S/O Flavor of the month - MCT.....

[MariannNOVA]

I would love a "try before you buy" option like History Odyssey.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:THAT is precisely what I have been thinking! We are using HO Level 2 Middle Ages for DD10 and we love it -- we were going to use Level 1 for the twins but after printing out and reading it, I did not go ahead with it. The HO try before you buy is an excellent option!

[MariannNOVA]

The program is terribly overpriced. While the books are interesting and some kids enjoy it, paying $430 for language arts curricula seems unconscionable to me unless one has too much money and is looking for ways to throw it away. I'm very happy it worked for the OP -- I wonder how her dh would react if he found out what she spent!

 

I've heard good things about the program, but I wouldn't even consider it for that kind of money.

 

FWIW, I found this inappropriate :001_huh: as I am the individual who paid $430. And, I believe I did state that I was joking about the DH part, and even if I wasn't, I still found your response inappropriate. I did explain that I had purchased for three children and purchased a book for each of us which is not necessary. No hard feelings, here, but I had to let you know.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

FWIW, I found this inappropriate :001_huh: as I am the individual who paid $430.

:iagree:I did too.:grouphug:

[Jen500]

FWIW, I found this inappropriate :001_huh: as I am the individual who paid $430. And, I believe I did state that I was joking about the DH part, and even if I wasn't, I still found your response inappropriate. I did explain that I had purchased for three children and purchased a book for each of us which is not necessary. No hard feelings, here, but I had to let you know.

 

:grouphug:

And sometimes having twins can be more expensive than 2 different aged kids, when you can re-use a book. I've ended up buying 2 texts in most subjects for my twins. We tried sharing, but they really need their own books.

[MariannNOVA]

:grouphug:

And sometimes having twins can be more expensive than 2 different aged kids, when you can re-use a book. I've ended up buying 2 texts in most subjects for my twins. We tried sharing, but they really need their own books.

 

OMH! :iagree: Because here, this :boxing_smiley: and this :smash: and this :001_tt2: and

this:crying:......OH, and I don't want to forget this :angry: or this :mad: can evolve from the simple request to 'please share that book.'

 

Apparently, after my twins shared a UTERUS, the sharing was OVER!!!!!!!

[christine in al]

I'm loving your posts.

 

Thanks for keeping things light.

~Christine in AL

[MariannNOVA]

I'm loving your posts.

 

Thanks for keeping things light.

~Christine in AL

 

Awwwww, that is so nice :) -- truly -- you made me smile :), and that is not an easy thing to do!

Thanks and have a great day! Must.go.teach.:leaving:

[Jen500]

OMH! :iagree: Because here, this :boxing_smiley: and this :smash: and this :001_tt2: and

this:crying:......OH, and I don't want to forget this :angry: or this :mad: can evolve from the simple request to 'please share that book.'

 

Apparently, after my twins shared a UTERUS, the sharing was OVER!!!!!!!

 

Oh, thanks for the laugh!

[MariannNOVA]

Oh, thanks for the laugh!

 

:) my pleasure! :)

 

Have a great day!:)

[Matryoshka]

I personally wish MCT would have more (better?) samples online. I just really cannot understand how it all fits together, and whether I would LIKE how it all fits together, without seeing more, more, more.

 

I will agree that the samples on the RFWP website are woefully inadequate to even begin to understand how the program is put together. And the website is not particularly attractive and is difficult to navigate. They should probably hire a good web designer.

 

Now this next bit is not addressed at anyone in particular but the thread tone in general. I'm starting to get a bit miffed by the tone of some people posting to it. What's wrong with people saying a curriculum is working great for them (or a bunch of people saying the same)? Many people have said here for ages how R&S Grammar and Saxon math are the *best* things, the most complete, the most rigorous, the absolute sure-fire best programs. Well, I'd rather be strapped to the ground above a nest of fire ants and painted with honey than use either of those programs, but I don't go on those threads and say "oh, don't follow the herd, just because tons of people like it doesn't mean it's any good". I'm actually guessing these programs do work really well for lots of people. Just not for me.

 

And I think the same is true of MCT. It's not going to be for everyone. The people who love those incremental, repetitive programs are going to be turned off by MCT. I think one of the reasons you're seeing so much enthusiasm is that those who hated Saxon before had things like Singapore or Right Start or other high interest, non "beat-it-to-death" programs for math. There really hasn't been anything like that for language arts, especially grammar.

 

And what's really bugging me is that 99% of the people posting "I agree, this is so flavor-of-the-month" have not done anything but looked at those woefully inadequate web samples, which didn't even impress me, and I love the program now that I have it. They have not used it, but they're ready to dismiss it as a fad and act like everyone's "following the herd".

 

Well, I'm not a herd follower, nor a curriculum-switcher. I've stuck with almost every single piece of curriculum I've picked out over the long haul. I have never flitted from program to program or had my head turned by squirrels ;). I haven't even ever used SOTW when practially every single person I know IRL and online has used it and raved about it - but I wanted to do something different (which I've stuck with for five years).

 

I bought MCT when almost no one here had heard of it. I posted questions about it and crickets chirped. I got maybe two responses (I know Moira was one - thanks!!) and then the thread got buried on page 6 after one day. I probably still wouldn't have bought it but the samples of the secondary curriculum are much clearer to me as to where they're going and what they accomplish, and I took a leap of faith that those odd little books might get my kids to where they could handle the secondary materials. And now that I've used the curriculum, I've been more impressed with it than I ever would have imagined.

 

Yes, lots more people have found it now, and there probably is some kind of tipping point. It won't be for everyone; some people won't like it. But I think there's been a lot of pent-up demand, and that reflects a lot of the enthusiasm. And if you haven't used this program, if all you've done is look at the samples online or flipped through the books over tea at a friend's house, then please refrain from rolling your eyes and acting like everyone's following the lemmings over the cliff. And I promise to continue to restrain myself from responding to the threads about Saxon and R&S with rude, dismissive comments about the kind of people who follow the herd to those curricula. Please have the same courtesy here.

[Spy Car]

I will agree that the samples on the RFWP website are woefully inadequate to even begin to understand how the program is put together. And the website is not particularly attractive and is difficult to navigate. They should probably hire a good web designer.

 

Now this next bit is not addressed at anyone in particular but the thread tone in general. I'm starting to get a bit miffed by the tone of some people posting to it. What's wrong with people saying a curriculum is working great for them (or a bunch of people saying the same)? Many people have said here for ages how R&S Grammar and Saxon math are the *best* things, the most complete, the most rigorous, the absolute sure-fire best programs. Well, I'd rather be strapped to the ground above a nest of fire ants and painted with honey than use either of those programs, but I don't go on those threads and say "oh, don't follow the herd, just because tons of people like it doesn't mean it's any good". I'm actually guessing these programs do work really well for lots of people. Just not for me.

 

And I think the same is true of MCT. It's not going to be for everyone. The people who love those incremental, repetitive programs are going to be turned off by MCT. I think one of the reasons you're seeing so much enthusiasm is that those who hated Saxon before had things like Singapore or Right Start or other high interest, non "beat-it-to-death" programs for math. There really hasn't been anything like that for language arts, especially grammar.

 

And what's really bugging me is that 99% of the people posting "I agree, this is so flavor-of-the-month" have not done anything but looked at those woefully inadequate web samples, which didn't even impress me, and I love the program now that I have it. They have not used it, but they're ready to dismiss it as a fad and act like everyone's "following the herd".

 

Well, I'm not a herd follower, nor a curriculum-switcher. I've stuck with almost every single piece of curriculum I've picked out over the long haul. I have never flitted from program to program or had my head turned by squirrels ;). I haven't even ever used SOTW when practially every single person I know IRL and online has used it and raved about it - but I wanted to do something different (which I've stuck with for five years).

 

I bought MCT when almost no one here had heard of it. I posted questions about it and crickets chirped. I got maybe two responses (I know Moira was one - thanks!!) and then the thread got buried on page 6 after one day. I probably still wouldn't have bought it but the samples of the secondary curriculum are much clearer to me as to where they're going and what they accomplish, and I took a leap of faith that those odd little books might get my kids to where they could handle the secondary materials. And now that I've used the curriculum, I've been more impressed with it than I ever would have imagined.

 

Yes, lots more people have found it now, and there probably is some kind of tipping point. It won't be for everyone; some people won't like it. But I think there's been a lot of pent-up demand, and that reflects a lot of the enthusiasm. And if you haven't used this program, if all you've done is look at the samples online or flipped through the books over tea at a friend's house, then please refrain from rolling your eyes and acting like everyone's following the lemmings over the cliff. And I promise to continue to restrain myself from responding to the threads about Saxon and R&S with rude, dismissive comments about the kind of people who follow the herd to those curricula. Please have the same courtesy here.

 

You rock! :D

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

You rock! :D

 

Bill

:iagree:

[Jen500]

And I think the same is true of MCT. It's not going to be for everyone. The people who love those incremental, repetitive programs are going to be turned off by MCT. I think one of the reasons you're seeing so much enthusiasm is that those who hated Saxon before had things like Singapore or Right Start or other high interest, non "beat-it-to-death" programs for math. There really hasn't been anything like that for language arts, especially grammar.

 

And what's really bugging me is that 99% of the people posting "I agree, this is so flavor-of-the-month" have not done anything but looked at those woefully inadequate web samples, which didn't even impress me, and I love the program now that I have it. They have not used it, but they're ready to dismiss it as a fad and act like everyone's "following the herd".

 

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Miss Marple]

Thank you! Well put!

Edited December 9, 2009 by CynthiaOK

[radiobrain]

I will agree that the samples on the RFWP website are woefully inadequate to even begin to understand how the program is put together. And the website is not particularly attractive and is difficult to navigate. They should probably hire a good web designer.

 

Now this next bit is not addressed at anyone in particular but the thread tone in general. I'm starting to get a bit miffed by the tone of some people posting to it. What's wrong with people saying a curriculum is working great for them (or a bunch of people saying the same)? Many people have said here for ages how R&S Grammar and Saxon math are the *best* things, the most complete, the most rigorous, the absolute sure-fire best programs. Well, I'd rather be strapped to the ground above a nest of fire ants and painted with honey than use either of those programs, but I don't go on those threads and say "oh, don't follow the herd, just because tons of people like it doesn't mean it's any good". I'm actually guessing these programs do work really well for lots of people. Just not for me.

 

And I think the same is true of MCT. It's not going to be for everyone. The people who love those incremental, repetitive programs are going to be turned off by MCT. I think one of the reasons you're seeing so much enthusiasm is that those who hated Saxon before had things like Singapore or Right Start or other high interest, non "beat-it-to-death" programs for math. There really hasn't been anything like that for language arts, especially grammar.

 

And what's really bugging me is that 99% of the people posting "I agree, this is so flavor-of-the-month" have not done anything but looked at those woefully inadequate web samples, which didn't even impress me, and I love the program now that I have it. They have not used it, but they're ready to dismiss it as a fad and act like everyone's "following the herd".

 

Well, I'm not a herd follower, nor a curriculum-switcher. I've stuck with almost every single piece of curriculum I've picked out over the long haul. I have never flitted from program to program or had my head turned by squirrels ;). I haven't even ever used SOTW when practially every single person I know IRL and online has used it and raved about it - but I wanted to do something different (which I've stuck with for five years).

 

I bought MCT when almost no one here had heard of it. I posted questions about it and crickets chirped. I got maybe two responses (I know Moira was one - thanks!!) and then the thread got buried on page 6 after one day. I probably still wouldn't have bought it but the samples of the secondary curriculum are much clearer to me as to where they're going and what they accomplish, and I took a leap of faith that those odd little books might get my kids to where they could handle the secondary materials. And now that I've used the curriculum, I've been more impressed with it than I ever would have imagined.

 

Yes, lots more people have found it now, and there probably is some kind of tipping point. It won't be for everyone; some people won't like it. But I think there's been a lot of pent-up demand, and that reflects a lot of the enthusiasm. And if you haven't used this program, if all you've done is look at the samples online or flipped through the books over tea at a friend's house, then please refrain from rolling your eyes and acting like everyone's following the lemmings over the cliff. And I promise to continue to restrain myself from responding to the threads about Saxon and R&S with rude, dismissive comments about the kind of people who follow the herd to those curricula. Please have the same courtesy here.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I wrote a similar, yet not as beautiful or precise, post on the OTHER MCT "Flavor of the Month" thread. :D

 

I would never dream of posting on a thread about a program I have never used. I agree that even the IDEA of saxon or *insert many misc. curricula here* starts to give me hives! Would I post on a pro/con thread there? No. I can think of only one thing I might post a very negative comment about, and even then, probably not.

 

Anyway, Matroyska, you do rock!

[swimmermom3]

I will agree that the samples on the RFWP website are woefully inadequate to even begin to understand how the program is put together. And the website is not particularly attractive and is difficult to navigate. They should probably hire a good web designer.

 

Now this next bit is not addressed at anyone in particular but the thread tone in general. I'm starting to get a bit miffed by the tone of some people posting to it. What's wrong with people saying a curriculum is working great for them (or a bunch of people saying the same)? Many people have said here for ages how R&S Grammar and Saxon math are the *best* things, the most complete, the most rigorous, the absolute sure-fire best programs. Well, I'd rather be strapped to the ground above a nest of fire ants and painted with honey than use either of those programs, but I don't go on those threads and say "oh, don't follow the herd, just because tons of people like it doesn't mean it's any good". I'm actually guessing these programs do work really well for lots of people. Just not for me.

 

And I think the same is true of MCT. It's not going to be for everyone. The people who love those incremental, repetitive programs are going to be turned off by MCT. I think one of the reasons you're seeing so much enthusiasm is that those who hated Saxon before had things like Singapore or Right Start or other high interest, non "beat-it-to-death" programs for math. There really hasn't been anything like that for language arts, especially grammar.

 

And what's really bugging me is that 99% of the people posting "I agree, this is so flavor-of-the-month" have not done anything but looked at those woefully inadequate web samples, which didn't even impress me, and I love the program now that I have it. They have not used it, but they're ready to dismiss it as a fad and act like everyone's "following the herd".

 

Well, I'm not a herd follower, nor a curriculum-switcher. I've stuck with almost every single piece of curriculum I've picked out over the long haul. I have never flitted from program to program or had my head turned by squirrels ;). I haven't even ever used SOTW when practially every single person I know IRL and online has used it and raved about it - but I wanted to do something different (which I've stuck with for five years).

 

I bought MCT when almost no one here had heard of it. I posted questions about it and crickets chirped. I got maybe two responses (I know Moira was one - thanks!!) and then the thread got buried on page 6 after one day. I probably still wouldn't have bought it but the samples of the secondary curriculum are much clearer to me as to where they're going and what they accomplish, and I took a leap of faith that those odd little books might get my kids to where they could handle the secondary materials. And now that I've used the curriculum, I've been more impressed with it than I ever would have imagined.

 

Yes, lots more people have found it now, and there probably is some kind of tipping point. It won't be for everyone; some people won't like it. But I think there's been a lot of pent-up demand, and that reflects a lot of the enthusiasm. And if you haven't used this program, if all you've done is look at the samples online or flipped through the books over tea at a friend's house, then please refrain from rolling your eyes and acting like everyone's following the lemmings over the cliff. And I promise to continue to restrain myself from responding to the threads about Saxon and R&S with rude, dismissive comments about the kind of people who follow the herd to those curricula. Please have the same courtesy here.

 

Thank you so much for posting this. I have been puzzled over the tone of the thread as well. One thing I will caution is that MarainnNOVA's quote of $430 is unusual. Here is a breakdown I have given before:

 

Last Year: Easy Grammar 5 w/ DG $56.40, Sadlier Vocab. A $11.52, IEW Theme-Based $49.00= $116.92

This Year: Grammar Voyage w/Practice $40.00, Caesar's English II $20.00, Essay Voyage $30.00= $ 90.00

 

I do not use a spelling program this year so I pulled that from last year's costs. I did not purchase a separate poetry program last year as I used what was in Lightning Lit, so I did not include my MCT poetry purchase this year (which I would not give up). Lightning Lit is used for both years and so is not included. I have always tweaked writing programs and will probably continue to do so because that's just how I am. I understand a Rod & Staff program for 6th grade that includes spelling and reading instruction, grammar and composition would run about $90.

 

For the MCT enthusiasts, several of the posters on this thread have posted on other "flavor of the month" threads. It is not an anti-MCT comment so much as a warning not to get carried away by the lure of greener grass. Do your research. Know why you are changing from your current program. Do the devotees use other programs that are similar to your choices? For some, this is the LA curriculum for them. For others, it will be a lesson learned.

Edited December 9, 2009 by swimmermom3
columns not lined up

[Lovedtodeath]

So you actually spent less on MCT, Lisa?

 

Stupid question: (I really dislike the website) Does it have diagramming?

[radiobrain]

So you actually spent less on MCT, Lisa?

 

Stupid question: (I really dislike the website) Does it have diagramming?

 

Korin here... it has 4 level sentence analysis. Not diagramming in the classic sense.

 

You would have a sentence (in a practice book).... you would do the first level~ Parts of Speech (part of speech for every word) 2nd level~ Parts of sentence (subject/predicate/ direct/inderect object / subject complement) 3rd level~ Phrases (prep. phrases) 4th level ~ Clauses (independent, dependent or none).

[swimmermom3]

So you actually spent less on MCT, Lisa?

 

Stupid question: (I really dislike the website) Does it have diagramming?

 

Carmen, I did spend less. I thought MCT was reasonably priced, but I will tell you that the whole stack including poetry was about half the size of my Easy Grammar stack and it did give me some cause for concern initially.:D

 

As Korin explained, there is no diagramming, at least at the elementary levels. There is one sample of it in Essay Voyage. My ds was intrigued, so I introduced diagramming separately. I discovered that MCT's 4-level analysis already had ds thinking in a way that worked beautifully with diagramming. He just had to learn the mechanical end of things. Couldn't be easier. A generous TWTM board member had sent me a copy of Moutoux's A Workbook of Sentence Diagramming. That's all I've needed as a refresher for myself. Ds looks for the most challenging sentence he can find for me to diagram, then we work through it together. It's rather a blast and has him on the lookout for complex sentences in his reading. But I digress.

[Lovedtodeath]

Carmen, I did spend less. I thought MCT was reasonably priced, but I will tell you that the whole stack including poetry was about half the size of my Easy Grammar stack and it did give me some cause for concern initially.:D

 

As Korin explained, there is no diagramming, at least at the elementary levels. There is one sample of it in Essay Voyage. My ds was intrigued, so I introduced diagramming separately. I discovered that MCT's 4-level analysis already had ds thinking in a way that worked beautifully with diagramming. He just had to learn the mechanical end of things. Couldn't be easier. A generous TWTM board member had sent me a copy of Moutoux's A Workbook of Sentence Diagramming. That's all I've needed as a refresher for myself. Ds looks for the most challenging sentence he can find for me to diagram, then we work through it together. It's rather a blast and has him on the lookout for complex sentences in his reading. But I digress.

Thank you. Very helpful. I am so confused! DH keeps on about DD not being challenged, and being bored though... I just feel like I can't do much about it this early in the game. She needs to complete phonics, learn her math facts, and practice handwriting. All borrrring. Ugh! Edited December 9, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[MariannNOVA]

One thing I will caution is that MarainnNOVA's quote of $430 is unusual. Here is a breakdown I have given before:

 

 

 

Hi, Lisa: Yes, even I was surprised when my total came up as that, but I bought TWO complete homeschool packages (Island and Voyages) and then added an additional Student Workbook for everything in Island as my twins are in Island. NOW I see that I didn't have to do that -- I could share a book with one of them, and let the other have his/her own book, as the TM can be used by student or teacher - it does not have any answers that undermine the integrity of the material should the student be using that book....but as I said earlier: the twins shared a uterus, their sharing days are over!

 

In hindsight, I would probably save $100. (more or less) were I to purchase just the two complete packages without the add'l student books, but, honestly, I am so happy with the materials, it doesn't matter to me. And, it is near impossible to find MCT materials 'used' so I am not concerned that I won't be able to sell them should I decide to go that route when we are onto the next level, but truly, I am going to save these for my grand-daughters who are 6 and almost 4. My daughter will love these!

 

And, a huge thanks to the info that others have posted in this thread and the threads from a month or so ago -- those were the threads that piqued my interest and brought me down this path........the path to poverty and destitution ;) :lol::lol::lol::lol:.

 

And, I would just like to say that my kids are asking if we are finished with Math so they can do LA!!!!!!!!! The twins LOVE Grammar Island, DD10 loves Voyages and Caesar II -- I read the posts about other kids loving the material and asking to do more, and I thought: 'Sure, but my kids will not be that enthusiastic about it. I just want them to learn and understand and not torment me the whole time.' Well, my kids ARE that enthusiastic about it --so thanks to everyone who shared their experience and opinion on those threads.:001_smile:

Edited December 9, 2009 by MariannNOVA

[MariannNOVA]

I will agree that the samples on the RFWP website are woefully inadequate to even begin to understand how the program is put together. And the website is not particularly attractive and is difficult to navigate. They should probably hire a good web designer.

 

Now this next bit is not addressed at anyone in particular but the thread tone in general. I'm starting to get a bit miffed by the tone of some people posting to it. What's wrong with people saying a curriculum is working great for them (or a bunch of people saying the same)? Many people have said here for ages how R&S Grammar and Saxon math are the *best* things, the most complete, the most rigorous, the absolute sure-fire best programs. Well, I'd rather be strapped to the ground above a nest of fire ants and painted with honey than use either of those programs, but I don't go on those threads and say "oh, don't follow the herd, just because tons of people like it doesn't mean it's any good". I'm actually guessing these programs do work really well for lots of people. Just not for me.

 

And I think the same is true of MCT. It's not going to be for everyone. The people who love those incremental, repetitive programs are going to be turned off by MCT. I think one of the reasons you're seeing so much enthusiasm is that those who hated Saxon before had things like Singapore or Right Start or other high interest, non "beat-it-to-death" programs for math. There really hasn't been anything like that for language arts, especially grammar.

 

And what's really bugging me is that 99% of the people posting "I agree, this is so flavor-of-the-month" have not done anything but looked at those woefully inadequate web samples, which didn't even impress me, and I love the program now that I have it. They have not used it, but they're ready to dismiss it as a fad and act like everyone's "following the herd".

 

Well, I'm not a herd follower, nor a curriculum-switcher. I've stuck with almost every single piece of curriculum I've picked out over the long haul. I have never flitted from program to program or had my head turned by squirrels ;). I haven't even ever used SOTW when practially every single person I know IRL and online has used it and raved about it - but I wanted to do something different (which I've stuck with for five years).

 

I bought MCT when almost no one here had heard of it. I posted questions about it and crickets chirped. I got maybe two responses (I know Moira was one - thanks!!) and then the thread got buried on page 6 after one day. I probably still wouldn't have bought it but the samples of the secondary curriculum are much clearer to me as to where they're going and what they accomplish, and I took a leap of faith that those odd little books might get my kids to where they could handle the secondary materials. And now that I've used the curriculum, I've been more impressed with it than I ever would have imagined.

 

Yes, lots more people have found it now, and there probably is some kind of tipping point. It won't be for everyone; some people won't like it. But I think there's been a lot of pent-up demand, and that reflects a lot of the enthusiasm. And if you haven't used this program, if all you've done is look at the samples online or flipped through the books over tea at a friend's house, then please refrain from rolling your eyes and acting like everyone's following the lemmings over the cliff. And I promise to continue to restrain myself from responding to the threads about Saxon and R&S with rude, dismissive comments about the kind of people who follow the herd to those curricula. Please have the same courtesy here.

 

Thanks for taking the time to write this. I know that your posts in the past regarding MCT prompted me to look at the RFP website as the information you and others provided intrigued me and seemed to speak to the LA issues we were experiencing.

[King Alfred Academy]

Well said! (And I am not just saying that because I am using MCT!)

 

The same thoughts were regularly popping into my head as I read the threads.

[EKS]

Same here except I did not find Singapore math that impressive while we were using it. I thought it was a solid program and the best I could find, but that was it. I am only impressed by Singapore now after seeing how well it prepared ds for a rigorous pre-algebra program.

 

With MCT, I was impressed right away. We used it last year, are using it this year, and next year's material was already ordered. It's a keeper in this house.

 

This is interesting and I can completely see how this could be. I was first introduced to Singapore math when I got CWP 4 for my older son. Now that was impressive (especially since we had been using Saxon up until that point).

 

Actually, MCT sat on my shelf for a year because I thought it looked weird and I couldn't figure out how to implement it. And I have to say that being impressed with Singapore (after my initial experience with CWP) is due to my experience with it with my younger son. I can see, now that I've taught/helped my older son with algebra, what a solid preparation it is.

[EKS]

Korin here... it has 4 level sentence analysis. Not diagramming in the classic sense.

 

You would have a sentence (in a practice book).... you would do the first level~ Parts of Speech (part of speech for every word) 2nd level~ Parts of sentence (subject/predicate/ direct/inderect object / subject complement) 3rd level~ Phrases (prep. phrases) 4th level ~ Clauses (independent, dependent or none).

 

I teach diagramming along with the four level analysis. It's really amazing how completely *trivial* diagramming is after you've done the four level analysis.

[EKS]

I will agree that the samples on the RFWP website are woefully inadequate to even begin to understand how the program is put together. And the website is not particularly attractive and is difficult to navigate. They should probably hire a good web designer.

 

Now this next bit is not addressed at anyone in particular but the thread tone in general. I'm starting to get a bit miffed by the tone of some people posting to it. What's wrong with people saying a curriculum is working great for them (or a bunch of people saying the same)? Many people have said here for ages how R&S Grammar and Saxon math are the *best* things, the most complete, the most rigorous, the absolute sure-fire best programs. Well, I'd rather be strapped to the ground above a nest of fire ants and painted with honey than use either of those programs, but I don't go on those threads and say "oh, don't follow the herd, just because tons of people like it doesn't mean it's any good". I'm actually guessing these programs do work really well for lots of people. Just not for me.

 

And I think the same is true of MCT. It's not going to be for everyone. The people who love those incremental, repetitive programs are going to be turned off by MCT. I think one of the reasons you're seeing so much enthusiasm is that those who hated Saxon before had things like Singapore or Right Start or other high interest, non "beat-it-to-death" programs for math. There really hasn't been anything like that for language arts, especially grammar.

 

And what's really bugging me is that 99% of the people posting "I agree, this is so flavor-of-the-month" have not done anything but looked at those woefully inadequate web samples, which didn't even impress me, and I love the program now that I have it. They have not used it, but they're ready to dismiss it as a fad and act like everyone's "following the herd".

 

Well, I'm not a herd follower, nor a curriculum-switcher. I've stuck with almost every single piece of curriculum I've picked out over the long haul. I have never flitted from program to program or had my head turned by squirrels ;). I haven't even ever used SOTW when practially every single person I know IRL and online has used it and raved about it - but I wanted to do something different (which I've stuck with for five years).

 

I bought MCT when almost no one here had heard of it. I posted questions about it and crickets chirped. I got maybe two responses (I know Moira was one - thanks!!) and then the thread got buried on page 6 after one day. I probably still wouldn't have bought it but the samples of the secondary curriculum are much clearer to me as to where they're going and what they accomplish, and I took a leap of faith that those odd little books might get my kids to where they could handle the secondary materials. And now that I've used the curriculum, I've been more impressed with it than I ever would have imagined.

 

Yes, lots more people have found it now, and there probably is some kind of tipping point. It won't be for everyone; some people won't like it. But I think there's been a lot of pent-up demand, and that reflects a lot of the enthusiasm. And if you haven't used this program, if all you've done is look at the samples online or flipped through the books over tea at a friend's house, then please refrain from rolling your eyes and acting like everyone's following the lemmings over the cliff. And I promise to continue to restrain myself from responding to the threads about Saxon and R&S with rude, dismissive comments about the kind of people who follow the herd to those curricula. Please have the same courtesy here.

 

Thank you for this wonderful post!

[swimmermom3]

I teach diagramming along with the four level analysis. It's really amazing how completely *trivial* diagramming is after you've done the four level analysis.

 

Kai, thanks for having the nerve to say what I couldn't. I grew up diagramming sentences. When I look at the sentence, I "see" the diagram, kwim? However, diagramming does not give you the "whole" picture the same way 4-level analysis does, imo.

[Lovedtodeath]

Kai, thanks for having the nerve to say what I couldn't. I grew up diagramming sentences. When I look at the sentence, I "see" the diagram, kwim? However, diagramming does not give you the "whole" picture the same way 4-level analysis does, imo.

Interesting. Thanks Korin, Kai and Lisa.

 

Susan seems to indicate that WWE 5 is going to teach how to write better sentences using diagramming, and that is what I am wanting WWE for, so I was wondering.

[Capt_Uhura]

Kai, what are you using to teach diagramming?

 

Thanks,

Capt_Uhura

[EKS]

Kai, what are you using to teach diagramming?

 

Thanks,

Capt_Uhura

 

Just me.

[Mom-ninja.]

I teach diagramming along with the four level analysis. It's really amazing how completely *trivial* diagramming is after you've done the four level analysis.

 

How so?

 

Kai, thanks for having the nerve to say what I couldn't. I grew up diagramming sentences. When I look at the sentence, I "see" the diagram, kwim? However, diagramming does not give you the "whole" picture the same way 4-level analysis does, imo.

 

Again, how do the two methods differ in showing the picture?

 

I never diagrammed sentences in school, or at least I don't remember it. I'm learning it along with ds in FLL3 right now.

[DawnM]

I am intregued....but not ready to leap yet.

 

A couple of questions:

 

What level would a 10 year old who is on grade level and a 12 year old who is about at the same level as the 10 year old fit?

 

Do you NEED the teacher guides? I find some curriculums you do and many you don't. Do you use it in the younger grades?

 

Dawn

[Lovedtodeath]

Dawn, I think you need the teacher guide but not the student book. The site has everything you need in the basic/economy homeschool package.

[Crimson Wife]

And if you haven't used this program, if all you've done is look at the samples online or flipped through the books over tea at a friend's house, then please refrain from rolling your eyes and acting like everyone's following the lemmings over the cliff.

 

If the program is so great as people keep insisting to me that it is, then why isn't that apparent on a preview of the actual materials? I keep hearing variations of "oh, I know it doesn't look like much but trust me it's really amazing!" Why do we need to take a "leap of faith" if the program truly is all that it's cracked up to be? :confused:

 

For the record I prefer Right Start to Saxon when it comes to math. But I could tell that from a quick preview of the materials! ;)

[Spy Car]

If the program is so great as people keep insisting to me that it is, then why isn't that apparent on a preview of the actual materials? I keep hearing variations of "oh, I know it doesn't look like much but trust me it's really amazing!" Why do we need to take a "leap of faith" if the program truly is all that it's cracked up to be? :confused:

 

For the record I prefer Right Start to Saxon when it comes to math. But I could tell that from a quick preview of the materials! ;)

 

I've read (multiple times) the previews of every component of the MCT materials at every level, and they seem extremely compelling to me. That, combined with great reviews from parents who seem to have the most similar goals to my own, leaves me feeling very optimistic using this program.

 

It may not be your cup of tea. That's fair. But I've seen enough in the previews to feel pretty confident MCT will be quite to my taste. And that's quite a contrast with the other language arts programs I've looked at and not connected with at all.

 

So I'm elated that this choice exists. Obviously I'm not alone in that sentiment. But if you don't feel inspired by the possibilities the way I (and others) do, then perhaps it's just not the thing for you? I dunno.

 

Bill

[swimmermom3]

If the program is so great as people keep insisting to me that it is, then why isn't that apparent on a preview of the actual materials? I keep hearing variations of "oh, I know it doesn't look like much but trust me it's really amazing!" Why do we need to take a "leap of faith" if the program truly is all that it's cracked up to be? :confused:

 

For the record I prefer Right Start to Saxon when it comes to math. But I could tell that from a quick preview of the materials! ;)

 

You raise valid points. For myself, there were elements in the sample pages for poetry and vocabulary that caught my own peculiar brand of attention. They may not catch yours. No problem. Several of the posters who had used the program or were considering the program at the same time I was have similar tastes or educational philosophies. That played a part in my choice. There are a couple of us that had less-than-glowing starts. I certainly had my share of questions at the beginning: is it enough? We are not doing 5 pages of worksheets a day. How can this work? Leap of faith? Heck yes. Will I admit that I am still trying to get my head completely around the writing component? I just did. Does my child actually enjoy it? Weirdly, yes! Is he learning material thoroughly at a sufficiently high enough level? Yes.

 

I don't encourage everyone to try it as a miracle cure. MCT is very much about ongoing dialogue between teacher and student. If it doesn't resonate with you, I doubt it will resonate with your child.

[swimmermom3]

Oh darn it, Bill. Thanks for writing a similar comment but with more tact and finesse.:tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

Oh darn it, Bill. Thanks for writing a similar comment but with more tact and finesse.:tongue_smilie:

 

Oh really? I was sitting here thinking how much better yours was :lol:

 

Bill :D

[Crimson Wife]

The thing was, I went into the preview really wanting to like MCT. After all, I'd heard raves for *YEARS* about how great his program is for gifted kids and LA is my DD's strongest suit. And I came away from the preview scratching my head wondering what all the fuss is about. I was expecting it to be extremely "meaty" and rigorous given the intended audience. I guess I was hoping for the grammar equivalent of Ellen McHenry's The Elements- something that is challenging and thorough but still fun & accessible. That wasn't the sense I got from previewing the MCT elementary grammar series.

[swimmermom3]

The thing was, I went into the preview really wanting to like MCT. After all, I'd heard raves for *YEARS* about how great his program is for gifted kids and LA is my DD's strongest suit. And I came away from the preview scratching my head wondering what all the fuss is about. I was expecting it to be extremely "meaty" and rigorous given the intended audience. I guess I was hoping for the grammar equivalent of Ellen McHenry's The Elements- something that is challenging and thorough but still fun & accessible. That wasn't the sense I got from previewing the MCT elementary grammar series.

 

How do you describe "meaty" and rigorous?

[Crimson Wife]

For myself, there were elements in the sample pages for poetry and vocabulary that caught my own peculiar brand of attention. They may not catch yours.

 

I'm not looking for a poetry, vocabulary, or writing program at the moment so I have not previewed MCT's materials for those areas. I am trying to find a grammar program to use after my DD finishes her current one (Story Grammar for Elementary Students by Don & Jenny Killgallon). I really like the Killgallon approach but there are only 3 levels and I think my DD would benefit from doing something else for a while before moving on to the middle school book. I just have to figure out what.

[Crimson Wife]

How do you describe "meaty" and rigorous?

 

The thing I love about Ellen McHenry's chemistry program is how it takes concepts that are not normally taught until high school but makes them accessible to average 4th-8th graders (or a gifted younger student like mine). That's what I was hoping for with MCT. I guess I was looking for him to turn a high school grammar course like Warriner's into something accessible to young gifted kids.

[Spy Car]

The thing was, I went into the preview really wanting to like MCT. After all, I'd heard raves for *YEARS* about how great his program is for gifted kids and LA is my DD's strongest suit. And I came away from the preview scratching my head wondering what all the fuss is about. I was expecting it to be extremely "meaty" and rigorous given the intended audience. I guess I was hoping for the grammar equivalent of Ellen McHenry's The Elements- something that is challenging and thorough but still fun & accessible. That wasn't the sense I got from previewing the MCT elementary grammar series.

 

Did you look at all the sections for all the years? Did you look at the poetry materials? This last component had me dreaming (literally) about how I might be able to cultivate a love for poetry, and a deep understanding of the structure and formal elements, combined with an appreciation for beautiful expression. This is the sort of education most people never receive, or perhaps get a taste of at University if they are fortunate, and this is a program that starts at an elementary school age.

 

So I'm floored looking at the previews. Have you really gone though everything available for preview online? Because fun, accessible, challenging, and intellectually stimulating are all things I associate with what I've seen.

 

I haven't used it. But when I consistently hear from people I trust that the materials are even better in action than they appear in the previews (and I'm LOVING THE PREVIEWS) my excitement and anticipation builds.

 

But if I looked at it all and felt sort of blah about it, I'd probably look elsewhere. Hopefully you find something you feel passionately about. I'm just happy my language arts curriculum choice is more or less settled.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I'm not looking for a poetry, vocabulary, or writing program at the moment so I have not previewed MCT's materials for those areas.

 

OK, now it makes sense. This is a full language arts program that's inter-related and build on itself. To look at one component in isolation is, I think, to miss the full picture.

 

Look at the previews of the poetry component sometime, and see if your opinions don't shift substantially. And the vocabulary, and the writing. Your preview has been drastically too narrow to make a determination that MCT isn't "meaty" when (from the best of my understanding) nothing is further from the case.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

Did you look at all the sections for all the years? Did you look at the poetry materials?

 

No, I did not preview anything aside from the elementary grammar materials. I'm in the market for a new grammar book and am not particularly interested in dropping materials in other areas that seem to be working fine just to do a "complete" LA program.

 

If you take your car to the repair shop to get new tires, would you want to be told that in order to get the tires in which you're interested you also need to change the rims, the axles, and any other part that is somewhat related to the wheels?

[The Governess]

Gosh, now you all have me looking into this program too. Will you please stop strong arming me into wanting the curriculum that all the "cool kids" are using? :lol::lol:

 

Seriously though, I am trying to figure out our curriculum choices for the next couple of years. For language arts right now we are using WWE and FLL, we will be done with FLL1 in February and I just ordered R&S English 2 to try (I may alternate FLL and R&S for 2nd grade level). For next year I am looking into continuing with those and either WWE2 or maybe CW's second grade writing. Or maybe doing some wacky combination of all of the above. :001_huh: But now I am also intrigued with MCT's program.

 

What kind of learner do you think would thrive with this program? Dd5 is a very visual learner. She has a very good memory and so has done well with FLL but she has a much better understanding of a concept if she has a problem on paper to work on or something to read on her own rather than simply listen to me. She does well with flash cards, worksheets, etc. She's not really a conversational learner, she wants to "see for herself". I'm wondering if this program would be a good fit for her....it's hard for me to tell what the teaching style is from the samples I have looked at.

 

If this isn't the best program for a worksheet-loving kid, do you think it would be crazy to use this program together with one that is more of a worksheet based program? Or would that just be complete overkill? :D

 

Also, how much time do you spend per day on LA using all aspects of this program at the Island level?

 

Oh and I love that the vocabulary is Latin based! Although, if you are studying Latin as well does this end up being redundant?

 

Sorry for all of the questions, whenever I come across a new curriculum I like to find out as much as I can about it. I'm kind of one of those crazy planner types. Thanks for humoring me. :001_smile:

[Spy Car]

No, I did not preview anything aside from the elementary grammar materials. I'm in the market for a new grammar book and am not particularly interested in dropping materials in other areas that seem to be working fine just to do a "complete" LA program.

 

If you take your car to the repair shop to get new tires, would you want to be told that in order to get the tires in which you're interested you also need to change the rims, the axles, and any other part that is somewhat related to the wheels?

 

To play with the analogy, when I purchased by MINI Cooper S, I did so because the designer and manufacturer had put a great deal of time and effort into making sure the suspension, drive train, tire stance, transmission, supercharged engine, gear-box, weight distribution, tires, rims, etc. all added up to a very fine driving experience.

 

And the satisfaction of driving this vehicle comes from the integration of all these elements to create a "driver's car." Now you can take the axel from one vehicle and try to bolt it to some other vehicle, with an engine from who knows where, and maybe you're good. Maybe not.

 

But to just look at the tires in isolation is rather to miss the point when automotive beauty comes in the refinement of the way parts work in unison.

 

If you just want tires, get tires. If you just want a grammar book, find one. But it's unreasonable to criticize an integrated LA program (whose strength comes from that integration) without at least looking at the whole of the interdependent parts and how they function as a whole.

 

I really think you're missing the big picture. Not that I care, but the criticisms seem awfully harsh (and unwarranted) and only make some slight sense to me now knowing you only looked at a single element of an integrated curriculum. You could have at least checked out the full program in preview before determining it's somehow not "meaty." It doesn't cost you to look. And then you'd at least be in the position to offer a somewhat more informed opinion.

 

:auto:

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

But if the program was meaty, then each portion should be able to stand alone even if they were designed to be used all together. For example, Singapore Math. The only portion of this program I'm currently using is CWP. It is a solid word problems book in and of itself without requiring me to buy a whole kit-n-caboodle of other stuff. It only covers one aspect of math but it does so thoroughly. If it's a good integrated program, there should be no problem using the individual components in a mix & match fashion. The whole point of homeschooling is to be able to tailor the curriculum to meet my student's individual needs.

[Spy Car]

But if the program was meaty, then each portion should be able to stand alone even if they were designed to be used all together. For example, Singapore Math. The only portion of this program I'm currently using is CWP. It is a solid word problems book in and of itself without requiring me to buy a whole kit-n-caboodle of other stuff. It only covers one aspect of math but it does so thoroughly. If it's a good integrated program, there should be no problem using the individual components in a mix & match fashion. The whole point of homeschooling is to be able to tailor the curriculum to meet my student's individual needs.

 

I think your reasoning is faulty, and Singapore is a good example. The "textbook" on it's own would not seem "meaty". Nor would the "workbook". And the Intensive Practice might be seem "hard" but might also seem somewhat incomprehensible in isolation depending on whether one understood "Singapore Math." And the same could be said of the CWPs.

 

Unless a parent/teacher understands the bar method well enough to teach it, it might not be of great value. Stack up the full program, and the "missing components" from the HIGs and you have an integrated math program that is much stronger than any of it's parts alone.

 

If one based ones entire judgement on samples of the Singapore "textbooks" alone, a determination that the program wasn't "meaty" I suspect would be as off-base as looking at one element of the MCT program in isolation in previews and calling it lacking.

 

It wouldn't kill you to take a look at the middle school materials, and the other components in the elementary school sections, as you might be in for a huge surprise.

 

Bill

[Shawna in Texas]

But if the program was meaty, then each portion should be able to stand alone even if they were designed to be used all together. For example, Singapore Math. The only portion of this program I'm currently using is CWP. It is a solid word problems book in and of itself without requiring me to buy a whole kit-n-caboodle of other stuff. It only covers one aspect of math but it does so thoroughly. If it's a good integrated program, there should be no problem using the individual components in a mix & match fashion. The whole point of homeschooling is to be able to tailor the curriculum to meet my student's individual needs.

 

I really should be in bed. I wanted to give my opinion regarding the rigor. I believe each portion could stand on its own. If you want the grammar portion, I believe it to be plenty. You could even skip out in the Practice books if you wanted to create your own sentences for the year and were comfortable with verbals.

 

But. Integrating the grammar in with the other books is what makes the program satisfying. The writing program uses the same techniques as the grammar book. Vocab is reinforced in all the books. That's why it seems not so exciting if you just want the grammar.

 

And as much as homeschoolers enjoy tailoring to meet needs, some want a great integrated program. Since I'm using the other books, it's hard to imagine using the grammar without them.