Bluedorns' Teaching the Trivium and grammar instruction

[hlee]

(Accidentally posted this on the General Board and am copying it here where it was originally intended!)

 

I am reading Teaching the Trivium right now...there is definitely much in it that I find questionable and I am an evangelical Christian though probably not as conservative as the Bluedorns. Anyway, I am wondering in particular what people think of what they said about teaching grammar at a later age. Their contention that teaching grammar to children under 10 could be potentially damaging to the kids was really striking! Is there any kind of response anywhere that people know about regarding how TWTM/SWB feel about the Bluedorn's contention? (They make a similar claim about delaying mathematics, which I did find reference to on these boards elsewhere with a search.) But I was definitely a little troubled by their ideas on the dangers of teaching grammar...since I am a new homeschooler and using FLL with my 7 year old and teaching him the basic definitions of the parts of speech. But according to the Bluedorns, I am potentially wiring his brain in a way that will make it much more difficult for him to understand English grammar at a more advanced level down the road. Where does this idea come from??? I'd love to hear from anyone who has insight about this concept or who knows if SWB has ever responded to the claim. Thanks!

[Testimony]

Both The Well Trained Mind and Teaching the Trivium are classical and yet they are so different. However, only in the early stages!!

 

By about age 10-12 year old, the Bluedorns are very similar to The Well Trained Mind. I have followed the Bluedorns. I even spoke to Mrs. Bluedorn herself. She is very down to earth. Remember, she did graduate her children on their philosophy and her two sons wrote the Fallacy Dectective.

 

Please understand something about their philosophy of teaching math and grammar. It is not that your child receive no math, but not to teach it from a textbook in the first few years. For example, if you used all manipulatives for the first few years of a child's life and then put them in a textbook, they would probably be able to handle a 5th grade math book. That is what they are saying. I agree. I think that younger aged children should use more manipulatives and less textbook. I believe that if you had a guide of what the child needed at each level, they probably will understand with manipulatives better. Math is very easy to use manipulatives in your own house. I just want to say that I have read on this board moms that don't understand why their 10 year old is not getting multiplication. If you work in a textbook, it is conceptual and hard to grasp. If you work with manipulatives, the child is digesting it more.

 

In terms of grammar, the Bluedorns say that grammar is more of a logic stage subject. I am teaching FLL3 to my 10 year old now. He loves it and thinks it is easy. I never did any formal grammar with him, but I did identify the different parts of speech to him. I know that the Charlotte Mason approach feels that you should just teach it one year and that's it.

 

I do realize that there is a lot of logic involved in grammar. I don't think that if a child learned grammar at an older grade that the child would suffer greatly. I am sure that there are lots of people that would disagree with my view, but this is the Well Trained Mind boards.

 

The Bluedorns focus is more on character development as an education as oppose to The Well Trained Mind's focus is academics, the earlier the better. Different schools of thoughts, both have been successful.

 

Blessings,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Julie in MN]

I agree with Karen's description of math -- just not worksheets. I think basically the same can be said for grammar. They would still work with the language -- just not worksheets & such naming parts of speech. This isn't a completely unique view, and is very in line with Charlotte Mason.

 

I can say that waiting on parts of speech worked well with my youngest. He's spent years working with language but only now reads/writes sentences large enough to need to understand how grammar works. It's applicable to his foreign language study at this point, also. I'm glad we waited and it's going very quickly in 7th & 8th grade.

 

As far as actual "damage" by teaching too early, I haven't read anything but I'd think the Bluedorns would have that information. I imagine it would be similar to the (public) kindergarten teacher one of my kids had -- she told me she had a class full of kids who could count to 100 but didn't really understand that the symbol "3" stood for *more* than the symbol "2." She felt it was easier to teach my child, who had not been exposed to preschool academics (but had spent lots of time "learning" in the hands-on way preschool minds tend to absorb concepts). I'd imagine that's what they're getting at? I'd have to go back & re-read their grammar chapter to know for sure.

 

Julie

[ekarl2]

I sell a grammar curriculum that starts no earlier than 4th grade. I have this discussion A LOT.:001_smile:

 

I don't think doing what I consider "informal" grammar at a young age is detrimental at all. In fact I recommend FLL all the time to those who want to cover basic (again, informal) grammatical topics earlier.

 

I do think, though, that trying to do the hard-core, analytical, logical stuff too early is just time wasted. I'm not saying a younger child can't learn it, but it does take longer. I'd rather wait until their little brains are ready and then get it over with.

 

Grammar is not a big body of knowledge. You can either start really early and spend YEARS covering it, or just wait until they're old enough and do it more quickly. The point is to get it mastered so you can move on to literature and writing. Those topics are MUCH more vast and MUCH more difficult and time-consuming to teach.

 

What I unfortunately see sometimes are homeschool teachers who start in 1st grade with big grammar books that are done every day for the whole year and consider their language arts covered!:confused: WHAT??? There are SO many things that need to be taught in elementary school.

[hlee]

Thanks for the responses. I realize in hindsight I sound overly critical of the book, which I didn't mean to communicate. (That's what happens when you rush to try to post something with three little ones running around!) Anyway, I certainly mean no disrespect to the Bluedorns with my comments; just trying to better understand their perspective. I appreciate all the feedback! Thanks again.