Why is language arts taught as a separate subject?

[Tabrett]

Why is language arts taught as a separate subject?

 

This question has always plagued me.

 

Why do schools have 12 years of LA? Why isn't LA just integrated into all subjects. Don't kids read and write for every subject (not as much in math). If they are reading good literature, writing and editing their writing (correcting- spelling, grammar, penmanship) in every subject; why do we separate it into a individual subject. Can't LA be taught across the board instead of individually?

 

I remember as a kid becoming frustrated when a teacher would give be a bad grade on a paper that wasn't for LA. I saw LA as a "separate" subject and expected to "only" be graded on grammar in papers written for LA. I felt that teachers didn't care what about the content of my papers just grammar. It would have made more sense to me as a child if I received a content grade and LA grade for each paper. Then taught grammar through help in correcting my paper. I know that some teachers do grade this way (especially with a rubric- which I had never heard of until college). After kids can read and form their letters, is a separate LA really necessary especially if you apply narration, copywork and dictation across the curriculum?

 

Anyway, back to my original question:

 

Why is language arts taught as a separate subject?:confused:

[Gretchen in NJ]

I had often thought about this too. My first mathematics paper I ever wrote was in college. Why wasn't I required to write one before? Wouldn't writing a paper about mathematics enhance the students understanding of the subject?

 

It is taught separately because the subject areas become more and more specialized the higher and higher your education goes. In theory, it is a great idea.

 

I think it is doable in a homeschool for writing, vocabulary, etc., but not in public/private school since the teachers would have to team-up. Different teachers have different students.

 

As a teacher, I always thought that it would be great for a mathematics teacher to team up with a language arts teacher and have their students write a mathematics paper. They would receive 2 grades: one from each teacher.

 

Isn't this what IEW does? I am not sure since I don't use it.

[Tabrett]

Isn't this what IEW does? I am not sure since I don't use it.

 

I don't know anything about IEW. I'll have to check this out.

 

When I taught in public school our 6th graders were required to write a report (maybe make a poster) on Pythagoras in math. Honestly the kid were so use to never writing in math that they didn't make the connection.

 

In a homeschool situation do we really need a separate LA? I can understand somewhat having separate LA in lower grades in a classroom situation. But it just seem to make more sense to have LA integrated across the curriculum instead of a separate subject.

 

I think it would be over kill to do narration, copywork and dictation in all you subjects then have a separate LA curriculum.

 

Any one not used a separate LA curriculum and just integrated?

[Gretchen in NJ]

When or where would you study the great works? Literature - fiction, poetry, drama, etc............

[Trivium Academy]

I see LA as a separate subject only for learning the core concepts but after that instruction is done, I consider it a cross-curricula subject. There are many curricula available that make writing a cross-curricula focus, through history and science and if you wanted to include writing about math, you could.

 

By using Tapestry of Grace, writing instruction is integrated with the use of Writing Aids. If I chose to, we could use Writing Aids solely from 1-12 by itself only adding in a grammar program. Spelling could be done easily through other subjects although the parent/teacher would have to decide whether to instruct about spelling rules.

 

We will be using Simply Spelling by Laurie Hicks which I chose because it integrates spelling rules in its application but uses different topics for its exercises, in the later levels it uses speeches, excerpts from books from history, literature and science.

 

I see LA as being separate only for the initial instruction, once the concepts are mastered it becomes a part of the overall picture of studies. At least that's our goal.

[Michelle in MO]

the old "reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic" adage.

 

I completely understand your point, though; LA is necessary and used throughout the curriculum, and indeed IEW and Classical Writing and other good writing programs incorporate "language arts" into other areas like teaching students how to write about history, science, art, math, etc.

 

But, I think that a good, focused "language arts" program throughout the K-12 years is an excellent idea. Obviously, in the very early years you're just focusing on teaching kids how to read. Gradually you incorporate writing, spelling, etc., into the program. Laying a solid foundation will indeed enable them to branch off at some point in time to write about science, history, etc. When kids are very young, I think if one focuses on just reading and math, they will do well. Starting Latin when they're young is also great. We started Latin when my oldest was in 5th grade and my middle daughter was in 3rd grade.

 

Writing, penmanship, spelling, vocabulary, etc., will follow along after the foundation of reading skills is laid.

 

When a student is in high school, hopefully by then their grammar skills, spelling, vocabulary, reading, etc., will be strong enough to tackle the Great Books. By then these skills should be second nature. If the language arts skills are not taught and mastered early on, the student will really struggle with tackling the Great Books and being able to write well about them.

 

Just my .02 worth! :)

[Tabrett]

When or where would you study the great works? Literature - fiction, poetry, drama, etc............

 

In history with the time period you are studying- in science with the subject you are studying- in drama, art, music.... I love great literature and think is would be better understood while studying corresponding subjects and time periods.

[Gretchen in NJ]

In history with the time period you are studying- in science with the subject you are studying- in drama, art, music.... I love great literature and think is would be better understood while studying corresponding subjects and time periods.

 

Yes. I get it. The WTM way!

[Tabrett]

I see LA as being separate only for the initial instruction, once the concepts are mastered it becomes a part of the overall picture of studies. At least that's our goal.

 

This is the approach I would like to incorporate. My oldest dc will be in public high school this coming year and I have 3 little ones (4.75, 3.25 and 1.25 years old[he he]). How do you plan on submitting a LA curriculum and grades to your state if you integrate LA (I have to submit these things in SC)?

[Trivium Academy]

For reporting purposes (and I don't have to do this so you might want to ask someone in your hs group), I would just put:

 

-Narrative report on Patrick Henry (counts as both LA and History, I would think)

-Haiku poem (written when studying Japan in history)

- Expository writing assignment on the effects of the Industrial Revolution

-Persuasive writing assignment about recycling (science and LA)

 

I don't know if you could double list the same assignment? Of course, your kids are no where near that stage of writing. You have time to find your path, you're just approaching the concept building stage. :)

[PeterPan]

Tabrett, I take it you're planning through how you want to approach this with your littles? You might find it helpful to read through the recs for grades 1-4 of WTM and also the new WWE so you can see what WTM is suggesting. I think you'd find it's a lot more integrated than you're realizing. You actually have two separate issues here: 1) the need for proper instruction, and 2) the need for adequate practice. You HAVE to take skills across the curriculum, because the student needs adequate practice. You asked if that would result in TOO much work. I think you're going to find, as you get into things, that your reality is kicking yourself about not requiring enough writing, not the opposite. In fact, I bet none of us here wake up every morning and go, "Oh man, I've been requiring too much writing, time to back off!" Nope, just the opposite. I think most of us wake up every morning wishing we could be more efficient, have more perfect days, and get done all the writing we know our kids need to do. You'll also find that WTM, at least in my old edition, lists specific amounts and recommendations that balance this explicit study vs. contextualized practice to keep the overall quantities in balance. You're going to be able to find this balance, don't worry.

 

So there we've discussed the need for practice, but you also have the issue of instruction. It doesn't matter if you teach those skills contextualized or in isolation except as a matter of practicality. The LCC (latin-centered approach) is particularly keen on streamlining and contextualized instruction. Unfortunately, that totally depends on the background of the teacher and their confidence and ability to do this. It might work great for one person and flop for the next. You might be fine till you hit 4th grade and then have it all swamp up on you. And it may take more time and energy on your part than what you have to give. You have 3 littles, all distinct people who will need specific instruction to progress. You might find that a grade leveled workbook saves your sanity. :)

 

Don't get too in the box or stuck on preconceived notions. Your kids may LOVE to have LA workbooks and just thrive on them! Mine doesn't, so I do the most absolutely streamlined approach I can find, use the computer, etc. and then integrate instruction for the rest. There are a lot of acceptable variations and options and you're going to find the ones that fit your situation, your dc's personality, your own teaching comfort best. I will say that the one thing that has NOT served me well is to take my own memories of school, particularly my distaste for excessive or unnecessary practice, and transfer it over to my dd's instruction. I suggest you do the opposite in fact, taking a normal, full load and cutting back only as you see your dc truly don't need it to excel. There's nothing worse than realizing you've been giving your dc the education that fit *you* and not them. You may not have needed that extra practice or explicit instruction or LA workbook, but you may have dc who do. Just something to consider.

[Kathie in VA]

I think it's taught separately because it is seen as a collection of skills. Handwriting gets taught specifically so they can learn how to form each letter and how to connect them in cursive type fonts. I can review this with copywork using history, but I think it works better to learn the similar letters together first. Since there are patterns/rules in spelling, it bennefits most to teach that specifically instead of only correcting mistakes. The same goes for grammar and writing skills. With both of these, review can utilize models from history/science though.

 

Now that said, I do think it can be well done all together IF carefully planned out. We do some of this with Classical Writing prgm.

 

Another reason I think LA is separated is so that the grades on history papers & other non LA papers, can really reflect the students understanding of that subject. A paper shows two things: an understanding of the subject/assignment and the ability to communicate this understanding. As the student gets older, both parts become more important.

 

One thing I think we all need to watch out for are writing assignments for history that require more writing ability than has been taught. I discovered this with Classical Writing where they don't teach essay skills or compare/contrast type writing till after many history prgms start asking for them. When I asked the authors of CW about this, they did make a good point. Here is a small portion of that discussion:

My thought would be that we always speak more comfortably than we write. Therefore wherever your student is at in his thinking and speaking skills, his ability to write on the subject is likely to be considerably less. He should spend some time at the thinking and speaking skill level of logic or persuasion before he is asked to write about it, or writing becomes frustrating for him.

Here's the link to the full discussion:

http://lene.proboards15.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=184

 

hth

[Stacy in NJ]

There's LA as content and LA as a skill set. Spelling, grammar, writing and actual reading instruction are skill sets. It would be time consuming to teach them within the context of other subjects. You do practice them within the context of other subjects. And, being competent within them usually will lead to more confidence in other subjects.

 

Literary analysis is a skill set, as well.

[Aubrey]

I think it's just semantics. LA in the early grades covers basics of reading, spelling, handwriting, grammar, even read-alouds, & as these develop, it morphs into literature & greater writing skills.

 

So you want to incorporate LA skills & lit into hist? The skills & lit remain the same. The time spent on them most likely remain the same. Instead of 30 min/day for hist & 30 min/day for lit, you now need an hr/day for hist, some of which is lit. Just for ex.

 

Does lit make more sense in the context of hist? To some extent, yes. But to some extent, no. There's a lot one can miss, lit-wise if they stick too firmly to the timeline. Otoh, there are plenty of philosophies of ed that teach hist thr lit. Which should be dominant?

 

SOTW is a great ex of hist-dom approach. From what I've seen of SL, they represent a lit-dominant approach. Dh has a hist degree; I have one in lit. You can imagine the conversations at our house, when approaching this subject, lol.

[NevadaRabbit]

Why is language arts taught as a separate subject?

 

This question has always plagued me.

 

Why do schools have 12 years of LA? Why isn't LA just integrated into all subjects. Don't kids read and write for every subject (not as much in math). If they are reading good literature, writing and editing their writing (correcting- spelling, grammar, penmanship) in every subject; why do we separate it into a individual subject. Can't LA be taught across the board instead of individually?

 

I remember as a kid becoming frustrated when a teacher would give be a bad grade on a paper that wasn't for LA. I saw LA as a "separate" subject and expected to "only" be graded on grammar in papers written for LA. I felt that teachers didn't care what about the content of my papers just grammar. It would have made more sense to me as a child if I received a content grade and LA grade for each paper. Then taught grammar through help in correcting my paper. I know that some teachers do grade this way (especially with a rubric- which I had never heard of until college). After kids can read and form their letters, is a separate LA really necessary especially if you apply narration, copywork and dictation across the curriculum?

 

Anyway, back to my original question:

 

Why is language arts taught as a separate subject?:confused:

 

It sound to me like you are talking about a Whole Language approach. It was a very popular movement in the 80's/90's, a holistic approach in which phonics/reading/grammar instruction was minimized as a separate area of study, and children were "taught" to read by reading real books. It emphasizes meaning in reading and writing over mechanics. It was born out of a reaction to behavioral psychology, which attempted to reduce human behavior to stimulus/response, when we all know it's much more complicated than that. In the education realm, that turned into "surely reading is more than just 'long a/short a' rules so let's skip learning the rules and focus on the meaning". It's not much of a leap from that to the "new math" which again tried to get past the instruction of what traditionalists regard as the basics, and jump ahead to the logic and meaning.

 

I am sure my bias is showing, but I think this entire approach puts the cart before the horse, and attempts to put grammar-level students into the logic stage. Meaning is meaningless if you can't read the sentence. Grammar level is putting the pegs on the wall for future connections, and when you're not putting any pegs on the wall, the connections won't be there.

 

I don't intend for this to bash your idea, because what you're advocating should be our goal for logic/rhetoric stage. But I do firmly believe that grammar stage is where we should break down learning into components that might seem disjointed (from our perspective) and that our kids think don't "go" together. But when they have one of those "AHA!" moments of connection, then it makes sense, and THEN you see the holistic view coming together.

[Tabrett]

It sound to me like you are talking about a Whole Language approach. It was a very popular movement in the 80's/90's, a holistic approach in which phonics/reading/grammar instruction was minimized as a separate area of study, and children were "taught" to read by reading real books. It emphasizes meaning in reading and writing over mechanics. It was born out of a reaction to behavioral psychology, which attempted to reduce human behavior to stimulus/response, when we all know it's much more complicated than that. In the education realm, that turned into "surely reading is more than just 'long a/short a' rules so let's skip learning the rules and focus on the meaning". It's not much of a leap from that to the "new math" which again tried to get past the instruction of what traditionalists regard as the basics, and jump ahead to the logic and meaning.

 

Oh- no, no! I can't stand whole language. That is the main reason I homeschool. Whole language is the only method used in the local elementary school and I can't afford private.

I'm talking about after children learn to read with phonic and using narration, copywork and dictation from the subjects you are teaching. A parts to whole method just using the book you are studying in your subjects instead of arbitrary examples from LA worksheets. Using a classical model but integrating it cross curriculum.

[Robin in Tx]

the old "reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic" adage.

 

I completely understand your point, though; LA is necessary and used throughout the curriculum, and indeed IEW and Classical Writing and other good writing programs incorporate "language arts" into other areas like teaching students how to write about history, science, art, math, etc.

 

But, I think that a good, focused "language arts" program throughout the K-12 years is an excellent idea. Obviously, in the very early years you're just focusing on teaching kids how to read. Gradually you incorporate writing, spelling, etc., into the program. Laying a solid foundation will indeed enable them to branch off at some point in time to write about science, history, etc. When kids are very young, I think if one focuses on just reading and math, they will do well. Starting Latin when they're young is also great. We started Latin when my oldest was in 5th grade and my middle daughter was in 3rd grade.

 

Writing, penmanship, spelling, vocabulary, etc., will follow along after the foundation of reading skills is laid.

 

When a student is in high school, hopefully by then their grammar skills, spelling, vocabulary, reading, etc., will be strong enough to tackle the Great Books. By then these skills should be second nature. If the language arts skills are not taught and mastered early on, the student will really struggle with tackling the Great Books and being able to write well about them.

 

Just my .02 worth! :)

 

I agree with Michelle. When you're talking about skill development, it deserves separate treatment. Spelling, grammar, etc. Compositions in other subjects is *applied* language arts. That's where you apply what you're learning in those skill subjects. I am not one of those who believes that writing a report in one of the content subjects is the best time to learn the skills. You should come to that assignment with a toolbox in place that was acquired through direct instruction. That is when you practice your skill. And that is when the content of the paper might weigh more heavily on the grade than technical accuracy, but technical accuracy/skill needs to be polished in order to concentrate on the content. There are two things going on there... skill and content... I think skill needs to be taught directly (as its own subject) and applied/practiced in content assignments.

 

SWB says her mother made her complete a grammar text. Every. Single. Year. Through high school. She has convinced me that this is the way to go :).

 

Robin

[Tabrett]

Maybe this will help explain what I mean:

 

You have a first grade dc and you are reading Tut's Mummy: Lost...And Found. You child narrates a chapter of the book to you and you write it down. Then you select a sentence for your child to copy. You child copies it and you ask "Why did you use a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence and why did you put a period at the end?"

 

Or you just dictated a passage to you child and he misspelled "cat" you then add that word to his spelling list.

 

Why would you need a separate LA curriculum if you just did a LA lesson in history.

 

This type of exercise could be repeated for all subject and literature books read ( I wouldn't do it everyday for every subject, but maybe pick one subject a day).

[Tabrett]

The post Geek made Writing With Ease level 2 workbook -- consistent lit selections? Is what I am talking about when it comes to integrating LA in to all the subjects. Why is it so separated? Why use passages to teach grammar that you are not also reading and studying? Why didn't WWE use selections from WTM and SOTW that lined up with the weeks being taught for that year of history and the literature suggestion? It would make everything relevant.

[Kimber]

To do that, would require 4 separate workbooks for each level. I dont think she has the time to do that, especially since people like me are begging for the logic stage text book. :)

[Robin in Tx]

Maybe this will help explain what I mean:

 

You have a first grade dc and you are reading Tut's Mummy: Lost...And Found. You child narrates a chapter of the book to you and you write it down. Then you select a sentence for your child to copy. You child copies it and you ask "Why did you use a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence and why did you put a period at the end?"

 

Or you just dictated a passage to you child and he misspelled "cat" you then add that word to his spelling list.

 

Why would you need a separate LA curriculum if you just did a LA lesson in history.

 

This type of exercise could be repeated for all subject and literature books read ( I wouldn't do it everyday for every subject, but maybe pick one subject a day).

 

 

Like I said in my other post, everything you are talking about is application. Your child has learned through direct instruction how to spell short words like cat, and so when you do dictation and he misspells cat, you refer him to a spelling rule that he's already learned elsewhere. Spelling and grammar are skills that are built incrementally... it would take a tremendous amount of effort and planning on your part to make sure that in your history and science and literature lessons, opportunity was created to teach every single thing your student needs to know about how to use the english lanauge, and to do so in a way that the lessons build upon each other. That is the whole point of TWTM - use good textbooks/programs for skills - just not for content. The point of dictation is not to teach them to spell and punctuate, per say, but to develop good habits using the spelling and punctuation skills they've been taught. If you make the composition assignment about teaching grammar and spelling, then their mind isn't going to be free to properly contemplate and organize the content of their paper. That may be hard to imagine when your children are young, but you will notice a difference when your kid gets older.

 

My daughter plays the violin. Every day she has to practice technique, scales, etudes, bowing techniques, etc. Then she gets to play beautiful music. There is a lot going on with the sheet music - musicality (loud here, soft there), difficult rhythyms, notes and chords that are difficult to play. That is not the time to be thinking about how to properly hold the bow, or keep it straight, or how to playing the notes in tune and shift properly. Those are all skills that have to be taught and practiced in isolation in order to master them when she is playing music. And that *is* when she masters them... when she is applying them to real music. But just like spelling and punctuation and proper usage, these things need direct instruction and regular practice to become second nature, allowing the student to focus on content when they apply those skills.

 

I believe in integration as much as possible, too, but as far as your question about why these subjects are drilled separately for years, the answer is that regular drill and review is what builds skills and makes them second nature to the student. In all seriousness, do you think you could teach all the content of Rod and Staff grammar through 8th grade just by picking apart sentences as you encounter them in your reading and writing? I mean, if you can then more power to you! There is no way *I* could begin to organize all that information and cover it so systematically and throughly on my own (which is, perhaps, only a commentary on me and my lack of skills! LOL).

 

Another example is vocabulary... do you want to teach them what words mean as they encounter them (teaching them one word at a time), or do you want to teach them with a good roots based vocabulary program the fundamental roots of our language and how to recognize roots within larger words and dissect the prefixes and suffixes to arrive at meaning (a skill they can use to decipher thousands of words)?

 

There are programs out there that teach language arts through literature, but one of the biggest criticisms of them is that they are non-systematic and weak. If you really want your child to go on to study logic and rhetoric, they are going to have to learn all the fundamentals of english and learn them well. Rare will be the child who has done so without consistent hard work, year in and year out, with direction instruction.

 

Just my opinion, of course, but I'm pretty sure I'm right about this :)

Robin

[Geek]

The post Geek made Writing With Ease level 2 workbook -- consistent lit selections? Is what I am talking about when it comes to integrating LA in to all the subjects. Why is it so separated? Why use passages to teach grammar that you are not also reading and studying? Why didn't WWE use selections from WTM and SOTW that lined up with the weeks being taught for that year of history and the literature suggestion? It would make everything relevant.

I don't believe in integrating all LA across the curriculum, forsaking focused skill development. Either option in isolation is weaker than a combination of both methods, perhaps alternating between integrated vs. skills focus.

 

My concern is this: when we are picking a source for copywork, narration and dictation, why can't we stay with it for a while to give the student enough time to interact with the book as a whole?

 

If my son were an avid reader as I was at his age, I would value the ideal of "snippets tempt them to read the whole book". However, he'd much rather play legos, take apart things, and be read to. ;) He's a typical 9yo boy in this regard.

 

Clear as mud?

[Geek]

 

Your child has learned through direct instruction how to spell short words like cat, and so when you do dictation and he misspells cat, you refer him to a spelling rule that he's already learned elsewhere.

Bingo. In an ideal world I'd alternate between seasons of focused skill development, and focused in-context recognition and application of skills. Who knows whether or not this is what I'll actually do. My kids are all young--9, 6, and 4--and the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

[Tabrett]

 

My daughter plays the violin. Every day she has to practice technique, scales, etudes, bowing techniques, etc. Then she gets to play beautiful music. There is a lot going on with the sheet music - musicality (loud here, soft there), difficult rhythyms, notes and chords that are difficult to play. That is not the time to be thinking about how to properly hold the bow, or keep it straight, or how to playing the notes in tune and shift properly. Those are all skills that have to be taught and practiced in isolation in order to master them when she is playing music. And that *is* when she masters them... when she is applying them to real music. But just like spelling and punctuation and proper usage, these things need direct instruction and regular practice to become second nature, allowing the student to focus on content when they apply those skills.

:)

Robin

 

It's kinda funny you used a violin as an example. I majored in violin in college:D. But there are two thought to learning an instrument. The first is traditional where you do all you mentioned, the second is more like the Suzuki method where you focus on playing beautifully then learn the more technical aspects of music like note reading. You learn musicality through imitation then you learn what forte means. Even though both methods will produce a person who can play the violin; I think methods more like Suzuki tend to make players more musical and less dependant on sheet music. It also prevents student from getting bogged down in the technical and quitting before they are able to play. It gives them a bigger picture for what they are trying to achieve. You dc may take Suzuki, I don't know. And I appreciate what you are saying. Thank you. Maybe what I need to focus on is small LA lessons with with a big focus on integration.

[Robin in Tx]

Yes, we take suzuki... and actually the lack of musicality is the most common complaint about the suzuki method. They learn technique and intonation but then for some reason fail to cross over from student to artist. I was just discussing this with another parent this morning. Suzuki really focuses on ear training and a very specific incremental development of technical skills, to the point you don't even realize you're doing so. It's almost like Saxon for violin! LOL

 

Having majored in violin, though, I'm sure you'd agree that etudes and scales were a real pain but a necessary one :). That's the point I was trying to make - you don't ever quit keeping those skills fresh as a young student...

 

I think that there are two schools of thought abuot teaching language use to children, as well, and one of them is the whole language approach that you are discussing, where it is all integrated and you don't really ever have an isolated "grammar" lesson... it's all in context of something else (an excerpt from a novel, etc.)... the main point of WTM, though, is that there is both an art and a skill to using language, and that the skills are best taught incrementally through a well organized, thorough direct program... while the art is part talent, part practice, and part a mastery of the skills. That's why SWB says don't stop grammar, don't stop vocabulary, etc. You will learn about these things in other subjects, yes, but don't quit honing and refreshing the skills in general.

 

Good luck!

[abbeyej]

I guess I don't understand. When I was in high school, it *wasn't* a separate subject. I had English, of course, but we studied literature (read, wrote about)... And I wrote in my other classes as well. Yes, I was in honors classes (AP or IB), but it was assumed that we knew the basics before we got to those classes...

[8filltheheart]

I'm really tired and haven't read the other responses so sorry if this is a repeat.

 

I think that in a homeschool situation is can be both. I teach my kids LA all the way to graduation. In younger yrs we focus on mechanics and basic sentence requirements. By senior yr they are learning how style can ultimately impact their argument. We study those skills specifically.

 

However, their assignments are across curriculum. I can do that b/c I am their primary teacher for every subject. That is not the norm in a school situation. I can alternate b/t lit, science, and history when they are younger. The actual trickier situation for me is to make sure I assign multiple assignments simultaneously in high school b/c they need the discipline. That is college reality.

[Tabrett]

Yes, we take Suzuki... and actually the lack of musicality is the most common complaint about the Suzuki method. They learn technique and intonation but then for some reason fail to cross over from student to artist. I was just discussing this with another parent this morning. Suzuki really focuses on ear training and a very specific incremental development of technical skills, to the point you don't even realize you're doing so. It's almost like Saxon for violin! LOL

 

 

This is funny. I always wished that I had learned by the Suzuki method because of my extreme dependency to sheet music. The ear training in Suzuki and being able to play by ear or improvise is what I see lacking in traditionally trained musicians. I guess both methods have the same problem? Maybe this is where "natural" talent steps in.

 

I really don't consider how I'm pondering teaching LA as "whole Language". In whole language student are required to write before they can barely form letter and use inventive spelling. They are never taught phonics, but rather just guess at words (decoding). I really dislike the "whole language" philosophy.

I don't have FFL or WWE yet. I plan on buying them for next year when my dd enters 1st grade. But from what I've read it, it seem that if I use the teacher book with out the workbook and find my own passages to teach what FFL and WWE want you to teach, then this is what I'm looking for. Like Geek said in her post on WWE 2, I don't like the idea of using snippets of literature that your dc is not studying to teach LA when it could be done with the books you are reading. (Geek, I hope this is what your are trying to say and that I'm not putting word in you mouth. If I am I'm sorry.)

 

I'm afraid that people are thinking that one shouldn't study LA's independent components. I just want to study these "skill sets" using the passages from book we are reading. If this were done, I wouldn't call LA's a "separate" subject.

 

Maybe the reason it is not taught this way is because it would be too hard and time consuming for a regular classroom setting. Maybe the difficulty also cause HS's to choose a pre-made LA text or workbook. I may try to teach this way and realize it takes way too much time and effort.:glare: I just wished there was a curriculum that did this.

[Robin in Tx]

Okay, I gotcha... especially on the whole language thing. Maybe what I'm referring to is more the "natural" approach as opposed to whole language.

 

I think that what you are talking about is very doable in the early years, but not as easy to do when they get older. As a matter of fact, I think that TWTM pretty much lays out this approach for the ealry years but people do want programs for ease of use so one was developed. My daughter is 13, and the idea of covering everything she is learning from R&S Grammar via our literature readings is quite daunting. You know, sometimes you just *need* 10 or so exercises in one sitting to grasp a difficult concept. And then a few more the next day for review, and the day after that. :)

 

Have you looked at Classical Writing? I think it might fit what you describe more closely. Each week you have a writing sample (a fable or short story). You work on words within the sample for spelling, you work on grammar concepts using sentences from the sample for your exercises, etc. You'll still need a grammar handbook, but it does integrate more than any other program I've seen.

 

P.S. We attended a strings camp last week and dd was first violion in a chamber quarter that performed Tchaikovsky's Scherzo. They were handed the music on Monday afternoon and performed it Friday. Monday afternoon she was freaking out because she was having trouble reading the music - I had to get a faculty member to help her. But by Friday the group decided to perform it by memory - no music in front of them. It was wonderful, everyone was impressed, and I was really proud of her... but guess what? She forgot to vibrato. Throughout the whole piece. She said she got nervous and dizzy and just forgot. She looked and sounded like a bit of a robot but boy howdy, she had it memorized! LOL ETA: Lest I give a false impression, it was just the first half of the Scherzo, not the whole thing... they're not *that* good! LOL

[Tabrett]

Have you looked at Classical Writing? I think it might fit what you describe more closely. Each week you have a writing sample (a fable or short story). You work on words within the sample for spelling, you work on grammar concepts using sentences from the sample for your exercises, etc. You'll still need a grammar handbook, but it does integrate more than any other program I've seen. If it is what I'm thinking about, It doesn't start till 3rd grade. I'll probably stick with FFL and WWE teacher books for year 1-4 and find my own example from the books we're are studying until I burn out and just buy the workbooks:lol:. (oh, I'm looking for next year when my dd is in 1st grade)

 

P.S. We attended a strings camp last week and dd was first violin in a chamber quarter that performed Tchaikovsky's Scherzo. They were handed the music on Monday afternoon and performed it Friday. Monday afternoon she was freaking out because she was having trouble reading the music - I had to get a faculty member to help her. But by Friday the group decided to perform it by memory - no music in front of them. It was wonderful, everyone was impressed, and I was really proud of her... but guess what? She forgot to vibrato. Throughout the whole piece. She said she got nervous and dizzy and just forgot. She looked and sounded like a bit of a robot but boy howdy, she had it memorized! LOL ETA: Lest I give a false impression, it was just the first half of the Scherzo, not the whole thing... they're not *that* good! LOL

That is FANTASTIC!!!!!!:thumbup: I could never memorize a piece of music that fast. I struggled with memorizing period. I think the Suzuki method is awesome! Most 13yrs old would never be able to do something like that with out the ear training Suzuki provides. This is why I think Suzuki produces more musical students. If the music is memorized she can now work on expression and not have to have her music as a crutch. My music was always my crutch; it never be came "part of me" because I couldn't take my eyes off the paper in front of me!:nopity:

Something funny-When I was you dd's age my friends and I would practice vibrato on our pencils (holding your pencil in you hand like the neck of a violin) all the time in school. We were so use to using vibrato when playing music that when we played the piano we would "wiggle" our finger subconsciously on the piano keys. Then we would realize what were were doing and just laugh and laugh.:biggrinjester: