Thanks! Question answered. :) I guess I'm just not trusting enough of the program to let it be here...maybe my opinion will change in time.

Bonnie, I'm sorry for bringing up the gifted issue. My point in doing so was to express my questions about whether it was initially developed as a stand alone program or a program used in addition to a more traditional program. I still am not sure. :) If my posts contributed at all to you feeling the above-mentioned frustrations, I apologize.

It's just that that was the original concept...MCT was creating material to be used with gifted children. When he created the materials, this was his audience. I think the creativity he used to present the concepts and the deeper meanings that he hides throughout the text may appeal to gifted children. He makes language seem like an interesting puzzle that can be grasped and put together. I don't know what all went into "tailoring" it to that group. Educators in gifted education programs that do not meet daily have strict requirements to only use materials that go "above and beyond" that which is normally used in a typical classroom. During that one, two-day experience children are captivated and challenged with materials that either deal with topics they don't encounter normally (future problem solving, logic) or take topics they do encounter and present them in completely different, new ways. It was my thinking that the latter was the case with MCT's language courses which is why I looked at it more as a supplement/complement...but perhaps as another poster pointed out they may have been created to be used in gifted programs that meet daily. Not sure what the requirements are for those materials. By no means does a child need to have a gifted level IQ to enjoy or completely understand and benefit from MCT. It's creative presentation may appeal to some gifted children and the presentation in a more conceptual way in narrative form. Gifted children are not just accelerated...in fact, though many are capable of being so, many also they lack the motivation, ambition or, perhaps, challenge to apply themselves. Some students are accelerated because they are ready for and begin materials at an early age. Sometimes these children plateau and sometimes they continue to work hard and excel at a higher level than their just as intelligent, and sometimes more intelligent, peers. Every child is different. MCT was simply created for, but is definitely not exclusively for, children with gifted level IQs.

This was my point and much better said by both. I have to think it is more of the norm for children to need reinforcement of these facts, at least in 3rd grade. I'm glad my dd is not alone in this. She sounds a lot like your dd in this area Karen. :) At this stage she needs practice and lots of reminding. It's not that she doesn't know the stuff, but there is still the need for it to be in our grammar and writing instruction.

I just recently watched a youtube where she discussed the issue .

If this is the only book you have used in the series you should definitely not give up hope. It is, in my opinion, the least impressive of the bunch. It improves greatly from there.

One issue, though, is that since MCT has opened up to the homeschool market, not everyone using it is teaching a profoundly gifted or even gifted child. (ETA: I think a lot of people are beginning in 3rd and earlier despite the recommendations). Consequently it can't be assumed that it is a complete program for those who may not have the expected skills. Programs like WT1, intended to begin at 3rd grade, spend a lot of time on skills like punctuation and capitalization, because at this age most students need practice in building that knowledge. I happen to be teaching a gifted student who started GI last year in 2nd grade easily...probably could have much earlier. Even though she gets it and the deeper nuances are great...I prefer the balance I get between using MCT and a traditional program. This way I can have my cake and eat it to. Is this way for everyone? Nope. But it is an alternative that some may prefer.

Our state has always had once a week classes for gifted students--despite the level of giftedness. It was my mistake to make assumptions based on what I know instead of perhaps what is a norm I was not aware of. Still, as much as I like MCT and think Thompson is brilliant in his presentation of grammar concepts, I personally prefer it as a supplement. For me, and for my dd, that works. For others, it works as a stand alone. I wanted to offer an opinion for the OP who was looking for possible downfalls to the program...and, again, only in my opinion, it is lacking things I prefer to teach at this level. Everyone is different regarding the idea of a solid elementary grammar program and many don't even see the need to introduce formal grammar until middle school. We are obviously not all going to agree.

I am trying to understand exactly what this implies. Do you think it is innate, learned through reading, or something that should have been covered prior to third grade? Otherwise, some instruction needs to take place, and if you choose to use MCT you will need to supplement that...which was my point. I think the materials are great...definitely not trying to anger those who also think they are great. But this does lead into my deeper questioning of MCT...if we are going to trust him to introduce things at an appropriate level. And that question is this...if these materials initially were developed for gifted children's programs, and, as far as I am aware of, there are no exclusively gifted children's classrooms that meet more than one or two days a week, was there an assumption when he developed these materials that they would be in addition to the traditional grammar programs that children were already being instructed in in the classroom during the rest of the week?

We purchased the Grammar Island set last year to begin this year. When it arrived, we were both too excited to wait. So, we shelved what we were doing (CLE 3) for a while and dove into MCT. It was a very nice change of pace...a warm snuggly time on the couch. Dd enjoyed the format and absorbed the information. I was very impressed with what she retained, re: the parts of speech, and her ability to work through the 4-step analysis in the Practice Island book. We enjoyed getting started with MotH and BL. I agree the vocab is not spectacular at this level, but it did open up a lot of discussions and fit well with the stories we were reading about in FMR. I did have a little trouble wrapping my mind around how to implement the writing assignments, but we didn't get very deep into Sentence Island before the year was through. What it covers, MCT covers beautifully. My issue was what it didn't cover...some of the nuts and bolts that we had been learning in CLE. Now, I'll again reiterate that we only began SI, so more capitalization, punctuation, etc. could be in there. Also, it would be very easy to add these things in with a supplement, if not. I decided that this year we would finish CLE 3 (we're now on the last week of 309) and then reread Grammar Island and restart Practice Island and some of the supplements. We'll likely spend a six week chunk solely on MCT--rereading GI (this will only take about 3 wks) and then getting solidly back into PI. We'll read through the others, even SI, though I don't plan to use it as our writing program. Then, we will go into CLE 4 while doing a PI sentence a day as well. While I liked using MCT immensely and look forward to getting back into it, I decided I would use MCT in a more supplementary way than as our main grammar. I like the thoroughness of material covered in CLE. I also like the balance that using both gives me--CLE encourages independent work while MCT gives us a more "warm and snuggly on the couch" approach to grammar. Yes, it is expensive as just a supplement, but, since we were too anxious to wait and started it early (dd was working a year ahead in CLE), I'll be getting two years worth of use for one level. Also, in my opinion, it is worth the cost even when used in this manner. Since I have decided on a different path re: writing, I may not purchase the writing books in the future...at least not until the higher level ones. Of course, this is just my experience. I feel MCT as the main grammar with a simple capitalization, punctuation supplement added in would also be sufficient. Different strokes for different folks. :)

Both CLE and GWG encourage more independent work. I used GWG 1/2 (when they were together). Dd really liked it, and I did as well. My only issue was it seemed we were learning bits and pieces never putting everything together as a whole. I wanted something with more review, something that built upon itself, and so I moved to CLE. Now looking back, the nature of the first two years of GWG may just be learning the basics in order to put them to use together in later years. I have no idea if the things that bothered me would have been cleared up in level three or not, but I can tell you that even with these bumps I was a little sad to move away from it. :) I've been very impressed with CLE, though, so I don't have any regrets for not sticking with GWG. CLE has handwriting and spelling included. It works for us, so that streamlines our LA program. I like that it has weekly tests on the material learned and that it helps children learn study skills to better prepare for taking those tests. I also like that you continue to review those things in further weeks. I like that it clearly explains what is expected of the child so I can introduce any new material and let her continue through independently. We will begin the final week of 309 next week and it has been about poetry--rhythm, rhyming, counting syllables, poetic language, etc. After we finish 310 we will take another break and reread MCT's Grammar Island and restart Practice Island as a supplement--not as a necessity, but because my dd loves it and it is fun. :) Then we'll begin level four and continue with some of the extras of MCT. So, all this to say, I think both GWG and CLE are good programs. If you can get your hands on them to look closer, that of course is going to give you the best idea of what will work best for your dd (and for you). I heard once that CLE would send you a sample lightunit if you called...perhaps that is something to check into. Best wishes to you!

It is such a difficult thing, because it really does depend on what fits best for her and for you. We've been pleased with CLE, but I know it isn't for everyone. I like that it is complete and thorough. Some people think it has too much review and some that it doesn't have enough :) but we find it to be just right. Level 3 introduces diagramming. It does include spelling, but you can skip that section and continue on with AAS. You can look at samples here (just click on the numbers--301-310--to see inside) and see what you think.

Think I'm too late, but just in case I'd love to help as well!

I hope you don't mind a question...I'm looking into these, too, for the first time. Are the older editions no longer available anywhere? I'm assuming the copies being sold at RR are the new editions. Is this correct? Thanks.

I love H.C. Trumbull's Hints on Child Training. It was written in the 1800s so I thought it would be rigid and archaic...but it provided some of the most gentle and wise knowledge I have read on the subject. Like most books, you won't agree with everything, but the chapter "Will-Training, Rather Than Will-Breaking" was a paradigm shifter for me.

I love everything we're using so far, but the biggest hit would have to be our new schedule. I'm giving the six-weeks-on-one-week-off schedule a try. Right now I think it is fantastic, but that is because this is our first week off. Ask me again on Monday. :001_smile:

Heather, I would love to hear what you've heard and where you read about it for my own research. Thanks.

I haven't used LfC, so I can't really compare the two. I will say that I struggled greatly with my decision on which Latin to choose for dd. I wrestled, decided, wrestled, decided. Ultimately, after talking with some people I respected in the LCC arena, I became at peace with the decision to go with LC. I knew from my research and my conversations that it wasn't perfect or the "best" thing for everyone, but I felt content it was what we needed for now. I am with some of the others who have said that fun is not always a necessity in the programs I choose. I consider Latin to be a core subject, like Math, and my criteria for a program in either subject is that it works. LC1 is working for us. I couple it with Ludere Latine and I think the puzzles and games there do a great job of solidifying the things we are learning. Dd loves doing Latin...she even likes the dvds...shocking, I know. So far LC has not been boring for us at all.

Disclaimer: The person responding to your post is not an expert. Heed her advice with care. :001_smile: Here is what I have learned on my Latin journey. Ecclesiastical is the language of the church. It was Medieval Latin. Classical Latin is the Latin of the Romans. There are differences: E. pronounces the Latin v the same as we do in English whereas C. pronounces it as a w. Some of the dipthongs have different pronunciations. In C. the Latin c (and I think g as well) are pronounced the "hard" way. In E. they follow a rule similar to English, sometimes hard, sometimes soft (when preceding appropriate vowels). There are more, but I think these are the biggies. If your child goes on to study Latin in college, classical will be the pronunciation used. I'm pretty certain that Henle allows you to choose pronunciations and Wheelock may as well. All that to say, the advice I have gotten from people I do consider to be Latin experts is that it is more a matter of personal choice. If a child learns ecclesiastical, the leap to classical will not be a difficult one. As for us, we are using ecclesiastical right now because I have chosen to follow the Memoria Press series. I do however discuss with my dd the differences and sometimes we practice pronouncing in classical just to keep her mind open to the knowledge that there is a difference. We use Minimus as a fun supplement and it is classical. So far it has not caused confusion. She seems to understand and grasp the major differences.

If they are enjoying it and you are doing well without, just keep going. We used the dvds and had no problems with them, but I seem to be the minority in this. :001_smile:

I think it will definitely vary from child to child, but my daughter is not having difficulties with the narration. We had done some oral narrations before but not many written ones. The first week on a piece is strict retelling--no creative touches. The next week you are allowed to add those creative touches, while still keeping the basic story idea the same. We just finished week 6, and so far so good. :001_smile:

I would perhaps edit the second sentence to this: “I am King Ethelbert(,) and I rule this half of this island. Augustine, ye must tell me about your Christianity,†King Ethelbert (exclaimed, said, bellowed...). “(First, let us find) a place for ye to preach. Canterbury, maybe? I would be more than willing to let ye build a church there.â€

CLE is great for encouraging independent study. I'm usually an "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" type of girl, but we all have seasons in our life when a change can be helpful. If it helps during this more difficult season, but isn't everything you'd hoped, you can always return to R&S later. I'm very pleased with CLE, but I've never used R&S.

:001_smile: Looks like you found it.

I agree about starting with Hey, Andrew. I've heard that EG covers in one level what Hey, Andrew covers in three. That is good, but I like the extra work in the alphabet that using Hey, Andrew level 1 prior to EG provides. We worked through Hey, Andrew level 1 last year and will begin week after next (I wanted to spend 6 wks getting back into Latin before starting EG). Hey, Andrew level 1 is a very gentle intro to the alphabet. The Greek Alphabet Code Cracker is another option for learning the alphabet. The brief time spent introducing the alphabet in EG is definitely sufficient, particularly for an older child, but a younger child might enjoy the extra practice.