Why does MCT bill themselves as a "gifted" curriculum?

[buddhabelly]

This thread has taken an *interesting* turn, but I just wanted to say that Paragraph Town is most likely the most surprising of the books in the Town series. There are pages and pages of LESSONS at the end of the book (which we are working through now), and then..... more lessons after that if you need them! Quite meaty, really. Some are a little too advanced for us, but most of them are just the right amount of "reach."

 

I was labeled *gifted* in elementary school and was given a lot of academic freedom. It was completely wasted on me, since I didn't have a single bit of initiative. Nor did I have a creative bone in my body (hours and hours of watching TV took care of that). It appears that MCT does continue that myth (?? debatable) that gifted kids need more leeway, less direction. But I just tailor some of the more nebulous assignments to my child ("but mom, what exactly do I do here?") A startling transition, to be sure, from Homer (Classical Writing) to this curriculum. Homer is VERY directed, perhaps to a fault.

 

And the OP: if you look at the ages of your children and the suggested grade level of the materials you are using, perhaps this might answer your question. I believe the recommended grade for Town level is 4th grade and up. My advanced 5th grader doesn't find these materials too easy at all. He loves them!

 

Can't wait to finish Caesar's English (and the lessons in Paragraph Town TM) so that we can do "Building Poems."

 

Julie

[elfinbaby]

I have peeked in and out of this thread since it started. My first question is, is that an awful website design or what? I'm finally making a little sense out of it tonight but, man, it's not easy. I'm dying to check out the materials as we are looking for a challenging LA curriculum for next year but navigating that site is a beast!

 

I'm going to have to wade through. I saw a couple of samples that are promising and I almost got giddy. Ds is gifted and these materials show promise.

 

Think I'd be able to preview the materials at a homeschool book fair??

Edited February 2, 2010 by elfinbaby

[Corraleno]

No, I did not just glance at the online sample or just at one level. I looked at all 3 levels of the elementary MCT grammar in person. I probably wouldn't have been so disappointed if it wasn't marketed as GATE and hyped so much in g&t circles. It struck me as a cute format but pretty light on content.

 

When you say you looked at "MCT grammar," do you mean just the grammar books ~ Grammar Island/Grammar Town/Grammar Voyage ~ or did you look at all three levels of all five books? Because if you only saw the grammar books, you missed 80-90% of the program. The grammar books are like the appetizer course ~ the real "meat" is in the rest of the program. If you look at the combination of Grammar Voyage + Essay Voyage + A World of Poetry + Building English II + Practice Voyage as the integrated program it was meant to be, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a "meatier" elementary grade language arts program than that. And as others have pointed out, it's even richer in use than it looks on paper.

 

Jackie

[Annabel Lee]

OK, MCT people - I have a question for you while you're all here. Does MCT grammar teach diagramming? If so, does it teach it in a traditional way (i.e. Abeka or FLL 4)?

 

Thanks!

[Mom0012]

Just like some curricula are easier to use for a remedial/learning disabled/etc student (say IQ = 70) . . . others are aimed for "normal" -- say IQ 100). . . others for gifted children (say IQ = 130). HTH

 

I just have to say that many, if not most children with lds, have a typical, if not high, IQ. LDs do not go hand-in-hand with low IQ.

 

Lisa

[Haiku]

Because if you only saw the grammar books, you missed 80-90% of the program.

 

According to the Royal Fireworks site,

 

These exciting and demanding books have been phenomenally successful both as stand-alones, and as part of a longer term, progressive English Language Arts curriculum.

 

(bolding mine)

 

I don't think that the website does a very good job of presenting the material in a way that makes it look special and exciting or superior to other products. It may be the thing that ushers in an era of global peace, if only people would use it. But if it's presented poorly, people (like me) won't spend the money on it to give it a try.

 

Tara

[kalanamak]

 

I don't think that the website does a very good job of presenting the material in a way that makes it look special and exciting or superior to other products. It may be the thing that ushers in an era of global peace, if only people would use it. But if it's presented poorly, people (like me) won't spend the money on it to give it a try.

 

Tara

 

OTOH, I, for one, got tired of SWR going on and on about how great it was. I bought you, now lets get with the program!

 

I certainly was not impressed with the MCT website or the samples, but when people post things like "changed the way we look at language", this perks my ears. SWR changed the way I looked at phonics and teaching reading, Sing math changed the way I look at math, etc. At my son's young age, the best thing I can do, IMO, is to learn the first basics of topics in depth, so my teaching can be facile. If it sparks that "new look on the world" or "eureka" feeling in me, I've found I can usually communicate that to kiddo, and then he starts pointing out examples of it in the world, including things that don't "fit" the model.

 

Call me lax, but the "rigorous", complete, outlineable and easy to write tests for curriculum I am putting off until logic. Perhaps it is my idiosyncratic mind (but I don't think so), but spark an interest and a reason WHY to study something, and I can put many happy hours into the nuts and bolts. I see no reason to assume kiddo won't have the same inclinations.

 

So, I have decided to give it a shot for 3rd grade. Or at least get the materials and give them a good going over.

[Poke Salad Annie]

I don't have any experience with MCT. I did look at it just to see what the excitement was. I truthfully could not understand the samples, so I haven't ordered. It would be much nicer to have something in hand to look over before ordering, but I don't have access to that.

 

About a year ago, while I was still lurking here and was not yet registered, I saw Tara's mention of Sheldon's Primary Language Lessons at the google books site. I looked it over, and was immediately drawn. I can't explain why it appealed to me, but I am very thankful to Tara for drawing attention to Sheldon's lessons. I would not have found them without her posting about them. I am very likely to rave about Sheldon's PLL, as we enjoy the lessons immensely, and for the cost of printing, they are an amazing grammar and writing resource. Thanks again, Tara!

 

I guess it is the same for MCT. Many people here have discovered this program due to the overwhelming response it has received here. That is great for those who enjoy using it and for their children who benefit from a different type of language arts program, be they gifted or not.

 

I don't know if my child is gifted, but whether he is or isn't, I would probably go with what I feel comfortable teaching, and what he responds to. I will say that if I ever have the chance to look at the MCT program up close and in person, I will give it an equal opportunity.

[elfinbaby]

Yeah, I get a general idea from the website but I need to see more. Plus, I'm having trouble placing ds. I think I just have to look at ALL of the samples plus go over the pdf more carefully. There are some samples on Rainbow Resource as well. Hmmmmm. We need a new program and I'd really like to get my hands on some of these book irl before purchasing.

[Poke Salad Annie]

Yeah, I get a general idea from the website but I need to see more. Plus, I'm having trouble placing ds. I think I just have to look at ALL of the samples plus go over the pdf more carefully. There are some samples on Rainbow Resource as well. Hmmmmm. We need a new program and I'd really like to get my hands on some of these book irl before purchasing.

 

 

Yes, I know how you feel. I have suggested many times to our homeschool group the idea of a curriculum/book expo kind of evening. It would be great for everyone, especially new homeschoolers and also those who are interested in a certain program, but would love to see it up close before buying. Sadly, no one around here is interested.

[Capt_Uhura]

the best thing I can do, IMO, is to learn the first basics of topics in depth, so my teaching can be facile. If it sparks that "new look on the world" or "eureka" feeling in me, I've found I can usually communicate that to kiddo, and then he starts pointing out examples of it in the world, including things that don't "fit" the model.

 

Bold is mine. BINGO! Yes! Can I say BINGO again! That's what I've said for years when I was an afterschooler and now as a homeschooler....the best curriculum is the one that allows me to teach on the fly, when the topic comes up, so my teaching can be facile...... And yep, SWR did that for me for spelling and Rightstart Math did that for me for math, and yep, MCT has done that for me for language arts. GWG, while a good program and gets the job done, just didn't spill over into the day to day the way MCT does. We love seeing words he uses in our literature, my 1st grader will own his own pick out adverbs in his dictation sentences and will point out compound sentences including the subj and pred - now that's a successful program - FOR US! Won't work for everyone but has worked well for us so far.

 

And yes, the website is horrible. If I knew anything about website design, I"d offer to redesign the site for Dr. Kemnitz. And some of the samples were poor choices.

 

Capt_Uhura

[Capt_Uhura]

Yes, I know how you feel. I have suggested many times to our homeschool group the idea of a curriculum/book expo kind of evening. It would be great for everyone, especially new homeschoolers and also those who are interested in a certain program, but would love to see it up close before buying. Sadly, no one around here is interested.

 

Really? At a HS gathering in May, we're going to do just that. We'll also have a buy, sell, trade table. Perhaps going from that angle will get them interested?

[Poke Salad Annie]

Really? At a HS gathering in May, we're going to do just that. We'll also have a buy, sell, trade table. Perhaps going from that angle will get them interested?

 

 

Nope, tried that too, and no one was interested. I could say that maybe it's because there are so many Abeka users around here. I can't get anybody interested in anything---much less discussing the WTM book. That was met with blank stares...

[Kuovonne]

I don't need to worry so much with him about finding a program "meaty" enough to keep him from finishing the whole darn thing in a couple of days on his own "just for fun" :tongue_smilie:

 

I wouldn't want to spend the $$$ on a program my kid would rush through either. DD could read through Grammar Island in one sitting if I let her. She would probably enjoy it too. However, she wouldn't get much out of it. Instead I sit with her and we might take five minutes going over a single page. (Granted my daughter is young and not gifted. An older/gifted child probably wouldn't spend as much time.)

 

Here's what really impresses me. I read Grammar Island in one sitting when I first got it. Yet as I read and re-read it with DD, I keep find something new and interesting in the book. (Not in the grammar taught, but in the design choices in the book which reflect the themes of the program. Then again, I liked English lit. classes in school.)

 

Hum. Maybe the program works for us becase I do see so much to discuss on the pages. Without that discussion, the program wouldn't work. Then again, the first few times I looked at the samples online I didn't see the big deal either. Come to think of it, I have no idea why I decided to try MCT. I'm just glad I did.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Kuovonne

[LisaDSB]

I agree. I was in a mom's group and at one of our meetings we were discussing the topic of gifted children. Every mother in that room (11 of them) claimed to have a gifted child and could give 'evidence' as to why her dear children were gifted. They were talking as if being gifted was the norm.

 

Wow. I can scarcely find any gifted kids around here. People just don't talk about it. If I even mention "advanced learning" around my homeschooling community (mostly radical unschoolers) eyebrows would be raised, so I just don't talk about it and I keep my blog on gifted issues pretty anonymous.

 

I can see how having everyone saying their child is gifted would get pretty annoying. Statistically, only 2% of the population meets that definition, so in your room of 11 parents, probably none was actually gifted. They always say that parents are usually right when they conclude that their kids are gifted, but it does sound like some folks are pushing the envelope a bit.

 

In most cases, giftedness is apparent from a very early age (sometimes even shortly after birth). Being a bit ahead in school, particularly when kids have the benefit of one-on-one teaching in a homeschool environment, isn't really an indicator.

 

Okay, I've hijacked this thread enough. I just sort of assumed that the parents who claimed their kids were gifted (and were being looked down upon in this thread) were actual parents of gifted children. Believe me, if you've got one, you'll know it. And you may wish you didn't....:tongue_smilie:

 

Cheers,

 

Lisa

[PeterPan]

Well I have a couple things to contribute to this interesting conversation.

 

One, I'm glad we can remember to attack the person who disagrees with us. That's always the best way to make your point and engender support for your cause.

 

Two, I finally had a duh moment and figured out why the samples on RFWP are so unhelpful. They don't show how the lessons work or what the extra info is, the stuff in the back of the tm, that goes with those lessons. People like Heather in VA have posted with basic questions like whether the MCT writing includes writing assignments and what they are, and the samples don't even answer basic questions like that. The samples are extensive, but they don't necessarily communicate what a full lesson in that book entails.

 

I appreciated the discussion on learning speed and IQ. I had never heard it put that way, and it gave me something to chew on.

[angela in ohio]

I can see how having everyone saying their child is gifted would get pretty annoying. Statistically, only 2% of the population meets that definition, so in your room of 11 parents, probably none was actually gifted. They always say that parents are usually right when they conclude that their kids are gifted, but it does sound like some folks are pushing the envelope a bit.

 

I agree that the term is overused. But there could be none or five in a room of eleven mothers. Gifted children often come from gifted parents, and gifted parents tend to work/live in certain areas/ industries with more frequency, so you can get pockets of gifted children.

 

I don't think the term being overused merits dislike of gifted kids or the term. Similarly, people overapply the terms Aspergers, ADHD, or dyslexia. It doesn't change the fact that these are real learning problems some students face.

 

What's the difference, though? People without gifted dc can't imagine a downside. Just like when I was severely underweight and no one understood. You can't be too thin, too smart, etc., right? Wrong.

[Capt_Uhura]

OHElizabeth - I definitely agree with you! The samples were very poorly chosen. I think I'll mention it at the yahoogroup. Dr. Kemnitz is very receptive to feedback from HSers.

 

I've read and been told from teachers, that in any class, the top 10-15% could be accelerated to the next grade. These are your bright, academically motivated (MCT uses this term) students. The gifted kids, the ones who are gifted and academically motivated (the two don't go hand in hand) are the ones that NEED to be accelerated 2-4 grade levels ahead. MCT has said any academically motivated student can do his curriculum just fine.

[PeterPan]

Believe me, if you've got one, you'll know it. And you may wish you didn't....:tongue_smilie:

 

Well I don't know. Around here (in our area), the lines between bright, well-taught, and extra-capable are all kind of blurry. I've had people tell me not to do this or that because dd is probably only bright and pushed. I know bright kids who have more solid skills than kids labeled gifted. And some of those gifted kids are even remedial. Just so many mixtures, eh?

 

I've never not wanted her, mercy, but I have wondered what I was doing wrong. :)

[wfvneumann]

Long before MCT was envisioned for home school, it was designed for school classrooms, and the classrooms that could accommodate it were gifted classrooms. MCT's publisher, Royal Fireworks Press, was founded to foster specifically the education of gifted children, and it has only in the past five years come to embrace the home school movement. MCT and Royal Fireworks are going to a great deal of trouble and expense to rewrite the teacher manuals so they answer the specific needs of home school parents.

 

MCT was the editor for a long time of a magazine entitled, OUR GIFTED CHILDREN, and he has written extensively on the pedagogy of educating gifted children.

 

The MCT materials become very sophisticated at the level of Word within the Word and Magic Lens and Poetry, Plato and the Problem of Truth, and Advanced Academic Writing. If you judge them solely on the basis of a few pages of the early grades on the website, you never see how they fit together or how their progressive nature brings children to a very advanced state of understanding language arts.

 

Neither the author or the publisher claims the materials are for everyone, and the expectation of both is that these materials will not meet the needs of all children. But for those parents who are looking for a integrated, sophisticated, intellectually progressive and demanding, and cultured language arts curriculum that excites children, MCT is the answer like no other curriculum.

[Capt_Uhura]

OK, MCT people - I have a question for you while you're all here. Does MCT grammar teach diagramming? If so, does it teach it in a traditional way (i.e. Abeka or FLL 4)?

 

Thanks!

 

There is another MCT thread on diagramming. Short answer is that no, MCT doesn't teach traditional diagramming. He does illustrate a point w/ it in one of the later levels but it isn't taught. He uses a 4-level analysis. The first line the student marks parts of speech, the 2nd line is parts of the sentence, the 3rd line is phrases and the 4th is for clauses.

[Jen500]

I keep bringing it up being underwhelmed by my preview of the materials because I'm sick of hearing all the MCT groupies going on and on ad nauseum about how wonderful the program supposedly is. If it really was all that it's hyped to be, that ought to be apparent upon a preview of the materials. It's not.

 

If you find the topic of MCT so annoying, just don't open those threads! Saxon math wouldn't work for our family, but I don't go into Saxon threads and say how 'sick I am of Saxon groupies going on and on ad nauseum about how wonderful the program supposedly is'. Plus, I have never even USED Saxon (as you have never USED MCT), so I would leave more valid critiques of Saxon to those who have used it.

[melmichigan]

Just wondering where this information is found? Hoagies has a wonderful comparison chart and it seems set at 130 on most tests (minus the column for Dr Ruf):

 

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/highly_profoundly.htm

 

This is taken from psychological testing results, SS (Standard Score) and Rating. Transcribed as an example from the Children's Hospital Psychological Test Reporting Guidelines. "General Range all SS, Average 90-109, High Average 110-119, Superior 120-129, Very Superior 130-139 and Gifted 140+". These are standard terms used in psychological reports. They do not necessarily match up with numbers used for other disciplines and organizations. For example JH CTD will accept students for some of their programs with test results greater than 95% Rank which is more in the 125 range, and for others 97% which is more like 127. The Davidson Institute deals only with the most gifted children and won't consider scores below 145 on both IQ and Achievement testing. So it's very easy to see where it can get confusing. :) Then add in Ruf's newer guidelines, not yet mentioned on hoagies that I've seen, and the lines become even more blurred. You can also discuss MG, HG, and PG. :lol:

 

I will add, these terms need to be changing with the new tests, the norms are decreasing, such as with the SB V. I didn't say I agree with them either. ;)

Edited February 2, 2010 by melmichigan

[Jennefer@SSA]

In Crimson Wife's defense, I looked through all the samples posted on the Royal Fireworks site some weeks ago and thought, "Meh." My 100-year-old free grammar book that I downloaded from Google books may not be flashy, but it certainly gets the job done and is much more rigorous than anything else I've looked at for 2nd grade. Whether everyone and their grandmother think that MCT is the best thing evah or not, I wasn't impressed with what I saw. Maybe they don't post their best pages for sample.

 

Tara

 

Can you share what you're using? :)

[radiobrain]

Can I just say how glad I am that I have been sick the past few days, and missed this thread!? :D

 

First of all, it took me almost an hour to read this whole thread, which in itself cracks me up.

 

There are so many different layers to this thread, and I have so may opinions on each and every one of them... that I cannot even think about responding in any real fashion. ;) But here goes...

 

Having Tag kids is not a walk in the park and there is a difference between a gifted kid and a kid working ahead of grade level. It is a different way the brain works. It must be accomodated, just as any specific learning style is... Usually gifted kids get the butt end of the stick as people assume that if they are "gifted" they don't need any extra help, or anything, as they are ahead of the curve... there is nothing further from the truth. It is just a different set of needs. I think that many people assume if their kids are working ahead of grade level that they are gifted, or if they are working at or below grade level they are not. Both can be very wrong. Just being gifted does not mean that you are given a "like to do schoolwork" gene too.

 

I think that there is a growing population of people with gifted kids embracing HSing, probably more than any other area... as their needs are not being met in the school system (both public and private) and you are more and more likely to encounter parents with gifted kids HSing as time goes on. I don't find it strange to find a group of HSing parents "all" with Taglets... just like it wouldn't surprise me to encounter "all" Christians at a particular co-op with a statement of faith. I say this in the the way of saying if you, as a parent of a gifted kid, wanted to go to a particular HS gathering, it might draw others with the same interests.

 

Now, as far as MCT labeling itself "gifted curriculum" is not a problem for me. I don't see why parents get so mad when they see that... it is only a way to categorize things. Who cares? I have gifted kids, but sometimes I will get a "remedial" type of book for a specific skill they have trouble with... MCT also states... grade level for both a gifted and typical student.

 

MCT is great for some of us, not great for others...personally, I think it would be great for any kid... but is a breath of fresh air for those of us who grit our teeth at scripted lessons, and other aspects of more typical programs. I think that if you dismiss it because it is targeted first to gifted children, that is your problem.

 

OK.. I am feeling quite crappy now... I need to go lie down again....

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

korin

[melmichigan]

IME as a student in an excellent gifted-children public school program. . .and as the hs'ing mom of 3 gifted dc. . .

 

Gifted children can be expected to master more depth, more advanced vocab, and more challenge. . . than a "normal" child. . .

 

This is why. . . By definition, gifted children learn *faster* than non-gifted children. I.e., a child with a 150 IQ would cover the same material as an average (IQ 100) child 50% faster. (Google this if you don't believe me!) Thus, the 150 IQ child would cover a "year" of material in 6/9 of a year.

 

This accelerated learning rate allows a gifted child to either accelerate through the material faster. . . or add additional study areas. This is a natural result of the simple DEFINITION of intellectual giftedness -- which is tied to the rate of learning.

 

CAVEAT: Gifted children are usually asynchronous in their gifts. . . So, a child who is gifted in math might not be so in LA. . . Educating a gifted child is challenging in this regard. . . As few assumptions can be made. . . Presumably, an educator of gifted children would ideally modify/choose each subject's materials for each child. . . We are blessed as hs'ers to be able to do this for every child (gifted, challenged, doubly blessed, or "normal") in every subject!!

 

A gifted LA curricula would presumably add depth. . . This is what I am observing in the MCT materials. Typical (good quality) 5th grade LA materials (i.e., Rod & Staff -- of which we are satisfied veteran users) wouldn't include in-depth poetry study, nor would it include significant vocabulary study. Both those study areas are provided in MCT. Since MCT LA has 4 branches of study (grammar, vocab, poetry, writing) instead of two (grammar & writing), the gifted child is covering more ground than they might if simply going through R&S. This is achieved in the same number of hours/week by carefully focusing the curriculum on the most important elements, and discarding/omitting more basic materials (i.e., spelling) and by avoiding repetitive exercises that might be necessary for a more typical non-gifted student to master the material.

 

I would imagine that MCT designed their curriculum to fill the void for gifted children. . . Instead of providing *lots* of review/repeat/rehash that is often provided in "standard" curricula. . . MCT designed their curricula to provide the fundamental elements (i.e., grammar), without gobs of exercises, thus allowing the child to cover other areas of study (poetry, vocab. . .) in the same amount of time as would typically be consumed by a more standard (limited) LA curriculum. It seems to me that MCT has carefully considered the content of their books and provides sufficient review, but in a very condensed, targeted manner.

 

In my limited experience w/ MCT Town. . . I see it doing this. The grammar text provides the fundamental teaching. . . and then leaves it to the teacher to reinforce these fundamentals if needed. The vocab text covers words in depth, not in a rote fashion. . . The poetry text is light-years beyond anything else I've seen. . .

 

So, anyway, MCT is a commercial publisher that presumably aimed to fill a need for gifted educators. It's their *business model*. . .

 

Personally, I have routinely had to adapt the "normal" curricula I have used for my gifted dc by omitting parts, condensing parts, etc. I have always had to "shop" for curricula that are either gifted-friendly (Singapore Math) or easy to condense/modify (R&S English). . . I am very happy to have found a LA curriculum that moves/thinks as fast as my dc do. LOL

 

I wish noone saw "gifted" as a perjorative. I don't understand that.

 

Just like some curricula are easier to use for a remedial/learning disabled/etc student (say IQ = 70) . . . others are aimed for "normal" -- say IQ 100). . . others for gifted children (say IQ = 130). It is intuitive to me that these three broad categories of learners would benefit from different approaches, both in scope and in style. One's goals for learning for an IQ=70 student would presumably be different from one's goals for an IQ=100 or IQ=130 student. . .

 

HTH

 

:iagree: Again, well said. According to Ruf, Level Four gifted children are capable of completing all academic course work through 8th before they reach 3rd or 4th grade, but few are given the opportunity.

Edited February 2, 2010 by melmichigan

[Daisy]

The current term is typical for any child who does not have special learning needs.

 

Thank you, Angela. I knew normal didn't work well but had no clue what to use. :)

[MissKNG]

This is taken from psychological testing results, SS (Standard Score) and Rating. Transcribed as an example from the Children's Hospital Psychological Test Reporting Guidelines. "General Range all SS, Average 90-109, High Average 110-119, Superior 120-129, Very Superior 130-139 and Gifted 140+". These are standard terms used in psychological reports.

 

 

What Children's Hospital report are you quoting from and when was it written? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just curious because those numbers seem outdated compared to the newer tests. With the newer tests, the numbers have changed and except for the "Ruf column", that Hoagies chart is accurate based every other source I've looked up including materials by James T Webb, The Gifted Development Center, etc. Like you said, Davidson Institute takes highly gifted children, I agree with that.

 

(Sorry, I don't know all the technical lingo or anything!!)

 

ETA: I also agree the terminology is used too (superior, average, high average, etc), I just haven't seen where the IQ scores line up with the quote above.

Edited February 2, 2010 by MissKNG

[Haiku]

Can you share what you're using? :)

 

Sheldon's Primary Language Lessons, available from Google books. There is also a Sheldon's Advanced Language Lessons. PLL is similar to the Serl PLL, but free. :D I also compared the two side-by-side and felt that Sheldon's PLL covered more ground than Serl's PLL.

 

I love it and, more (most) importantly, my dd loves it.

 

I will not be using it for my son, who has some speech and language delays. I will be using FLL with him, starting in 2nd grade.

 

Tara

[Jennefer@SSA]

Sheldon's Primary Language Lessons, available from Google books. There is also a Sheldon's Advanced Language Lessons. PLL is similar to the Serl PLL, but free. :D I also compared the two side-by-side and felt that Sheldon's PLL covered more ground than Serl's PLL.

 

I love it and, more (most) importantly, my dd loves it.

 

I will not be using it for my son, who has some speech and language delays. I will be using FLL with him, starting in 2nd grade.

 

Tara

 

Thank you! Heading over to look right now. :)

[LBS]

Some thoughts that jump out, as I read thru all these posts:

 

Kids are over-diagnosed, to the positive and the negative benefit.I knew this was true in PS, but have seen it here amongst homeschoolers, too with the same kind of slight elite-ism, too.

MCT works great for a lot of people, who call it elegant.

MCT is pretty hot, pretty cool, right now. It may be the flavor of the month, but it may be the most wondrous program in LA ever, time will tell.

MCT has many attractive traits, without referring to the actual program, it is quick, simple (once you get the hang of it) and while expensive, not the most expensive program out there.

NT (neuro-typical) may be the PC word best suited for "normal" or "average" or "regular". An Aspergers friend says they use this at his meetings and I thought it quite apt....teacher friends like it too.

 

 

"Gifted" is not consistent: is it the kid who is a grade or so ahead? Is it the kid who is brighter or has parents who nurtured his education earlier? Is it the ones who have right and left brain strengths? Phds have a rating scale that says it is indicated by these:

1. Intellectual ability
   
2. Academic ability
   
3. Creativity
   
4. Artistic talent
   
5. Leadership ability (this ability is added for first grade and up only)
   
6. Motivation
   

I haved observed in PS (two kids) that gifted, advanced, honors, AP and even IB are the places where parents want their kids....average or regular classes are regarded almost as remedial now. Everyone has moved their kids up a notch. The best and brightest teachers are there. The question about whether this is teaching each kid more/better, or dumbing down the content of the accelerated classes is discussed much.

 

Lots of folk are telling posters to not read the threads about MCT if they don't like it or think its wonderful, but I have seen many, many LA threads highjacked by MCT enthusers who naturally want to compare the program advantageously to others. This smarts a lot to the folk using the other programs, (cause they can't afford MCT?, cause they can't see the wonders of it?, cause they aren't curric junkies who like to switch around? who knows, who cares, leave them alone.)

 

Keep in mind that many or most truly gifted children have difficulties in other areas: real life and navigating the world can be pretty tricky for kids burdened with intellect. Its not better. I've seen the reverse often, too, of parents seeking diagnoses for disabilities to explain away issues that exist in their own brains. Darn, let the kids be. Let them learn, explore their differences so you can figure how to help them. (LOTS of diagnoses on my three kids, so I know how that works both directions.)

 

Homeschool parents have a harder time figuring out if their kid is gifted: harder to see it (your perspective may be skewed, you think?), your vision being gifted also may be more critical (rose colored glasses or microcope tendancies?) I would suggest that maybe, just maybe, we may lack the expertise, objectivity, and consistency to truly assess something like this....and why do we care? Whom do we brag to? Who sees our assessment? College apps are not likely to respect a parent's assessment, and will want to see hard scores to support that designation, if it even matters to them at all. Do you really care when your homeschooling friend says that HER 10 year old is taking an AP exam or is GT? (Kidding, of course we care.)

 

Those who worship rigor and giftedness are really going to be confused on this program: rigor is often equated with no pain/no gain, here. I don't see MCT called rigorous by anyone. It is as often mentioned that you have to look at the materials carefully to really understand and watch the instructional vid to get it. I am guessing that makes is somewhat teacher intensive. (I have looked and read and read about it. I don't usually buy new curric and was not inspired to buy this new, however I did make a little list of what I would buy used at good prices, so I guess I'm a fencesitter.)

 

Lastly, I am seeing that many posters are making peace and saying 'let's agree to disagree'. I also see the same guys swooping in to stoke up an argument. Come on guys. Remember the ethics of reciprocity. Like OhElizabeth says: attacking others to promote your product? You'd make a much better case if you simply left it at "my kids love it, I love it, and they are learning/retaining" Isn't that the point? Why are there sides? Why can't you be tolerant? That slight snobbism creeping into statements on both sides is not attractive and does not need to be qualified, but surely the ones who disagree can sit back and say "glad that works for her", "glad that is not me having to switch again", "can't wait to try that", "Oh, is that how it works?", "too bad the examples and website aren't so hot", "I'll wait and see if this is long-term good or short term good", "can't wait to order that", "don't get it".....

 

 

Aw shucks, I ranted and raved didn't I? Well, sorry, but, I'm wishing for more "try it, you'll like it" and "thanks, I love what is working for us" kind of spirit.

 

LBS

Edited February 2, 2010 by LBS

[nmoira]

Those who worship rigor and giftedness are really going to be confused on this program: rigor is often equated with no pain/no gain, here. I don't see MCT called rigorous by anyone.

One of the biggest differences I've seen between MCT's LA materials and other programs I've looked at is his obvious enthusiasm and, yes, love of the material. My LA advanced child appreciates working with a kindred spirit who shares her sentiments.

 

I'd characterize the elementary program as engaging and comprehensive, especially with the inclusion of Caesar's English I and II and the Poetry series. However, given what I've read here and on gifted mail lists, I think most people would characterize the middle school program as rigorous, and, with the exception of the poetry series, less whimsical (and really, who wants poetry without a bit of whimsy?). Like most of us here, Mr. Thompson expects nothing less than excellence from his students and sets very high standards. But yes, his program is both teacher intensive and teacher dependent in terms of feedback. Students of parents and teachers who cannot provide this scaffolding will not see the full benefit of the program.

Edited February 2, 2010 by nmoira
typo

[EKS]

One of the biggest differences I've seen between MCT's LA materials and other programs I've looked at is his obvious enthusiasm and, yes, love of the material. My LA advanced child appreciates working with a kindred spirit who shares her sentiments.

 

I'd characterize the elementary program as engaging and comprehensive, especially with the inclusion of Caesar's English I and II and the Poetry series. However, given what I've read here and on gifted mail lists, I think most people would characterize the middle school program as rigorous, and, with the exception of the poetry series, less whimsical (and really, who wants poetry without a bit of whimsy?). Like most of us here, Mr. Thompsoln expects nothing less than excellence from his students and sets very high standards. But yes, his program is both teacher intensive and teacher dependent in terms of feedback. Students of parents and teachers who cannot provide this scaffolding will not see the full benefit of the program.

:iagree:

[angela in ohio]

NT (neuro-typical) may be the PC word best suited for "normal" or "average" or "regular". An Aspergers friend says they use this at his meetings and I thought it quite apt....teacher friends like it too.

 

I believe NT is more limited in its use. It would not aply to the non-gifted so much as to the non-ASD.

[angela in ohio]

Homeschool parents have a harder time figuring out if their kid is gifted.... and why do we care? Whom do we brag to?

 

For the same reason a parent with a child with dyslexia or diabetes or any other number of 'issues' does: to find information, to find appropriate resources, and to find community. It's not about bragging. :confused:

[Matryoshka]

Lots of folk are telling posters to not read the threads about MCT if they don't like it or think its wonderful, but I have seen many, many LA threads highjacked by MCT enthusers who naturally want to compare the program advantageously to others. This smarts a lot to the folk using the other programs, (cause they can't afford MCT?, cause they can't see the wonders of it?, cause they aren't curric junkies who like to switch around? who knows, who cares, leave them alone.)

 

 

I am totally confused by this. What are you trying to say?? That if someone asks what a good LA curriculum is, people who are using MCT successfully shouldn't share it? Why would that make anyone feel bad? What makes MCT different that it can't be recommended just like any other LA curriculum? It is not more expensive than many other curricula, and I'm not sure why it's getting that rep. If you just want grammar, it's like $35. If you want the full LA program, it's more like $100, but so are most full LA programs! No one is brow-beating anyone to buy it, it's only being shared enthusiastically. My kids are not gifted, and there is no implication that other kids need to be to use MCT, and that's been stated repeatedly in this thread and others.

 

A year ago I specifically asked for a grammar curriculum that did *not* include diagramming. Oh, the number of responses I got that said that R&S was so great and the gold standard and gushing on about how I would really like it. I wasn't hurt, more amused that they obviously hadn't paid any attention to the content of my original post, and I just ignored them - and never felt bad for a minute that I ended up choosing what in their eyes was most certainly an "inferior" program. :tongue_smilie: I ended up going with (and liking) Easy Grammar - hadn't looked at MCT yet, and no one suggested it.

 

It has been repeated, ad nauseum, by many, many people who are using and loving MCT that it will not be for everyone. Really, you are seriously suggesting that because it's not for everyone we should stay away from suggesting it to *anyone*?? What is it that people are being threatened by? If you don't like it, don't use it. What's bugging some people here is that certain posters who have never used it are acting like they're experts in the program and putting it down.

 

I have a pretty good sense that I would detest R&S, but I don't go over to posts asking for a good diagramming program and say diagramming is boring and of no value, or say "I looked at an R&S book at my friend's house and I thought it was the most boring, dry thing I've ever seen and I have no idea why the heck you people are all gushing on about how great it is" - and then when I'm challenged on it still insist that my curosry opinion is of equal value to people who have been using it for a year or more! - because that would be RUDE - and silly. I don't like diagramming, but if you do, great (and I'm sure it has great value for many people). And I won't suggest MCT to you then, either, or even post on that thread.

 

However, when someone says "I need a good whole-to-parts LA program", or "my kid finds grammar boring, isn't there something better?" (both of which were recent post topics), I will happily suggest MCT.

Edited February 2, 2010 by matroyshka

[melmichigan]

What Children's Hospital report are you quoting from and when was it written? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just curious because those numbers seem outdated compared to the newer tests. With the newer tests, the numbers have changed and except for the "Ruf column", that Hoagies chart is accurate based every other source I've looked up including materials by James T Webb, The Gifted Development Center, etc. Like you said, Davidson Institute takes highly gifted children, I agree with that.

 

(Sorry, I don't know all the technical lingo or anything!!)

 

ETA: I also agree the terminology is used too (superior, average, high average, etc), I just haven't seen where the IQ scores line up with the quote above.

 

 

DMC Children's Hospital of Michigan, dated 9/13/09. ( I agree it's outdated and needs to be brought up to the newer norms, but it is still the standard here, and is used by our school districts and doctors. :tongue_smilie:) The same guidelines are used here on the WJ, the last report I've seen dated 11/08/08 so that may have been updated and I just haven't seen it yet. I know the norms are changing with the newer tests, they just aren't widely in practice yet, at least not here. This just adds to the confusion when discussing GT, hence my original clarification. The numbers seen on hoagies are what I personally look to, but in our area I have been 'corrected' enough that I refer to the psychological report ratings for most discussion.

Edited February 2, 2010 by melmichigan

[Handmaiden]

MCT teaches this program for John Hopkins Center For Talented Youth. Students in these prgrams must be classified as gifted as shown by achievement and IQ testing in order to participate. This was his primary audience when writing the series.

 

My son is in CTY but I didn't see MCT teaching any classes...wasn't it Northwestern's CTD program?

[LisaDSB]

My son is in CTY but I didn't see MCT teaching any classes...wasn't it Northwestern's CTD program?

 

I think that's right. Here's the link.

[Corraleno]

Lots of folk are telling posters to not read the threads about MCT if they don't like it or think its wonderful, but I have seen many, many LA threads highjacked by MCT enthusers who naturally want to compare the program advantageously to others.

A couple of posters suggested that one person, who seems particularly annoyed by the fact that many MCT users love it, might want to just avoid opening the MCT threads and therefore avoid being annoyed.

 

If someone asks about LA programs, and MCT users post enthusiastically about MCT, how is that "hijacking"? Aren't they in fact answering the OP's question? Should *all* curriculum users refrain from expressing enthusiasm about products that they love and which work well for their children, or just MCT users? :001_huh:

 

This smarts a lot to the folk using the other programs, (cause they can't afford MCT?, cause they can't see the wonders of it?, cause they aren't curric junkies who like to switch around? who knows, who cares, leave them alone.)

Please show me one post where an MCT user said "MCT is by far the best LA program on earth and anyone who is using something else is an idiot." Because I've never seen a single post where an MCT user bashed someone for using another curriculum, so I have no idea what you mean by "leave them alone." Don't ever post about MCT, in case someone who doesn't use it gets jealous? :confused:

 

Those who worship rigor and giftedness are really going to be confused on this program: rigor is often equated with no pain/no gain, here. I don't see MCT called rigorous by anyone.

MCT is extremely rigorous, especially in the upper levels. Have a look at what he recommends for 7th (up to 10th) grade: Magic Lens II; Word Within the Word II; Poetry, Plato & Beauty; Academic Writing II; 4Practice II. If you follow the MCT recommendations for implementing the program, it would include reading 16 books of classic literature, writing 4 MLA papers and multiple short literary analysis papers, doing weekly vocabulary and grammar practice, and integrating a VERY in-depth analysis of poetics. In middle school. I'd call that pretty rigorous, challenging, and intensive.

 

It is as often mentioned that you have to look at the materials carefully to really understand and watch the instructional vid to get it. I am guessing that makes is somewhat teacher intensive.

What "instructional videos"??? Are you confusing MCT with IEW? :confused:

 

It is "teacher intensive," in the sense that the interaction between parent & student, the discussion and elaboration of concepts and ideas, is an important component of the program. It's not the right curriculum for someone who wants an open-&-go workbook, or a scripted program. For parents and teachers who do want a curriculum that is deep and rich and full of discussion and interaction, MCT provides things that few other programs do. Hence their enthusiasm. :001_smile:

 

Jackie

[radiobrain]

A couple of posters suggested that one person, who seems particularly annoyed by the fact that many MCT users love it, might want to just avoid opening the MCT threads and therefore avoid being annoyed.

 

If someone asks about LA programs, and MCT users post enthusiastically about MCT, how is that "hijacking"? Aren't they in fact answering the OP's question? Should *all* curriculum users refrain from expressing enthusiasm about products that they love and which work well for their children, or just MCT users? :001_huh:

 

 

Please show me one post where an MCT user said "MCT is by far the best LA program on earth and anyone who is using something else is an idiot." Because I've never seen a single post where an MCT user bashed someone for using another curriculum, so I have no idea what you mean by "leave them alone." Don't ever post about MCT, in case someone who doesn't use it gets jealous? :confused:

 

 

MCT is extremely rigorous, especially in the upper levels. Have a look at what he recommends for 7th (up to 10th) grade: Magic Lens II; Word Within the Word II; Poetry, Plato & Beauty; Academic Writing II; 4Practice II. If you follow the MCT recommendations for implementing the program, it would include reading 16 books of classic literature, writing 4 MLA papers and multiple short literary analysis papers, doing weekly vocabulary and grammar practice, and integrating a VERY in-depth analysis of poetics. In middle school. I'd call that pretty rigorous, challenging, and intensive.

 

 

What "instructional videos"??? Are you confusing MCT with IEW? :confused:

 

It is "teacher intensive," in the sense that the interaction between parent & student, the discussion and elaboration of concepts and ideas, is an important component of the program. It's not the right curriculum for someone who wants an open-&-go workbook, or a scripted program. For parents and teachers who do want a curriculum that is deep and rich and full of discussion and interaction, MCT provides things that few other programs do. Hence their enthusiasm. :001_smile:

 

Jackie

 

Jackie... thank you SO MUCH!!

 

:001_wub: :thumbup:

 

You stated what I wanted to, but can't work myself up to actually write....

 

I hear there are a few videos on the site, but I have never watched them... or needed to. But I cracked up with the reference to IEW! talk about an expensive curriculum!!!

Edited February 2, 2010 by radiobrain
syntax!

[Corraleno]

I hear there are a few videos on the site, but I have never watched them... or needed to

 

Exactly. The PP's statement that you need to watch "instructional videos" in order to "get it" is doubly misinformed: there are no instructional videos, and you don't need to watch anything to learn how to teach the materials.

 

There are a few 3-4 minute youtube videos showing him talking to a group of teachers about *why* he feels it's so important to teach grammar and vocabulary and academic writing in schools. It shows his passion and his philosophy, but there's nothing "instructional" there at all. They're more like "about the author" pieces, not "how to teach this curriculum" videos, as you would get with IEW or TtC or other programs like that.

 

Jackie

[Capt_Uhura]

Perhaps the poster was referring to the pdf which I've also seen as a powerpoint presentation on how the components work together. I found that very helpful since that is where I learned that you should do the grammar books in under 4 weeks, then start Practice Island and the other components.

[WishboneDawn]

Please show me one post where an MCT user said "MCT is by far the best LA program on earth and anyone who is using something else is an idiot."

 

I did say something about how my children would be drooling idiots they didn't have MCT. But it should be noted that I'm a KISS user, not MCT and I've found peace in my decision to condemn my children to a life of excessive saliva.

 

I really have found the MCT users fun, willing to take a well-meant jab and always eager to share what makes MCT work for them. This has been really helpful for me in tailoring KISS so that it gives me what I admire about MCT.

 

Honestly, people have found something they love and are sharing their enthusiasm with us. Yes, sometimes it gets to be a bit like the relatives that bring over their little dog and can't stop gushing about little Pudgybutt and how he sleeps in their bed and is sooooooo cute when he yips for a treat and is the smartest, sweetest, most cuddly little puppy in the world, yes you are, yes you are, my little snookums...

 

Um.

 

Besides, MariannNOVA has been giving Hummers out with every MCT purchase. I'm also quite sure she's also been keeping a list of resistors and complainers. Hummers make excellent lethal weapons when you need to take down the pesky KISS user.

 

"I'm so sorry officer! I saw her and I tried to brake but then my Hummer hit the drool-trail her children left behind and I slid and went right over her. It's so horrible, so awful, so tragic...Say, do you think you could maybe pass this copy of Caesar's English to the father when he picks up the kids?"

Edited February 2, 2010 by WishboneDawn

[angela in ohio]

"I'm so sorry officer! I saw her and I tried to brake but then my Hummer hit the drool-trail her children left behind and I slid and went right over her. It's so horrible, so awful, so tragic...Say, do you think you could maybe pass this copy of Caesar's English to the father when he picks up the kids?"

 

:lol: ...can't breathe.... :lol:

[swimmermom3]

I did say something about how my children would be drooling idiots they didn't have MCT. But it should be noted that I'm a KISS user, not MCT and I've found peace in my decision to condemn my children to a life of excessive saliva.

 

I really have found the MCT users fun, willing to take a well-meant jab and always eager to share what makes MCT work for them. This has been really helpful for me in tailoring KISS so that it gives me what I admire about MCT.

 

Honestly, people have found something they love and are sharing their enthusiasm with us. Yes, sometimes it gets to be a bit like the relatives that bring over their little dog and can't stop gushing about little Pudgybutt and how he sleeps in their bed and is sooooooo cute when he yips for a treat and is the smartest, sweetest, most cuddly little puppy in the world, yes you are, yes you are, my little snookums...

 

Um.

 

Besides, MariannNOVA has been giving Hummers out with every MCT purchase. I'm also quite sure she's also been keeping a list of resistors and complainers. Hummers make excellent lethal weapons when you need to take down the pesky KISS user.

 

"I'm so sorry officer! I saw her and I tried to brake but then my Hummer hit the drool-trail her children left behind and I slid and went right over her. It's so horrible, so awful, so tragic...Say, do you think you could maybe pass this copy of Caesar's English to the father when he picks up the kids?"

 

:smilielol5:Well done, Dawn!

[Country Mouse]

Honestly, people have found something they love and are sharing their enthusiasm with us. Yes, sometimes it gets to be a bit like the relatives that bring over their little dog and can't stop gushing about little Pudgybutt and how he sleeps in their bed and is sooooooo cute when he yips for a treat and is the smartest, sweetest, most cuddly little puppy in the world, yes you are, yes you are, my little snookums...

 

:lol:

This thread really needed some levity!

[MelanieM]

"I'm so sorry officer! I saw her and I tried to brake but then my Hummer hit the drool-trail her children left behind and I slid and went right over her. It's so horrible, so awful, so tragic...Say, do you think you could maybe pass this copy of Caesar's English to the father when he picks up the kids?"

 

Oh my word! The hour or so of my time that has been invested in reading this thread is entirely worth it for this one comment. :lol::lol::lol:

[Corraleno]

"I'm so sorry officer! I saw her and I tried to brake but then my Hummer hit the drool-trail her children left behind and I slid and went right over her. It's so horrible, so awful, so tragic...Say, do you think you could maybe pass this copy of Caesar's English to the father when he picks up the kids?"

 

:smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5:

I'm so glad I wasn't drinking a carbonated beverage when I got to the end!

 

Jackie

[MariannNOVA]

Besides, MariannNOVA has been giving Hummers out with every MCT purchase. I'm also quite sure she's also been keeping a list of resistors and complainers. Hummers make excellent lethal weapons when you need to take down the pesky KISS user.

 

"I'm so sorry officer! I saw her and I tried to brake but then my Hummer hit the drool-trail her children left behind and I slid and went right over her. It's so horrible, so awful, so tragic...Say, do you think you could maybe pass this copy of Caesar's English to the father when he picks up the kids?"

 

I am so thrilled that I stuck it out to the end of this thread to see that of which I have been accused. I have to go find an appropriate smiley now.

:leaving:

 

 

OK....This was WAY MORE drool than I had ever seen and CynthiaOK agreed with me! And, yes, this is what it looked like; WishboneDawn was incredibly accurate in her description.We all need to keep in mind, though, that the Hummer has had a rough week. It will be good as new in a day or two. CynthiaOK and I have a crack team of folks who specialize in these matters. And, I think that someone mentioned diagramming......HERE: