Planning out CW Aesop for next year... need some input

[Kay in Cal]

We're staring Aesop A next year. I have the main book, as well as the student and teacher's guides. After all the recommendations for how much better the program is now that it is all planned out in a workbook, looking at them as a whole I'm not sure it will work for us. I had a good vision for how it might work after reading the main book, and then looked at the student and teacher's guides... I guess I think the student book is TOO planned out. I see how the exercises progress over the year, but it seems like it will be difficult to use the workbook and have the program meet my ds where he is--I like the writing piece, but the grammar, for example, is just way too simple. Looks like lots of busywork to me.

 

Here is what I would like to do: Continue on using GWG 4 next year for grammar. Similarly, continue with SWO D for spelling. For the "analysis and imitation" part of CW, focus on textual criticism (genre, voice, character, etc) as well as found vocabulary and dictionary skills, then move on to the writing project. This would mean far less time spent on analysis and imitation each day than is scheduled in Aesop (less than 30 minutes, because grammar and spelling would be scheduled separately), more time just workshopping his writing, as well as pretty much not being able to use the workbooks.

 

For those who have used CW, will this work? What is really the value of the program? If I lose the workbooks and focus more precisely in the analysis piece, are we just missing the boat?

[HollyDay]

We will do Aesop B with GWG 4 and SWR (cont). I agree, the grammar is much to simple in Aesop. I use the grammar there strictly as review IF I feel it is needed. I do the spelling/vocab in Aesop because I think we can never have too much discussion of that topic. We discuss quite a bit. We retell orally the story and review the questions. The only real writing we do is the writing assigment of rewriting the story. It works for us. Now, I have not looked at B as we just recently finished A. I am assuming we can continue with B pretty much as we did in A. Does that help at all??? basically, make the program work for you. Dont get too strict on the "way it should be done". Do what works for you and your dc

[cajun.classical]

Here is what I would like to do: Continue on using GWG 4 next year for grammar. Similarly, continue with SWO D for spelling. For the "analysis and imitation" part of CW, focus on textual criticism (genre, voice, character, etc) as well as found vocabulary and dictionary skills, then move on to the writing project. This would mean far less time spent on analysis and imitation each day than is scheduled in Aesop (less than 30 minutes, because grammar and spelling would be scheduled separately), more time just workshopping his writing, as well as pretty much not being able to use the workbooks.

 

For those who have used CW, will this work? What is really the value of the program? If I lose the workbooks and focus more precisely in the analysis piece, are we just missing the boat?

 

I think it's a good plan. We don't use the workbooks either. My dd is quite advanced and would be bored silly with those activities. So, yes, tailor to your child's needs! My ds is in Homer B, and from what I've seen of Homer, your approach to Aesop will be more than adequate preparation.

 

As an aside, I think the difficulty with Aesop comes from the fact that third graders can have a great disparity in terms of their abilities. Some third graders are reading and writing well, while others are still struggling to get things to click. So, what seems like way-too-easy for my dd might be just right for some other third graders. By all means, find the right level for your child and go for it.

[Susan in SoCal]

Kay -

When my oldest son went thru Aesop, we were in much the same boat as you. I bought the workbooks because they gave *me* direction, helped *me* come up to speed much more quickly. But I didn't remotely use the workbooks line item by line item for him. We skipped the grammar stuff that was clearly too easy for him. We honed in on the analysis and writing project. Some times we did some quick oral grammar work, just to make sure that his 'theory' was up to a practical application level. Here's an additional way I used the workbooks ... when son was in Level A, I looked to the kind of exercises used in Level B and incorporated some of those into our A work.

 

So for us, here's how it looked.

 

4th grade - Aesop B + Abeka Language C (and near the end of B, I wish I had begun some Homer level analysis like Theon's components, but I wasn't that savvy yet!)

5th grade - Homer A, no additional grammar text, and the grammar in Homer A was a good fit for son

6th grade - Homer B. again, no extra grammar. plenty of rigor here.

 

Use or don't use or use piecemeal the workbooks. Absolutely tailor what your son needs.

[NancyNellen]

Although I did use aspects of the workbooks (I had 2 students working at slightly different levels), we mostly focused on the imitatative writing. We substituted some grammar, such as diagramming some of the more complicated sentences, and did a lot of dictionary and thesaurus work. The 'big picture' is the strength of the program, IMO. The progymnasmata is a great step-by-step approach to solid writing skills.

 

Many people have used the program successfully without the workbooks, so I think you'll be fine meeting your son where he is and working on the skills that will make him a better writer.

 

Good luck.

[Narrow Gate Academy]

We had the instructor and student guides this year for Aesop A. The did help me understand how the program was designed to work. To be honest, I ended up using the student manual just for the models. We picked and chose what we did for the spelling, vocabulary, and grammar sections. Mainly we just focused on the writing part. Next year for Aesop B, we going with just the core.

[Lynn in WI]

Kay -

When my oldest son went thru Aesop, we were in much the same boat as you. I bought the workbooks because they gave *me* direction, helped *me* come up to speed much more quickly. But I didn't remotely use the workbooks line item by line item for him. We skipped the grammar stuff that was clearly too easy for him. We honed in on the analysis and writing project. Some times we did some quick oral grammar work, just to make sure that his 'theory' was up to a practical application level. Here's an additional way I used the workbooks ... when son was in Level A, I looked to the kind of exercises used in Level B and incorporated some of those into our A work.

 

Yup. What she said. :)

[siloam]

Kay,

 

As much as it also terrifies me, I have come to the same conclusion. In my case we use SWR for spelling, and come from a Ruth Beechick back ground, which means no grammar, so the grammar didn't have enough explanations as a learning grammar program.

 

Now that my 1st child is through Aesop A we are covering JAG in prep for Aesop B, then will follow JAG methods of grammar. JAG use a different order to identify parts of speech, which makes a lot more sense to me.

 

Heather

[Kay in Cal]

Thanks for all the input! I guess I'll plug ahead working out the program without using the workbook. Feels ironic, because so many of the reviews have said how necessary the workbooks were to really implement it... but I think the core book will just have to be our center. We'll pull texts from the workbook and some ideas, but use the method in our own way.

 

For those who are using the program at the older levels--are the workbooks similar? Thanks!