Classical Education.

I understand the need for removing citations. However, years ago his booklet on Classical Education inspired me in that it made clear to me what it would take to actually school in a very classical way. I would still, myself, recommend his book to anyone interested in schooling that way. To me, this is a "meat" book. I also recommend the Omnibus with caveats. Any of his other books or ideas may be considered "bones" that I don't need. All things are my teacher. ( I Corinthians 3: 21) Perhaps there is a book just as good as his booklet on Classical Education. Does anyone know of one? I would love to read it and perhaps recommend it.

Take one capsule of Fortify probiotics with your evening meal. This helps the intenstines make melatonin. It worked for me the very first night that I tried it.

Got it! Gonna ignore it for sure

Thanks for your comments...love talking and thinking about this. What I was emphasizing here was the _ease_ of the research. Because she did not have the difficulties of decoding and indeed because she was absolutely confident in the meaning of every sentence of what she read, there was little loss of time in getting to the connections of ideas. It was easy to form connections as she was beginning research because there was no stumbling with meaning. She also had little to no difficulty with the writing not only because since grammar and syntax were second nature to her, but because she was absolutely sure of the "correctness" of her sentences. She could edit with ease for clarity by analyzing the job of each of the words and the pattern of each the sentences on command and even as she was writing. This left time for the more important focus of getting to the ideas. Grammar and syntax study had given her confidence and surety in understanding and communicating meaning. The other idea about better education refers to the idea that understanding the underpinnings of "facts", ideas, subjects of study, etc. is better than having a working but cursory understanding of the same.

Thanks for your reply! : ) I am sincerely glad that your child has done so well. I am happy for both of you. Congratulations! I am not saying that there is no room for intuition or ability. I have one child that just might have done the same. What the study of grammar and syntax did was to give her insight into the why's of what she knew intuitively. One of the things that this caused was a stronger confidence in what and how she wrote. She knew for certain that she wasn't just "making things up" in order to fill up space on a page in order to fulfill a written assignment. There was little to no "fog." It also prepared her so that researching ideas that she was interested in was a breeze. She had MUCH practice in understanding even difficult things that she read so that her honor's thesis in college was doable. All this has prepared her for her master's study in her field. Tests are not even close to the most important thing about teaching grammar and syntax. It makes for a better, more full education.

In order to keep close to rigorous and very classical education, the way students were taught before Dewey, go to the most rigorous grammar, Latin and rhetoric curriculum. They're out there. What I have found and used are Shurley Grammar, using level 6 or 7 in one year, Mary Daly's diagramming book, Harvey's Grammar, Classical Writing, Memoria Press' Traditional Logic, and their First through Forth Forms Latin, Henle Latin, and Veritas Press' Omnibus Great Books courses. My four children were very well prepared for all language needs in college and scored very, very well on the language parts of their college entrance exams. They also are well spoken and love dialectics. PM if you might like to discuss a FB group where you could ask more questions.

How 'bout a section that leads some parents into a deeper, more thoroughly classical approach to homeschooling, one that recommends really tough-nosed, vigorous learning in the language arts? This would not be the most popular section of the book, but for some it would be the lifesaver that they have been looking for

Diagramming is an important way to teach sentences. The study of sentences, how to write them, how to read them, is the study of syntax, which is thinking about how the parts of speech work in a sentence. To write sentences well and confidently, it takes more than the knowledge of the eight parts of speech and how to label them in a sentence. The parts of speech have a job, a function, in the sentence. This is what diagramming teaches in a visual way. Teaching syntax is essential and so using diagramming is one of the most important tools in doing that. I would recommend Mary Daly's diagramming lessons for an easy start. They are simple enough for those who know nothing but the parts of speech and how to recognize them in a sentence. And there is enough of them to get good practice.

Older Beginners is not harder than Homer. In fact, it might just be easier for some folks. It goes faster because it leaves out much repetition. Therefore OB is just the ticket for those who have older students. For youngsters, the ones that Homer was written for, OB would be more difficult. The presumptions are that you can teach younger students the concepts if you go at a slower pace and have more practice and that older students can handle the concepts at a quicker pace and without much repetition.

Here is a great free website with grammar instruction, diagramming videos, interviews, and more! http://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/ Another idea is to take an online course for homeschooling moms who want to learn grammar. Here's one: http://www.harveycenter.org/course-catalog/ Scroll down and look at the bottom of the left sidebar for information about the course they offer. There are links at Classical Writing under the topic of Grammar and Diagramming: http://www.classicalwriting.com/Helpful_Links.htm

http://bible.cc/1_john/5-13.htm New International Version (©2011) I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. John, one of Jesus' closest apostles writes for this very reason. He thinks that the things he writes is going to help us to really know. So yes. Those things have helped me to really know.

Here's an old thread: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/281824-ugh-can-we-list-all-bible-curriculums/page__hl__+bsgfaa?do=findComment&comment=2817333 We used Bible Study Guide for All Ages before there were any supplemental workbooks. We really loved it and got alot out of it.

Maybe someone would be interested in my take on it, how I see some of the "holes in the logic" being filled. I'll work on a post in my word processor so that I don't delete it by accident again just in case there is someone. It won't be a logical treatise, but will be just an informal working through of some of the enthymemes, a little bit of philosophy, which is all I am good for right now at my level of education.

Fairness, I think, requires us to refrain from saying that the article is saying something more or something other than it intends. For instance, we can do without saying that the article is only addressing the English language. Cothran is saying something about language, and thus grammar, in general, that it touches on and reflects the meaning of the universe. He connects this idea to education and of course Christianity., It is also unfair to dismiss an idea by setting it up as a simple appeal to an audience. You have to know someone intimately to even start guessing accurately about motivations. It is better to grapple with the idea within someone's writing or speaking. And then, it is unfruitful, not helpful, to dismiss it because it is not in the form of a logical treatise. He does know how to do these; it is something that he actually teaches in his logic curriculum. He has not made all of the logical connections, but it doesn't mean that they aren't there. The enthymemes, unstated parts of the logical thinking, are there by implication. You can dig them out if you think about it. This is how logic goes when it is in the realm of rhetoric; it uses enthymemes. Sometimes people confuse and then substitute fallacies for implications. That is, they think they are presenting the implications, when in reality, they are presenting fallacies of assumption or diversion. In doing so, they really just reveal the need for studying logic.

Heheh : ) Yep. Knew the formal convention and just chose to stay with my informal tone (another convention) !