What age is appropriate to begin grammar stage

[Bluegoat]

How do you feel about the age that TWTM suggests beginning education? It is something that has made me very uncomfortable - it isn't IMO in line with a traditional classical education, and it isn't in line with what is recommended in CM sources, or a lot of European countries.

 

It isn't even what Sayers says is the beginning of the grammar stage in The Lost Tools of Learning - she says it begins at about age 9 - also about the same time that CM courses of study become more serious.

 

Is this just an example of modern American approaches being inappropriately imported? Is anyone else uncomfortable with this aspect of TWTM? Or do you think there is something else going on?

[Ellie]

Why would it make you "uncomfortable"? :confused:

[ByGrace3]

Is your concern with "formal" schoolwork at a younger age? Imho, TWTM recommendations for early grammar stage are quite age appropriate. The Peace Hill Press products help define their expectations for this age, and products like SOTW 1, WWE 1, FLL 1, all help demonstrate a light but thorough introduction to the grammar stage. I know many believe in delaying formal education, but as for one with a 6 and 4 year old, I cannot imagine not utilizing this time. While CM and others may delay "formal" education, CM at least along with many others does not delay "education." Some of us just appreciate the handholding of WTM ;)

[acurtis75]

I think the recommendations in the WTM are about when the "average" child is ready to begin particular stages. One of the problems with ps or even most private schools in my opinion is also that they have to work with what's best or appropriate for the average student. Every child is different and one of the benefits of homeschooling is the ability to tailor your child's education to their needs. In my case, I have a 6 year old who reads on a high school level so if I followed the exact recommendations in the WTM she would probably be bored. Even though the books you mention recommend the grammar stage starting at age 9 I believe they are referring to more formal education. The classical methods we're attempting to employ for our children might have started at 9 formally but if you read about the education of Greek scholars, Martin Luther and various others who were brought up with classical methods there was a whole lot of informal schooling taking place in their homes before their formal schooling began. Things like Scripture, reading, Greek, Latin and other subjects were taught by parents or nannies to their children when they were very young. I don't see what most of us are doing with our elementary age children as different from that method. I do see making 5 and 6 year old children (boys especially) in a classroom for 8 hours a day as a horrible method for education and very much in opposition to the methods described in the books you referenced and the WTM.

[NicAnn]

I did at first...think it was too early. But then I started actually implementing it and I don't at all. Dd is so ready for the read alouds, the short handwriting lessons and the "math" we do. So much of it is natural at this age, that I do very little planning. I actually feel that WTM is a pretty gentle way to lead kids to education and a life of learning.

[acurtis75]

Is your concern with "formal" schoolwork at a younger age? Imho, TWTM recommendations for early grammar stage are quite age appropriate. The Peace Hill Press products help define their expectations for this age, and products like SOTW 1, WWE 1, FLL 1, all help demonstrate a light but thorough introduction to the grammar stage. I know many believe in delaying formal education, but as for one with a 6 and 4 year old, I cannot imagine not utilizing this time. While CM and others may delay "formal" education, CM at least along with many others does not delay "education." Some of us just appreciate the handholding of WTM ;)

 

I think we provided the same answer but I was really long winded.:lol:

Edited November 27, 2011 by acurtis75@yahoo.com

[Bluegoat]

Why would it make you "uncomfortable"? :confused:

 

It makes me uncomfortable because I think the push to early academics is something that is being more and more accepted in North American circles, and I think it's bad for kids.

 

I was really put out when at the beginning of TWTM she said that intended to make sure her kids could read before they went to K. Well, sure, some kids are ready to read then, but lots are not. That is why we don't start formal education for all until later. How could one make a plan about that without reference to an actual individual child?

 

I think classical education - by which I mean in education that engages in and is continuous with the history of Western thought - is a beautiful and important thing. I am really glad that more people are becoming aware of it.

 

So I don't like the possibility that parents are also thinking it means introducing formal academics before it is appropriate. I realize that isn't what all parents do at all - I taught my dd to read at K age because she was interested and ready, I don't think that was inappropriate, and I think lots of parents are on the right track with what they are asking of their kids. But not all.

 

I think there is a reason that people like Dorothy Sayers said that grammar starts at age 9, not 4 or 5. Those ages are really pre-grammar, and just as logic and rhetoric and grammar need to approached very differently, so pre-grammar is quite different from grammar.

 

If the two stages are conflated, how is it apparent that what is developmentally appropriate or pedagogically effective will be different? How is that different from failing to differentiate between grammar and logic stages?

 

It seems not only imprecise, but confusing, and I am wondering too about the motive for making this change.

[Colleen in NS]

How do you feel about the age that TWTM suggests beginning education?

 

...Or do you think there is something else going on?

 

I'm comfortable with it. I was very unschool minded when my oldest was in the toddler/preschool/Primary ages. Very. The only thing I did even remotely formally was help him learn phonograms (he wanted to - my mother introduced them to him for fun, to see what he would do), and he took off reading when he was just under five years old. All the rest of the time I let him play and read (and followed a very general daily routine of play/chores/meals/outings/read-alouds/family visits, etc.). When I first read WTM, I thought it was way too much work. But then I read it again when he was six and about to officially be registered for grade 1, and I looked more deeply into the suggestions. I realized they weren't as much work as I thought, and that they were just very gentle introductions to grammar, math, and writing. All the rest was still really just meant to be read, read, read; with some other fun activities thrown in if desired (maps, colouring, experiments, etc.). Really and truly, the math/grammar/writing during those early grades only took an hour or two a day, and my kids each enjoyed those times.

 

So, I have no problem with the way the WTM suggests beginning "formal education." What else I think is going on is that the WTM was written as the ultimate plan if you really wanted to do everything in it at those ages (and I did try a lot of them and adapted as I went along), but that the basic academic skills are not too much, BECAUSE of the specific suggestions of skills to teach and how to teach them. None of this business of "teach your kid to write a paragraph in first grade," but, "teach your child to copy one sentence perfectly, explaining the mechanics and spelling as you go along, so that she learns correctly and doesn't get overwhelmed." And actually, if you look at products that SWB has put out since the original WTM (FLL, WWE for example), you can see that they have made the WTM suggestions even tamer. At least I think so. :D

 

I was really put out when at the beginning of TWTM she said that intended to make sure her kids could read before they went to K. Well, sure, some kids are ready to read then, but lots are not. That is why we don't start formal education for all until later. How could one make a plan about that without reference to an actual individual child?

 

That was Jessie who wrote that, right? I took that as written by a woman who had learned to read phonetically herself, was a teacher in schools that were not teaching reading phonetically and she was seeing the results of that, and that it made her determined that those results would not happen to her children. Her actual descriptions in the book of how she taught her kids to read strike me as fun activities incorporated into the course of her day of taking care of three preschoolers. I don't remember now (and my book is buried somewhere) how reading-teaching actually turned out for each of her children (did they all read before K? I don't know), but I can understand why she would have at least made a plan for doing that. Reference to the individual child - if I recall correctly, she did mention giving one of her kids the choice to nap or learn letters, and the child chose to learn letters, lol.

 

So I don't like the possibility that parents are also thinking it means introducing formal academics before it is appropriate. I realize that isn't what all parents do at all - I taught my dd to read at K age because she was interested and ready, I don't think that was inappropriate, and I think lots of parents are on the right track with what they are asking of their kids. But not all.

 

I hear you. But for some of us, the fact is, it *is* going to be a trial and error process. But we learn along the way. If I told you some of the stuff I did try to do with my kids in the earlier grades, before I realized that all that I really needed to do was basic math/spelling/writing/grammar, you'd probably cringe (I cringe now). But I learned (with a LOT of help from these forums over the years - they have been a GODSEND to me!!!), and I figured out what I really wanted my kids to learn, and what was icing on the cake.

 

I see on these forums many times, people asking about the necessity of formal pre-school or Kindergarten/Primary "curriculums" and I cringe. But then others chime in and will nicely tell them they don't need them, and WHY. Or parents planning a grade 1 or 2 year, and listing boatloads of (sometimes overlapping) programs to use for different skills, and the same response comes up ("using R&S grammar plus WWE? Don't bother doing the R&S writing lessons, then" or some such thing).

 

I dunno, I think the WTM book pairs quite nicely with these forums, where readers and users of WTM can get together and talk about what is really working and how and why. I can also say that I'm glad we began looking at math/grammar/writing/spelling around grade 1, because the long and slow introduction over two/three/four years was good for my kids. Their knowledge and skills just melded nicely from year to year. Also, I was not one of those people who already knew a lot of these skills, and I did not know how to put together a "fun and informal play-based" activity set each year, so that they could learn these skills. I HAD to rely on the WTM suggestions. And as I read the forums and learned from the actual users here, I figured out how to adapt for and teach my own individual kids.

 

Hope that all makes sense.

[Sputterduck]

I started my son very, very young and he always loved it. I have no regrets. He is far ahead of his grade level and I think the early start has something to do with that.

 

I have a problem with early education when it's expecting a very small child to sit still starring at the same 4 walls of the same classroom day in and day out. Littles needs to run and jump and frolic and experience more than a classroom. However, they soak up information like sponges and I figure if they are soaking up things, it might as well be useful things. I set my son up to soak up academics instead of cartoons. It worked exactly as I'd hoped.

[Bluegoat]

I'm comfortable with it. I was very unschool minded when my oldest was in the toddler/preschool/Primary ages. Very. The only thing I did even remotely formally was help him learn phonograms (he wanted to - my mother introduced them to him for fun, to see what he would do), and he took off reading when he was just under five years old. All the rest of the time I let him play and read (and followed a very general daily routine of play/chores/meals/outings/read-alouds/family visits, etc.). When I first read WTM, I thought it was way too much work. But then I read it again when he was six and about to officially be registered for grade 1, and I looked more deeply into the suggestions. I realized they weren't as much work as I thought, and that they were just very gentle introductions to grammar, math, and writing. All the rest was still really just meant to be read, read, read; with some other fun activities thrown in if desired (maps, colouring, experiments, etc.). Really and truly, the math/grammar/writing during those early grades only took an hour or two a day, and my kids each enjoyed those times.

 

So, I have no problem with the way the WTM suggests beginning "formal education." What else I think is going on is that the WTM was written as the ultimate plan if you really wanted to do everything in it at those ages (and I did try a lot of them and adapted as I went along), but that the basic academic skills are not too much, BECAUSE of the specific suggestions of skills to teach and how to teach them. None of this business of "teach your kid to write a paragraph in first grade," but, "teach your child to copy one sentence perfectly, explaining the mechanics and spelling as you go along, so that she learns correctly and doesn't get overwhelmed." And actually, if you look at products that SWB has put out since the original WTM (FLL, WWE for example), you can see that they have made the WTM suggestions even tamer. At least I think so. :D

 

 

 

That was Jessie who wrote that, right? I took that as written by a woman who had learned to read phonetically herself, was a teacher in schools that were not teaching reading phonetically and she was seeing the results of that, and that it made her determined that those results would not happen to her children. Her actual descriptions in the book of how she taught her kids to read strike me as fun activities incorporated into the course of her day of taking care of three preschoolers. I don't remember now (and my book is buried somewhere) how reading-teaching actually turned out for each of her children (did they all read before K? I don't know), but I can understand why she would have at least made a plan for doing that. Reference to the individual child - if I recall correctly, she did mention giving one of her kids the choice to nap or learn letters, and the child chose to learn letters, lol.

 

 

 

I hear you. But for some of us, the fact is, it *is* going to be a trial and error process. But we learn along the way. If I told you some of the stuff I did try to do with my kids in the earlier grades, before I realized that all that I really needed to do was basic math/spelling/writing/grammar, you'd probably cringe (I cringe now). But I learned (with a LOT of help from these forums over the years - they have been a GODSEND to me!!!), and I figured out what I really wanted my kids to learn, and what was icing on the cake.

 

I see on these forums many times, people asking about the necessity of formal pre-school or Kindergarten/Primary "curriculums" and I cringe. But then others chime in and will nicely tell them they don't need them, and WHY. Or parents planning a grade 1 or 2 year, and listing boatloads of (sometimes overlapping) programs to use for different skills, and the same response comes up ("using R&S grammar plus WWE? Don't bother doing the R&S writing lessons, then" or some such thing).

 

I dunno, I think the WTM book pairs quite nicely with these forums, where readers and users of WTM can get together and talk about what is really working and how and why. I can also say that I'm glad we began looking at math/grammar/writing/spelling around grade 1, because the long and slow introduction over two/three/four years was good for my kids. Their knowledge and skills just melded nicely from year to year. Also, I was not one of those people who already knew a lot of these skills, and I did not know how to put together a "fun and informal play-based" activity set each year, so that they could learn these skills. I HAD to rely on the WTM suggestions. And as I read the forums and learned from the actual users here, I figured out how to adapt for and teach my own individual kids.

 

Hope that all makes sense.

Yup, and I think I even agree with it all.

 

I've been thinking about it, and I think I've managed to get a more precise idea of what I'm bothered by - it is really about including those young kids in the grammar stage and making it eight years long.

 

I've seen other classical approaches that call them pre-grammar, and I think that is accurate - I think those younger kids have somewhat different needs than the 9 - 12 group. They are more concrete; they are still very much learning about functioning in a group; they are in many ways in a kind of stage between being pre-literate and fully literate and are still mastering reading and writing and acquiring stamina in those things.

 

To me, separating them from the older kids makes it clear they have particular needs. And I just don't see why one would even put them in with the grammar stage, it just seems to be because North Americans now send their kids to formal schools at that age. I can't see any advantage to changing the stages of the Trivium in that way?

[Colleen in NS]

Yup, and I think I even agree with it all.

 

I've been thinking about it, and I think I've managed to get a more precise idea of what I'm bothered by - it is really about including those young kids in the grammar stage and making it eight years long.

 

I've seen other classical approaches that call them pre-grammar, and I think that is accurate - I think those younger kids have somewhat different needs than the 9 - 12 group. They are more concrete; they are still very much learning about functioning in a group; they are in many ways in a kind of stage between being pre-literate and fully literate and are still mastering reading and writing and acquiring stamina in those things.

 

To me, separating them from the older kids makes it clear they have particular needs. And I just don't see why one would even put them in with the grammar stage, it just seems to be because North Americans now send their kids to formal schools at that age. I can't see any advantage to changing the stages of the Trivium in that way?

 

I think you are recognizing what I do see recognized in the WTM book - that those two groups of kids have different developmental needs. I think you are just labeling the groups differently (nothing wrong with that). The WTM does talk about the younger crowd needing concrete explanations/demonstrations when learning new concepts, and that there is a wide range of ages within that younger (and sometimes older) group where kids will learn to read, write a sentence or two, whatever.

 

From listening to SWB's audio lectures over the years and reading some of her posts here, I've concluded that what seems to be rigid in the WTM, isn't.

 

Have you listened to her audio called Homeschooling the Real Child? Oh my, it's hilarious and thought-provoking, and it seems to throw what seems to be rigid in WTM right out the door. :lol:

[Bluegoat]

I think you are recognizing what I do see recognized in the WTM book - that those two groups of kids have different developmental needs. I think you are just labeling the groups differently (nothing wrong with that). The WTM does talk about the younger crowd needing concrete explanations/demonstrations when learning new concepts, and that there is a wide range of ages within that younger (and sometimes older) group where kids will learn to read, write a sentence or two, whatever.

 

From listening to SWB's audio lectures over the years and reading some of her posts here, I've concluded that what seems to be rigid in the WTM, isn't.

 

Have you listened to her audio called Homeschooling the Real Child? Oh my, it's hilarious and thought-provoking, and it seems to throw what seems to be rigid in WTM right out the door. :lol:

 

No, I haven't listened to any of her audio, or really much of her stuff other than WTM. I'm really more gravitated toward CM and do I've been spending most of my reading time in that direction.

[Colleen in NS]

No, I haven't listened to any of her audio, or really much of her stuff other than WTM. I'm really more gravitated toward CM and do I've been spending most of my reading time in that direction.

 

There are always reasons why each of us gravitates more towards one thing than another. I'll bet, with the education in your mind that I've seen displayed in your posts, that CM is more sensible and do-able to you. I unfortunately did not receive a great education; therefore I need the handholding of WTM (and I thank God for these forums that have helped me to adapt as we go along). I have read some CM stuff, and it was very appealing to me (esp. the nature studies and handicrafts and poetry and copywork/handwriting practice). But I needed a little more structure to help me put together an academic skills program, or I was going to lose it after coming from the unschooling mentality! :lol: I just do think that there is more in common among various "classical/neo-classical" authors and philosophies, than there is uncommon. Much overlap.

[Bluegoat]

There are always reasons why each of us gravitates more towards one thing than another. I'll bet, with the education in your mind that I've seen displayed in your posts, that CM is more sensible and do-able to you. I unfortunately did not receive a great education; therefore I need the handholding of WTM (and I thank God for these forums that have helped me to adapt as we go along). I have read some CM stuff, and it was very appealing to me (esp. the nature studies and handicrafts and poetry and copywork/handwriting practice). But I needed a little more structure to help me put together an academic skills program, or I was going to lose it after coming from the unschooling mentality! :lol: I just do think that there is more in common among various "classical/neo-classical" authors and philosophies, than there is uncommon. Much overlap.

 

 

Yes, I think we often find a particular idea resonates for us. Compared to some of the others, I think WTM really lays out practical ideas in a very do-able way. When I read it my dd was still pretty young, but it gave me a lot of ideas about how I could actually organize an education for her because I am pretty bad at keeping track of administrative stuff and that was something I was concerned about. (ask me how late my intent to homeschool letter was going in...)

 

I was really interested in unschooling back when I first discovered the idea of homeschooling - that was when I was in high school, and I tried really hard to convince my parents to let me stay home. I think what made me decide it had real limits was seeing at university what huge, basic chunks of knowledge I was missing. Not silly things, but the kind of information that is pretty important to having an opinion on anything, or voting, or being a citizen or parent. I realized that I might have been even worse off had I never been to school, because there was little chance I would have run into those ideas - my family and wider circle just had no contact with that kind of thing.

 

I don't think I could have implemented a CM program just from reading her books. I've been using AO, and I'm just getting comfortable enough now to see where I'd like to tweak it a bit and where I feel like I really have a grasp of her approach. I just finished When Children Love to Learn, which was very very helpful in bringing that out.

[Canadianmumof5]

I started my son very, very young and he always loved it. I have no regrets. He is far ahead of his grade level and I think the early start has something to do with that.

 

I have a problem with early education when it's expecting a very small child to sit still starring at the same 4 walls of the same classroom day in and day out. Littles needs to run and jump and frolic and experience more than a classroom. However, they soak up information like sponges and I figure if they are soaking up things, it might as well be useful things. I set my son up to soak up academics instead of cartoons. It worked exactly as I'd hoped.

 

:iagree:Very well said. We start early and proceed according to the child and their willingness/interest. Except we soak up quite a few cartoons in the process :tongue_smilie: