The ISBN on my 2006 Teacher's Edition is 0132508834. There is one newer edition (which is sadly the last edition Pearson will ever issue), and the rep at Pearson told me the only changes were updated links and such (no text changes). There are copies of the 2006 TE on Amazon priced from $8 used to $20 new. Jackie

Aime, I have a similar kiddo (and DH!), and I was a bit like this myself as a kid (at least in terms of being strong-willed), and I would encourage you to not take her behavior personally or see it as a character flaw. As hard as it is to parent these kids, I believe it's actually a lot harder to BE them, and as Peela said, they really need all the love and patience we can possibly muster. They often grow up to be really wonderful, tenacious, successful people. I'll address some of the behaviors individually: Honestly I don't believe this is manipulation; some people just see things in black & white — either everything is right with the world, or there's a ripple in the space/time continuum and we're all gonna diiiiiiiieeeeee! Both my DH and my DS (who are VSL/ADD/intense people like your DD) react this way to criticism. No matter how mild, constructive, or well-intentioned the criticism may be, they hear it as "you're a totally worthless, defective human being." I have had many conversations where I make a comment which is met with... DS/DH: "Yes, I know, I'm a stupid idiot who doesn't deserve to live!!!" Me: "Um, no, I just said you left your socks on the living room floor again." :confused: One of the biggest epiphanies for me, in dealing with both DS and DH, was that I was only looking at half of the VSL thing — the visual part. With VSLs like your DD and my DS, we focus on the visual part because it's easy to conceptualize the "verbal vs visual" part, and to tailor their education accordingly. But the other half of being a VSL — the sequential vs spatial part — is IMO what has the biggest impact on daily life. The epiphany for me was in realizing that the difference in "wiring" is not just thinking in images vs words, it's that the way their lives and thoughts are organized is spatial not sequential or linear or temporal. They live very much in the "here and now" and they don't organize their thoughts or actions into lists or sequences, with links between past and present and future actions. If my alarm goes off and I'm tired, I can think through a whole sequence of events: if I sleep for an extra 20 minutes, it means I will have to skip either the shower or breakfast (are there any muffins left that I could grab on the way out?), and I'll have to get the kids ready quickly (do I know where everyone's shoes and coats are?), etc. Then I can decide how much extra time I can stay in bed or whether I need to get up now. My DS and DH simply can. not. think that way. Almost everyone I know who is like DS and DH has maybe 3 "time units" they recognize: "5 minutes" (which can actually be anything from 5 minutes to an hour), "an hour or so" (which equals anywhere from 1-3 hours) and "later" (which might mean tonight or next year). Anything that takes less than an hour falls into the "5 minutes" category, even if it has taken half an hour every. single. time. they've ever taken a shower / gotten dressed / driven to the post office / whatever. My DH is 40 and I cannot tell him "be ready in an hour" because he will leave everything until 5 minutes before we need to be in the car — and then he will be upset that I'm mad at him for making us late, as if he couldn't possibly have known that getting ready would take more than 5 minutes! DH and DS both need checklists and/or reminders at each step of a multi-step process. They have no sense of time or ability to prioritize. This is actually part of the same problem — there is no past or future, just how they feel right now this minute. She wants to know about her friend right now; asking her to wait a few days is like asking her to wait until she's 20 — that's how it feels to her. The fact that all the kids had the same number of tokens half an hour ago is irrelevant — everyone has more than her right now and that feels unfair. I'm not saying that it's rational or reasonable — but that is how it feels to these kids. Telling them that their feelings are wrong doesn't work, telling them that they're being selfish or unreasonable just gets translated into "you're a terrible person for feeling what you feel," which immediately puts them into defensive mode. When DS feels something is unfair, I say "OK, I can understand why you might feel that way if you just look at what's happening this minute, but let's look at the big picture..." With the Chuck E. Cheese tokens, I would explain that I can understand why she would feel bad that everyone else is still playing when she has no more tokens, but since she played her games more quickly than the others, it isn't really unfair, just unfortunate. So how can we solve this? Maybe next time you can divide your tokens into four piles and only use one pile every 15 minutes, so they will last an hour. Or maybe you could choose games that cost fewer tokens or that provide longer play per token. Etc. Sometimes I feel like DS and DH live on a separate planet — and I know they live in their own private time zones! I've found that it works much better if I try to see things from the perspective of their planet first, and then explain to them how things work here on Earth, lol. Validating how they feel, even if it seems totally irrational to me, helps prevent that spiral of defensiveness and resentment. Jackie

The ADHD and SPD may just be two different labels for the same thing: ADHD describes the behavior ("has trouble paying attention and moves around a lot") and SPD describes the reason behind the behavior. My understanding of proprioceptive SPD is that the feedback loop between the brain and body does not work well — the brain has trouble registering where the body is in space, so there's this constant neurological "chatter" going on in the background where the brain is asking all the body parts "where are you?" and the parts are saying "over here" — sort of like a neurological game of Marco Polo. This is why sensory-seeking SPD kids are constantly fiddling with things, wiggling their feet, bouncing up and down, chewing on things, etc. — their brain needs that constant feedback. Unfortunately, that uses up a ton of "bandwidth," which can make it extremely difficult to focus on other things — sort of like trying to have an important phone conversation while half a dozen kids are running around yelling and being crazy! The need for control is very common in SPD kids. One of the books I read described having proprioceptive SPD as always feeling as if you're about to fall off the earth, with no sense of being stable or grounded, so it's not surprising that anxiety tends to be a big problem in these kids. Bouncing, wrestling, bear hugs, and other activities that involve compression often make them feel more contained and secure. The lack of eye contact in kids with SPD may not be a social aversion so much as an attempt to limit sensory input — if they are trying to listen to something or think about something, they may need to close down other "input ports" in order to concentrate the limited bandwidth they have on just one thing — just as I might close my eyes if I'm trying to listen to a faint sound in order to better process it. Some of the traits you listed may be Aspie traits, but they may also be characteristic of other issues. I tend to think that most kids end up with one or two big labels that do little more than describe a behavior problem, when if you really look closely and try to tease the issues apart, you find a constellation of more specific labels* that may be better at explaining the behavior. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend The Mislabeled Child by Brock and Fernette Eide. They are neurologists who specialize in teasing apart the complicated components of quirky kids — in a way that makes it much easier to address and improve the specific problems — rather that just slapping a big old "doesn't pay attention" or "is somewhere on the autistic spectrum but we don't know where" type label. *ETA: In my son's case, this includes SPD and a combination of LDs that are often characteristic of extreme visual/spatial learners: dyslexia, slow [verbal] processing speed, and poor [verbal] working memory. When he was young (before 7 or so), he was slow to talk (and mumbled a lot when he did start speaking), was socially awkward, fiddled/jumped/moved incessantly, had boundary issues (liked to bump into kids and wrestle), didn't know how to "play normally," had frequent (HUGE) meltdowns from sensory overload, and probably would have been diagnosed as somewhere on the spectrum, had he been in PS. He's 13 now — he has no problems with social appropriateness or boundary issues; he's still highly sensitive and perfectionist (very common in gifted kids) but he's learned to control the meltdowns; he has a number of really good friends and is very popular in any group he's a member of (and is often a leader); and he's very empathetic and compassionate (i.e., no trouble putting himself in "someone else's shoes" or understanding things from someone else's perspective). He has SPD and assorted LDs, but he's not an Aspie, even though his behavior may have looked like that at the age of 6. Jackie

Oh I agree that there needn't be any conflict at all between formalist analysis and other approaches. To me, formalist analysis is one of many tools in the larger "literary analysis tool box," each of which contributes to the understanding and appreciation of literature as a whole (just as dissection contributes to, but is not sufficient for, an understanding of amphibians). Limiting one's analytical "tool box" to a single tool, IMO, would be like having a tool box at home that included nothing but screwdrivers; suggesting that hammers, wrenches, saws, and drills are also useful is in no way a criticism of screwdrivers. I especially agree with what you said about discussion: "The discussion that surrounds that taking of positions is what connects reading history and literature to real life." I attended an LAC where Socratic questioning and small, seminar-style discussions formed the core of my undergraduate education. It's precisely those sorts of discussions, where kids are forced to find and defend their positions and think deeply about literature, history, and philosophy, as well as the connections between them and the connections to the student's own lives, that I try to emulate in homeschooling. To me, that is the real essence of a classical education. What matters in the long run isn't what curriculum someone uses or which Great Books list they read or exactly how they approach literary analysis; what matters is all that questioning, discussion, and analysis. Jackie

What a wonderful post, Andrew! I particularly like this: It summarizes perfectly the problem I have with trying to limit literary analysis to a purely formalist approach. E.g.: IMO, this "scientific" approach to literature will only take you so far, as you pointed out: Jackie

Thank you for posting that! Even in a frazzled, stress-out state you are apparently thinking more clearly than I — the quote from the College Board summarizes in a clear, succinct, and objective way, what some of us have been inefficiently rambling on about for the last 7 pages. :tongue_smilie: It also directs the discussion back to what is probably the key point here: even if a parent believes that literary analyses involving "experience," "interpretation," "reaction," "artistic judgements," and "social and cultural values," are complete BS, those things are an integral component of literary analysis as it is taught and defined in college and AP courses here. Therefore, even if a parent considers "focused analyses of language and structure" to be the only approach worthy of the name, IMHO students should ideally be exposed to all aspects of analysis, not just one. Jackie

n/m

n/m

Oh I wasn't disagreeing with you, or even directing my comments specifically at you — I was just responding to the links you posted, because I do think they are representative of the way most American colleges (and high schools for that matter) approach literary analysis. FWIW, I never had a literature class that was purely a "form and mechanics class" or that required that approach in all writing assignments; IME that is not how either composition classes or 100-200 level lit courses are taught here. In fact, most composition classes that I have seen (in researching current Gen Ed requirements at various colleges) do not focus purely on literary analysis, let alone a very narrow formalist approach to literary analysis, but rather incorporate many types of research and writing (as Karen pointed out earlier). I would imagine that, at an American university, a class in strict formal/structural literary analysis would be an upper level or graduate course, in which case students would have already taken a number of introductory literature classes and would therefore have the necessary foundational skills to tackle it. I think that analysis of content, meaning, context, etc., is actually more accessible to younger students and that very detailed formalist analyses require more advanced background and training (IOW, the reverse of the order Ester Maria recommends). And that does in fact seem to be the order in which these things are taught in American universities. Jackie

I print and comb-bind one book at a time (3A, 3B, etc). Printing in color on the "fast draft" setting results in slightly more pastel colors but saves a ton of ink. I print single-sided because (1) it's faster and (2) when the workbook is open flat, the blank back of the previous page serves as scratch paper. Jackie

I think those two sites are fairly representative of what colleges consider "literary analysis" — and you can see that in no way do they limit it to strict formalist/structural analysis. In fact quite the opposite — there is a strong emphasis on content and meaning. For those who said that the idea of emphasizing the mechanical components of a work (e.g. "The organizational relationship between short stories and a unity of a novel in Don Quijote") really clicked with them, those sorts of papers are certainly welcomed. But parents of kids who click with a different approach, or who worry that they are not able to teach the sort of formalist analysis Ester Maria talks about, should not feel that their kids will be unprepared for college, because other approaches are considered every bit as "legitimate" in college literature classes. Jackie

I find it interesting that these sorts of discussions always seem to end with those who believe that their method of education is the only "correct" method suggesting that those who disagree are flirting with "great danger," by "tailoring" our kids' educations to their "preferences" (AKA "coddling," "indulging," "dumbing down," etc.) — as if the only parents who would ever choose a different approach are those whose children are either incapable of doing it "properly" or too spoiled to work hard. In fact, I'm tailoring my children's educations to my preferences. The fact that my approach to education does not exactly mirror yours isn't because I'm ignorant of those methods or my children are incapable of doing the work; it's because I disagree fundamentally with the assertion that your "rigid, compartmentalized" (in your words) approach to education is the best or most "correct" approach. I'm afraid there is simply no way to reconcile the opinion that there are many valid paths to producing highly-educated, critical-thinking children, and the opinion that there is only one way — yours. I don't post in these threads in order to persuade you otherwise; I post in order to present alternatives to other homeschoolers who may not realize that there are alternatives. Jackie

At this point I suspect that the only people still reading this thread may be those of us posting in it. :tongue_smilie: On the off chance that anyone else is still reading it, I certainly hope they recognize that those of us who are talking about including or allowing other approaches to literary analysis are not excluding formal analysis. Like you, I consider it to be one of several tools for understanding literature — just not the only "correct" or acceptable one. Yes, this has been my experience as well. When I was in college (small selective LAC) and grad school (UC), the sort of formal/technical/structural analysis described by Ester Maria was just one of many formats taught, and many different approaches and formats were accepted for essays and term papers in literature and art history classes. Certainly none of my literature or art history professors shared the view that formal/technical analysis was the only acceptable approach. While I firmly believe that teaching critical thinking and analytical skills is the single most important thing we can do to prepare our kids for college — and, more importantly, life — I think those skills can be taught in many different ways in a variety of disciplines. Jackie

Thank you for that brief summary of Paul Johnson's Modern Times ;) If this is a topic that truly interests you, however, I'd like to suggest some further reading, because you are incorrectly conflating Einstein's theory of relativity with philosophical relativism — which predates Einstein by about 2500 years. To understand the more immediate roots of relativism in European thought, start with Kant (or, if you're really ambitious, Hume) and read forward. I'm afraid that art, like history, is rarely "very simple." And this is a good example of why I believe in interdisciplinary studies. In order to truly understand history, one must understand the ideas that drive people, and these ideas are expressed in religion, philosophy, art, literature and other forms of writing, etc. And in order to understand where these ideas come from and how they shift and change and develop over time, one must understand the cultural, political, historical, economic, and social context in which the artists, writers, and philosophers lived. In other words, each academic "discipline" aims to study one aspect of what is actually a much larger system of actions and ideas. To me, restricting the tools students are permitted to use in studying these components to only those tools devised within the very narrow confines of a single discipline is like putting intellectual blinders on — at best this results in an incomplete view, and at worst it produces something akin to the blind men and the elephant. The analogy of literary analysis to dissection is again apt, because (to me) restricting literary analysis to a dissection of form and structure does not provide a complete understanding of a literary work any more than dissecting a frog provides a complete understanding of frogs — for that you need to study them in the context of their environment. It seems like some people are trying to reframe the arguments that KarenAnne and Julie and I are making, as if we're just ignorant "relativists" who don't understand "proper" literary analysis. I don't dismiss or denigrate the usefulness of formal analysis — I certainly did plenty of it in college — but I consider it only one, very narrow component of a much larger approach to understanding art and literature. And, ironically, I think that overemphasis on remaining strictly within the bounds of a single discipline, rather than looking at the larger context, can result in errors such as blaming Modernist and Post-Modernist "relativism" on Einstein while ignoring it's explicit roots in 18th century German philosophy. Jackie

There are only 17 lessons in Physical Science, plus 17 in Earth Science and 24 in Life Science. DS generally did 2 lessons/week and finished the whole program in about 30 weeks. You could probably make Physical Science last a semester by doing 1 lesson/week, supplemented by additional reading on the lesson topic, but I don't think you could stretch it out for a full year — that would only be 2 lessons per month. I don't think the age is an issue, as my DS was about 10 when he did it, but I would also say that Physical Science was probably the most difficult of the three programs for him. Jackie

For some of us, though, this is a false dichotomy — that only the most formal, technical aspects of education, divorced from personal engagement and joy, count as "school." Many people (especially homeschoolers) simply don't compartmentalize learning that way. I think the fact that most US students have to wait until college to take these sorts of courses is primarily the result of a public education system that is obsessed with standardized lists of testable factoids and oblivious to the importance of connections and context. Many private prep schools do offer interdisciplinary courses at the HS level; the Theory of Knowledge course that is part of the IB program is a good example, combining philosophy/epistemology with art, literature, history, science, and social science. Interesting — I've had the opposite experience. I've found that people who had a rigid, compartmentalized education sometimes had difficulty getting out of those boxes in interdisciplinary seminars. And for people who naturally make connections and look at things from a variety of disciplines and approaches, a rigid, compartmentalized education can feel stifling. I'm sure many people here do understand that you come from a very specific tradition, and that your views represent that tradition, but some may not (there are a lot of newbies here, both to WTM in general and to the HS board). I think it can have a chilling effect when someone posts quite forcefully that literary analysis, or schooling in general, must be done a certain way and must include certain topics/works/approaches and must exclude certain other topics/works/approaches, and that the alternatives are simply "nonsense," "pretentious," "pseudo-intellectual," etc. Someone who doesn't have a background in that area may not realize that there are other — equally "professional" — opinions and approaches. Obviously there's a fundamental irreconcilability between the belief that different approaches work for different families and there is no one "right" way to educate our children (what you would call "relativism"), and the belief that one family's approach to education is inherently and objectively the "best," most "correct" approach. But I agree that this is a difference of opinion and isn't personal. :) Jackie

:iagree: with everything Once said, here and in her other posts. My son was exactly the same way, he also has SPD (and is gifted), the same things worked for us, and he has also grown out of a LOT of the difficult behaviors. The hardest thing about parenting kids like this is getting advice from parents who don't have kids like this. No, they're not being brats or seeking attention. They have brains and nervous systems that are on high alert and easily overwhelmed. Many times they have low seratonin, hence the constant "Eeyore attitude." All the things Once mentioned in the post above can help: diet, exercise, fish oil (try Vit D3 as well), lots of down time, and as much consistency as you can manage. Telling kids like this that they're bad or ungrateful or "need to change their attitude right now" only makes things worse — they know there's something wrong with them, and they have no idea how to fix it. They can't rewire their brains or manipulate their biochemistry on command. My DS was just like yours when he was little, and I feared for his future. He just turned 13 and he's the sweetest, nicest, most compassionate and thoughtful kid I know. Seriously! The kid I once carried screaming out of Ikea holding him by the front of his jacket and one pant leg, is now a constant source of complements from other parents: he does whatever he's asked (assuming he remembers — he may need lots of reminders ;)), he never talks back, he always says please and thank you, he rarely complains about school (just math, lol) and he does way more chores than any of his friends. He did not get that way from years of spanking or tough love or ignoring the "outbursts." He's growing into a mature, responsible, loving kid because he was treated with love and compassion and respect. The single most important thing you can convey to your son is that you are on his team, and that your job is to help him deal with the issues of negativity and self-control that upset him just as much as they upset you. One thing I taught my son was that he can always ask for a hug and he will get it — no questions asked, no arguments about whether he really needs it or he's just stalling or whatever. He can always ask for a hug and he will get a hug. He towers over me now, but he still asks for a hug whenever he's upset or needs help calming down. Hang in there — it will get better. Do some research on giftedness, on SPD, on anxiety (these things often go together). And just love on him — a lot. These kids need all the love you can pour into them. Jackie

I think the comparison of literary analysis to “dissection†is an interesting one. To me, it suggests a view of literature not as a living, growing, centuries-long conversation between writers and readers, but as a collection of preserved specimens, with literary analysis functioning as a sort of lab report, which is either done correctly or it isn’t. Did the student make the correct incisions? Are the parts properly labeled? IMHO, to say that the study of literature within an English class must be limited to formal, technical analysis and must at all costs avoid discussions of meaning or personal engagement with the work, misses the point of art. To me, art is a conversation between the artist and the reader or viewer; artists make art as a way of transferring their thoughts and feelings and beliefs to others. I don’t imagine many authors sit down to write thinking “I don’t care if anyone enjoys or understands or is moved my novel/poem/play/short story — as long as a handful of grad students do a thorough structural analysis someday, I’ll know all my effort was worth while.†I think that getting students to really engage with the work — not just scalpel it into little technical pieces — is entirely in keeping with the artist/writer's intention in creating the work. Oh, but some of us do care. For some people, personal response, historical background, cultural context, contemporary relevance, etc., are all legitimate components of a HS Literature class, along with the study of structure and technique. All of these things can contribute to a deeper appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of literature — and, yes, that is my goal. I also don’t understand the idea that academic “subjects†must be rigorously divided into separate disciplines and only approached from within the box of that particular discipline — no crossover allowed. Most of the really interesting courses I had in college and grad school were interdisciplinary courses or seminars, and I always appreciated the new insights and ideas that can be gleaned from approaching a topic from new perspectives. I think interdisciplinary studies can provide a cross-pollination of ideas that keeps disciplines from becoming stagnant and fossilized. Jackie

I worked as a book editor for many years and every dictionary or style guide I've ever consulted states that "none" can be either singular or plural. Particia O'Connor, in Woe is I: The Grammarphobes Guide to Better English, sums it up quite well: Oxford: Merriam-Webster: American Heritage Dictionary: New York Times Style Guide: Elements of Style, Strunk & White: Rhetorical Grammar, Martha Kolln: Dictionary.com: Jackie

Nan, the Teaching Company has some economics courses that also touch on things like game theory, decision making, complexity, etc., that might be of interest to your son: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/Courses.aspx?ps=901 Priority code 57516 will get sale prices on all the business and economics courses through 6/16. If you're interested in the "Thinking Like an Economist: A Guide to Rational Decision-Making" course, PM me as I have a one-time code for an additional $10 off that one. Jackie

I sent you a PM... Jackie

:iagree: I love Galore Park's stuff, too. I think you'd really like Latin Prep, it's funny and a bit irreverent — perfect for the ages of your boys. Jackie

Have you ever watched a Teaching Company lecture? They're not exactly "flashy." :lol: Most of them are college-level lectures and the information is dense enough that significant "mental discipline" is required — I've seen people post on the HS board that they can only watch one lecture per day because it's a lot of information to process. (DS watches 2-3 per day, and remembers everything.) We frequently watch documentaries about astronomy, physics, archaeology, biology (the Raw Anatomy dissections are awesome), geology, and history — many of which require paying careful attention to keep up. I don't understand the assumption that information presented visually is therefore "easy" and not a valid way of learning. There are dense, deep, information-packed lectures/documentaries and there is edutainment twaddle, just as there are dense, deep, information-packed books and twaddle books. IMHO the content is what matters, not the format in which it's presented. Jackie

It really depends on what's on the TV — we mostly watch Teaching Company lectures, documentary DVDs from Netflix, and programs on the Science Channel. I've seen NOVA documentaries where the information presented was at a higher level than a typical HS textbook. DS can still "replay" in his head documentaries he watched years ago, complete with Latin species names and tons of other minute details. There are also some really excellent documentaries for history — why would watching Ken Burns' documentary series on the Civil War, for example, be inherently inferior to reading a textbook chapter on the subject? :confused: Jackie

I wouldn't worry about whether someone else would call your homeschool "classical" or not. It's just a label, and everyone who uses it defines it in a different way. My DS is very visual/spatial (like his dad), and we are doing what works for him, which includes lots of visual resources (Teaching Company lectures, documentaries, visual explanations instead of verbal ones, etc.) as well as hands-on, interest-led science. He's also studying Ancient Greek (his choice), knows more about ancient history than most college students, and his critical thinking skills are far ahead of his age, all of which are supposedly components of a "classical education." Pick and choose the components of a "classical education" that are meaningful to you — and that work for your child — and don't worry about the labels. Jackie