Literature programs effecting love of reading

[TheApprentice]

I must say, I'm a bit sad. My 9th grade son is doing Excellence in Literature this year and he is currently reading "Ivanhoe" for assignment. So, after he'd read and taken notes for the upcoming essay, I asked how was it going, how was the book. He said he would enjoy it more if he didn't have to take notes and pay so close attention to be able to answer the essay question. I think the essay is something like "what is the role of disguise and its significance in the story". This is the second time he's stated he would have enjoyed a book more if it wasn't assigned.

 

So yesterday he told me that reading for assignments has sucked the joy out of reading for him. :crying: This is my child who would read an entire book in a day.

 

I think I've sacrificed the forest for the trees. :crying:

 

This is what I'm thinking for the fall. He is already registered for AP English and Language. I've already purchased EIL American Literature, but instead of doing the papers, just have him read the context material and the books listed.

 

I don't know. :confused1: Any suggestions.

[flyingiguana]

If I have my kids do an essay, we don't even start to think about the topic until after they've read the book and discussed it. At that point, it's usually something they've said about it that sparks an essay idea.

 

But even then they have difficulty writing an essay on great literature because there are so many essays on these books already, and they're all on the web. It's hard to come up with anything new, and they wonder what the point is of re-writing something that's already been written.

 

I've had better luck having them critique books that aren't at all famous. This gets them to write something that hasn't already been said a zillion times. Then we just read the "great" literature and discuss it.

 

If I had to take notes while reading a book, it would pretty much kill it for me too.

[regentrude]

I can sympathize. Nothing kills the fun like having to analyze the book you love. Or taking notes on it, shudder.

I specifically recall SWB recommending that the child be NOT asked to write about his favorite book.

 

I am the heretic here, but I'll say it anyway: for us, the key has to been to do away with "literature programs" all together. My DD reads, we may talk about the books or not, she thinks, occasionally writes an essay. She has read through Essential Literary terms and is familiar with them, but did not do any of the exercises. She participates in the Great Books Club of the university which consists almost entirely of English professors, and they keep telling me that she participates in the discussion with very articulate, thoughtful, substantial contributions. So I think formal "programs" are highly overrated. Less is more.

 

running and ducking... will this get me banned from this classical education board?

[Candid]

Don't jump to any conclusions from teenage rhetoric. I would think that it is possible that he didn't enjoy Ivanhoe as much because he had to work at, but the jump to it's made all reading joyless is too big a one. Watch him this summer to see if he reads as usual.

 

If he is normal over the summer, then continue; into every life must come some work. I dislike having to work on poetry in particular, but now as an adult it is that poetry that still stays with me almost 30 years later because I got more meaning out of it in the end.

[PeterPan]

You know a really simple solution would be to assign him to simply read the book for pleasure the first week, while he's doing the context study, then have him read the book AGAIN over the course of the remaining 3 weeks while he's doing the tasks.

[Rebel Yell]

:grouphug:

 

IEW KILLED the love of writing in my oldest, and 'analyze it to death and write essays on it" killed the love of reading.

 

She got it back, but with vastly different programs.

 

Also, for my VeRY detail-oriented voracious reader- reading a 'kiddie' version, graphic novel, or seeing the movie version of long books actually helped her. She was so wrapped up in the details that she missed the overall theme.

[Alte Veste Academy]

My kids are young, but I got a lot out of a talk someone linked recently.

 

Teaching Literature Without Killing the Book or Student http://www.societyforclassicallearning.org/index.php/resources/media/20-2012-conference-recordings

[AMJ]

If I have my kids do an essay, we don't even start to think about the topic until after they've read the book and discussed it. At that point, it's usually something they've said about it that sparks an essay idea.

 

But even then they have difficulty writing an essay on great literature because there are so many essays on these books already, and they're all on the web. It's hard to come up with anything new, and they wonder what the point is of re-writing something that's already been written.

 

I've had better luck having them critique books that aren't at all famous. This gets them to write something that hasn't already been said a zillion times. Then we just read the "great" literature and discuss it.

 

If I had to take notes while reading a book, it would pretty much kill it for me too.

 

 

That actually sounds like a useful approach for me to try. I've been wondering how to balance just reading with reading for a purpose when we start homeschooling in June. The girls have purposeful reading for class assignments at school, and we've been reading certain books at bedtime for a group story time. They will end up reading even more once we switch to homeschooling, and I was still puzzled over how to handle it. I'd like them to get to just absorb new books without having to worry about answering questions, but I need them to learn how to learn from books and teach themselves before they go on to college and the workplace.

 

I like your idea. What are some of the less famous books your kids have critiqued?

[Brenda in MA]

I must say, I'm a bit sad. My 9th grade son is doing Excellence in Literature this year and he is currently reading "Ivanhoe" for assignment. So, after he'd read and taken notes for the upcoming essay, I asked how was it going, how was the book. He said he would enjoy it more if he didn't have to take notes and pay so close attention to be able to answer the essay question. I think the essay is something like "what is the role of disguise and its significance in the story". This is the second time he's stated he would have enjoyed a book more if it wasn't assigned.

 

So yesterday he told me that reading for assignments has sucked the joy out of reading for him. :crying: This is my child who would read an entire book in a day.

 

I think I've sacrificed the forest for the trees. :crying:

 

This is what I'm thinking for the fall. He is already registered for AP English and Language. I've already purchased EIL American Literature, but instead of doing the papers, just have him read the context material and the books listed.

 

I don't know. :confused1: Any suggestions.

 

I know exactly how your son feels. That was me in high school. I am more of a math/science type anyway, and analyzing every literature book & taking tests on plot details made me hate literature, but now that I've read more true literature as an adult with my kids, I really enjoy it. Who knew that literature could be so interesting?

 

Anyway, I am one that likes to spread writing assignments over the disciplines. If you are self-designing both history & lit, you could have your child only write papers on every 3rd English book, say, and then have him/her write some papers on history topics so he/she is practicing/developing writing skills.

 

When my oldest did high school lit with me, we'd read and discuss the books, and I usually took the writing assignments from on-line suggestions for essay topics from spark notes, etc. We also used Lightning Lit one year, and they give the student multiple suggestions for topics. At least that way, the student can pick something that appeals to him/her.

 

I am not familiar with the AP English & Lang syllabus, but it looks from the course description that it will include literature and writing, so I wouldn't assign anything else for English next year. If you really think he needs to read more, maybe look for historical fiction that goes with whatever history he will do, or if he's a reader on his own, then just let him read whatever he likes.

 

I think that one problem we eclectic homeschools encounter sometimes is that when you use individual subjects/course from different sources, you can end up with too much work for the student. What I mean is that if you were to use all courses form one provider -- they may have the workload divided up so that their history course is writing-heavy and their english course is grammar-heavy but writing-light. If the student uses both of these, he'll have a balanced program, but if you were to pick provider A's history & provider B's lit (which happens to be writing-heavy), then you'll end up with too much work for the student. Then, you have to have the confidence to tweak one or both programs so they work for your student in your homeschool.

 

HTH,

Brenda

[regentrude]

I've been wondering how to balance just reading with reading for a purpose when we start homeschooling in June. The girls have purposeful reading for class assignments at school, and we've been reading certain books at bedtime for a group story time. They will end up reading even more once we switch to homeschooling, and I was still puzzled over how to handle it. I'd like them to get to just absorb new books without having to worry about answering questions, but I need them to learn how to learn from books and teach themselves before they go on to college and the workplace.

 

That's where I use non-fiction books and textbooks for content subjects like history and science. There, they are required to take notes on their reading and to answer specific questions, or work on research projects, prepare reports or presentations.

But literature? I find that reading a lot and talking about literature helps students understand literature, relate the reading to their life experiences, be stimulated to think about deeper aspects in books. But none of this can be pressed into a formula and "learning from books" - the lessons you learn from Dickens or Dante have less to do with college and workplace and more with your general humanity.

[AMJ]

 

That's where I use non-fiction books and textbooks for content subjects like history and science. There, they are required to take notes on their reading and to answer specific questions, or work on research projects, prepare reports or presentations.

But literature? I find that reading a lot and talking about literature helps students understand literature, relate the reading to their life experiences, be stimulated to think about deeper aspects in books. But none of this can be pressed into a formula and "learning from books" - the lessons you learn from Dickens or Dante have less to do with college and workplace and more with your general humanity.

 

Thanks. Well-thought and helpful.

[Lori D.]

I can sympathize. Nothing kills the fun like having to analyze the book you love. Or taking notes on it, shudder.

I specifically recall SWB recommending that the child be NOT asked to write about his favorite book.

 

I am the heretic here, but I'll say it anyway: for us, the key has to been to do away with "literature programs" all together. My DD reads, we may talk about the books or not, she thinks, occasionally writes an essay. She has read through Essential Literary terms and is familiar with them, but did not do any of the exercises. She participates in the Great Books Club of the university which consists almost entirely of English professors, and they keep telling me that she participates in the discussion with very articulate, thoughtful, substantial contributions. So I think formal "programs" are highly overrated. Less is more.

 

running and ducking... will this get me banned from this classical education board?

 

 

 

Guess I'll be banned with you, Regentrude! ;) Similar to Regentrude, we went with a more informal approach -- read the Literature aloud together / discuss in the moment together. I did not always have DSs write about every work, and when they did, it was often a short (1-3 paragraph) reader response, or in answer to specific question. We used a lot of lit. guides -- but just bits and pieces that helped us with background info on the author/times, questions that sparked discussion, or were interesting writing assignment ideas. The only time we did annotation was when we went through Windows to the World. And even then it was only having you annotate 6 short stories and we spread the program out over 2 years.

 

If reading the work aloud together doesn't work for you and DS, then try keeping up with him separately and have a once a week hour with cocoa and cookies to discuss the work. Use Sparknotes summaries to help you remember what happened in each chapter and to springboard discussion. Compare the work with movies, real life, other books.

 

Honestly, I think you can stick with the EIL -- just adapt it:

- Drop the annotation; now that DS sees how annotation works, he can just jot the occasional word in the margin or underline or star a sentence or paragraph that really stuck out to him -- but I wouldn't require it now.

- Be very selective about how much of the support materials you have DS read.

- Select only one writing assignment per work; sometimes skip the writing entirely and focus on oral discussion.

- What writing you do select, keep most of it shorter and only assign a few (2-3?) longer assignments.

- Allow time for bunny trails to explore short stories or other writing by an author of high interest.

- Allow substitutions of the occasional work that is sucking joy out of reading -- there are SO many classics you will not have time to get to all of them, so drop the rare one that your student is absolutely hating.

 

 

I know it's tough for students to switch from "just reading for fun" because they enjoy reading, to learning how to read with an eye out for deeper meaning, but it can be done. I think that the intention of programs like EIL is to be a very structured guide into how to do this process, but not everyone thrives with such a formal "workbook" like approach into thinking about / discussing literature. Perhaps you can do much more informal discussion? Maybe do a little BRIEF background reading on the author/times aloud together to help give you both some context of what ideas were important or of interest to the author, so you have an idea of what you're looking for as you read, and then for discussion?

 

And BEST of luck in deciding how to accomplish your English credit and restoring a love of reading! Warmest regards, Lori D.

[Alira]

We're also not using a literature program for high school. Ds used Windows to the World last year, and EIL was my back-up plan for this year. Instead, Ds has a reading list for the year, and we discuss most of them as he finishes. Sometimes, essay topics have come out of our discussions. Otherwise, I'll have him pick one of the books he's read recently (or two that he wants to compare), and I come up with a few options for him to choose from. He's always free to pick his own topic, but he likes me to narrow it down for him.

 

If you want to stick with EIL, I would have him read the book, without reading the assignment first. Then, let him decide whether he wants to complete the assignment as written, or substitute a different topic. If he doesn't want to write about that book at all, let him write about the honours book instead.

[FaithManor]

I can sympathize. Nothing kills the fun like having to analyze the book you love. Or taking notes on it, shudder.

I specifically recall SWB recommending that the child be NOT asked to write about his favorite book.

 

I am the heretic here, but I'll say it anyway: for us, the key has to been to do away with "literature programs" all together. My DD reads, we may talk about the books or not, she thinks, occasionally writes an essay. She has read through Essential Literary terms and is familiar with them, but did not do any of the exercises. She participates in the Great Books Club of the university which consists almost entirely of English professors, and they keep telling me that she participates in the discussion with very articulate, thoughtful, substantial contributions. So I think formal "programs" are highly overrated. Less is more.

 

running and ducking... will this get me banned from this classical education board?

 

 

Don't duck Regentrude, the egg might hit me since I'm standing behind you!

 

I dumped formal literature programs for the same reason. Now, I do have the kids listen to Vandiver and take notes on books that are in our reading list for which we have matching lectures - we do the lectures after they've read the entire book. We also discuss books all.the.time. But, I found that if I assigned too much formality/book work, it actually detracted from their observations about the literature. They were much more animated in discussions when they could read it just purely to absorb it, then when they began focusing on specific elements in order to write about them later.

 

I use history, art history, music history, whatever for essay writing. Since they are studying for the AP World History exam, we do a lot of essay prep based on previous writing prompts. I also use the "Elegant Essay" as a jumping off place for high school essay writing. This way, they are developing those skills, but I'm not messing with their love of reading. I do think there is a certain frontal lobe maturity that is required to write adequately about literature anyway and many kids aren't going to have that before say age 16 anyway which makes the job tougher. Then there is personal preference. I'd rather have a rousing discussion about a book than another essay from a prompt.

 

I know that papers were assigned in college lit classes, I just don't remember it being that difficult at 18 or 19 to write those papers despite the fact that my high school was negligent in teaching literature through writing so my guess is it won't hurt too much. Writing skills are writing skills and as long as adequate ones are developed through whatever process works for the student, my opinion is that it probably doesn't matter.

 

SWB is probably going to revoke my membership from the hive now! (I'm begging....please SWB, please let me stay!!!!

 

Faith

[regentrude]

I know that papers were assigned in college lit classes, I just don't remember it being that difficult at 18 or 19 to write those papers despite the fact that my high school was negligent in teaching literature through writing so my guess is it won't hurt too much. Writing skills are writing skills and as long as adequate ones are developed through whatever process works for the student, my opinion is that it probably doesn't matter.

 

 

Yes, skill transfer is definitely there.

 

My DD never had studied any formal "literature analysis", but this semester, she is taking a French Literature class (in French) where she has to write lit analysis papers (in French). Never once has the lack of analysis background been a problem, she can come up with so many observations, interpretations, style analyses. The only issue is expressing herself as eloquently in French as she would in English; she bemoans the fact that she does not have the mastery to find adequate French phrases for "harkens back", LOL.

[HS Mom in NC]

I haven't had that experience here. We're a family of voracious readers who like high quality literature. My kids sometimes enjoy their assigned reading and other times they don't. My oldest did two versions of Antigone and had to compare them using her Greenleaf Guide to Ancient Literature recently. She loved one and hated the other. It hasn't affected their voracious reading appetites as they routinely read at least a couple of hours a day for pleasure-everything from Shakespeare to Austen to Hale and Card. No twaddle, no trash, just great writing from all eras and genres.

 

It depends on the book and the kid. I loved literature in general and I still read voraciously. Some of the books I analyzed in high school I hated and some I really liked so much I went on to read other unassigned books by the same author. Sometimes it pays to read a synopsis of several books for assigned essays and let the kid choose from a list of very different books.

[Nan in Mass]

OP - We read the book first, making general notes (if I required it, which I didn't always) saying things like Wow! in the margins, possibly keeping a character list and summarizing the chapters (a few sentences, no more). They keep half an eye out for paper (or project) ideas as they read but they know that if they have no ideas, by the time they've been through TWEM questions for the book, which we do orally AFTERWARDS, if they didn't have any ideas they will probably think of something. Reading the question first is a great strategy for timed test taking, but I think it would have been a book killer if we'd done it for class.

 

Yes, skill transfer is definitely there.

 

My DD never had studied any formal "literature analysis", but this semester, she is taking a French Literature class (in French) where she has to write lit analysis papers (in French). Never once has the lack of analysis background been a problem, she can come up with so many observations, interpretations, style analyses. The only issue is expressing herself as eloquently in French as she would in English; she bemoans the fact that she does not have the mastery to find adequate French phrases for "harkens back", LOL.

 

LOL - I did that when I was in college. We were given a choice - write the essays in English and have them absolutely perfect, or write them in French and have them corrected much more forgivingly. French was definately the better option. It was almost my only college English class.

 

Could you find your daughter some examples of French literary papers to read? She could pick up useful phrases that way.

 

If you can't find any compositions, then perhaps you could use wikipaedia? Here is the page for The Three Musketeers (sp?): http://fr.wikipedia....s_Mousquetaires She would probably want to avoid reading any entries for the books she is currently reading because reading wiki first can sometimes make it hard to write one's own essay, but there are plenty of other books to read about lol. Here is the general literary analysis entry: http://fr.wikipedia....lyse_littéraire That entry references a site about Jules Verne: http://jules-verne.p...erso-orange.fr/ If you go here: http://jules-verne.p...nge.fr/plan.htm and scroll down a bit, it has pdf's of papers on the novels of Jules Verne.

 

Nan

[Susan of Croton]

Reading works twice and then discussing them is the technique used by author Marguerite Yourcenar, who was educated at home and discussed literature with her father in a one-on-one tutorial. I doubt that papers were written. I think that literary criticism is a learned skill set like so many higher subjects, and that to some extent experience in reading it and in reading lots of works is most important -- definitely more important than writing the 5,000,000th paper addressing the ghost's meaning in Hamlet . I like Regentrude's approach of having her student attend literary discussions with pros. She learns to be articulate and how to "talk shop" in this specialized endeavor. Yourcenar's approach of reading a work twice washes the skeleton of plot away and lets the deeper meanings and the writing style itself emerge. This takes time, but might be useful approach with some students for some works of literature. I think this approach would be esp. appropriate with "astringent", meaning-packed works such as a Shakespeare play, Greek dramas, portions of Homer, and modern short stories. 2X reading would also allow a hyper-focus on style or form, esp. if the student is seeking to emulate another author.

[regentrude]

Reading works twice and then discussing them is the technique used by author Marguerite Yourcenar, who was educated at home and discussed literature with her father in a one-on-one tutorial....

Yourcenar's approach of reading a work twice washes the skeleton of plot away and lets the deeper meanings and the writing style itself emerge. This takes time, but might be useful approach with some students for some works of literature. I think this approach would be esp. appropriate with "astringent", meaning-packed works such as a Shakespeare play, Greek dramas, portions of Homer, and modern short stories. 2X reading would also allow a hyper-focus on style or form, esp. if the student is seeking to emulate another author.

 

Excellent advice.

DD has read Hamlet seven times now and discovers new aspects, thoughts and motifs every single time.

[TheApprentice]

Lots to consider. Thanks. I appreciate the ideas.

[Orthodox6]

Your thoughts on this idea? . . .

 

I just heard about EIL for the first time today when the "Cathy Duffy Reviews" e-mail focused on it. I read this thread just now, nodding my head as I read along. All that was posted about "drill and kill" is true, though, and renders me wary of trying this program -- even though DD (who enters the ninth grade this fall) needs to make that jump from pleasure reading to reflective reading.

 

Do you all think that using the first book of the EIL series (even though intended for the eighth grade) would suffice to teach the principles of reflective/analytical reading. We then shift to something else for the remainder of high school?

 

Thank you very much!

[Lori D.]

Your thoughts on this idea? . . . Do you all think that using the first book of the EIL series (even though intended for the eighth grade) would suffice to teach the principles of reflective/analytical reading. We then shift to something else for the remainder of high school?

 

 

JMO: Yes. (sample of EIL: Intro to Literature)

 

Or... another option:

 

For a less "drill and kill" program that would also teach the principles and be a gentle move into applying them is Windows to the World (Wttw) . It is a full year program for 8th graders, or a one semester program for high school students; if you spread it out over one whole year in high school, that would also enable you to do other literature, and slowly be putting into practice the topics covered in WttW.

 

Links to sample pages embedded above, so you can compare. Just a thought! Warmest regards, Lori D.

[Orthodox6]

JMO: Yes. (sample of EIL: Intro to Literature)

 

Or... another option:

 

For a less "drill and kill" program that would also teach the principles and be a gentle move into applying them is Windows to the World(Wttw) . It is a full year program for 8th graders, or a one semester program for high school students; if you spread it out over one whole year in high school, that would also enable you to do other literature, and slowly be putting into practice the topics covered in WttW.

 

Links to sample pages embedded above, so you can compare. Just a thought! Warmest regards, Lori D.

 

 

Thank you, LoriD ! You always have been a exceptionally wise, gracious, helpful respondent to people here who ask questions.

 

I was in the midst of searching online for reviews/samples/information when I posted here, to augment what I would learn here from those with first-hand knowledge.

 

One thing that had thrown me off-base in earlier browsing of the boards -- (I don't remember how long ago.) -- was the title "Windows to the World." I never could fathom why people would be recommending the proselytizing book from Sonlight that I had thrown away years ago, when it came with a Core program. The title of that book is close enough to have confused me.

 

Again, many thanks to you, and to all the other posters!

[Tina]

How does Stoubaugh compare, other than coming from a christian viewpoint? I'm trying to decide what to use in the future, too. thanks!

[CyndiLJ]

I already lost my son's love of reading by the time we pulled him from public school in 5th grade, I will NOT risk that happening again! He has gained far too much from the wide variety and freedom allowed him now to read, and information spews from him constantly. It took me 6 months to get him feeling comfortable with reading again, as he had it beat out of him in PS.

 

We do a semi-formal curriculum, and have used Mosdos Press for the past 3 years, which has done an impressive job. However, we have not done the essays other than once in awhile, we have discussed and discussed and discussed it, and he knows literary terms quite well now and uses them when we talk about what he has read.

 

For high school, we will be using Textword Press's Implications of Literature, and though he is entering 9th grade we are using the 11th grade American Lit book to go with our history studies. I also picked up a Norton's Anthology to use as wel, and will stretch that out over a couple of years. We will cherry pick the written work, doing what makes sense and leaving the rest behind.

 

Truth be told...Go Ahead and Load Up the Eggs...I find all this focus on intense literary analysis in high school to be a bit overdone. Yes, for some university's I know it is probably great prep. But I'd much rather have my kids read like fiends for lifelong learning than to have them burned out and turned off totally to great literature because I forced them to do something with it that they will NEVER EVER EVER do once they are out of school. They NEED to be avid readers over the course of their lifetimes to be self-educators, they don't NEED to be able to tear apart and analyze every nuance, label it, classify it, and debate it. To have a solid understanding of literary analysis is helpful, sure, but to beat a dead horse all the way through high school with essay after essay seems to me, at times, to be an advanced form of "busy work" in the form of essays rather than worksheets.

 

Sometimes, I think we have made high school the new college, and that is a bit sad to me. And yea, I know, that comment alone means many will accuse me of dumbing things down, of having no clue what is expected of college students, etc. But I continue to read more and more in our media of dual enrollment, AP pressures, etc. and it makes me wonder where we got so off track that we had to take four years of high school and make them four years of college, which means foundational education is being bypassed for upper level material...sort of like walking before learning how to crawl. As I read where colleges like Brown and Dartmouth are now declining to give credit for AP courses because the level of true college level knowledge of AP students is nowhere near what they expect to see, it begs the question...are we doing a disservice to our kids to press them for ever higher levels of academic "achievement" and critical thinking skills before they have had a chance to fully develop? Sure, I am fully aware that some kids are capable of that level of work at younger ages. But I think we need to start listening a little more closely to our Universities, who are trying to tell us something that we might not be paying close enough attention to.

 

::::Got my jacket over my head to keep yolk out of my hair::::

[Orthodox6]

Cyndi, if I toss an egg, it would be hard boiled, and all you need do is catch it! :001_smile:

 

You make some very good points, imo. Like a good Greek, though, I believe there is a "golden mean" somewhere. The education at many colleges has, itself, been dumbed down. The education at many outside schools (at some homeschools, too) has been inflated in label, but not in content. It really is hard for a homeschooling parent to know how to craft a best-quality K-12 education, other than to remember that students, in general, will benefit most from choices matched to the individual person.

 

Why push so hard on high schoolers? I might posit that this is continuing offshoot from the academic focus rooted in the Cold War years. Mine is the generation that was pushed to take science and math seriously. Educators started realizing that students in some other countries learned and performed at higher and deeper levels than did U.S. students. Currently, the U.S. "pendulum" swings toward the "harder means better" end. At the distant edge, swing the appalling "Tiger Mom" parents.

 

Jaundiced by now, I don't think the universities are trying to tell us anything other than "send more money."

 

Returning to the topic of literary analysis, already posters to this thread have suggested some alternatives to overdoing a good thing. Reread their thoughts. These women won't be hurling the raw eggs at you.

 

I, personally, would like for my last-remaining homeschooler to learn the essentials of literary analysis, as well as the essentials of tackling non-fiction general writing, and non-fiction academic writing. The latter two, I learned on-the-fly at university. The first, I never had in high school, AND never had as an undergraduate. What? Not in college? . . . No. I placed out of all the required English courses, and never took any literature at all until I was a graduate student in Russian, and such knowledge base was presupposed. I would like for my daughter to have an exposure to something that, otherwise, she may or may not ever receive. How much exposure? whatever "fits" her interests/needs as her high school years pass.

 

Cyndi, I don't agree with every thought you have shared, but I am very glad that you wrote your post!

[regentrude]

Sometimes, I think we have made high school the new college, and that is a bit sad to me. And yea, I know, that comment alone means many will accuse me of dumbing things down, of having no clue what is expected of college students, etc. But I continue to read more and more in our media of dual enrollment, AP pressures, etc. and it makes me wonder where we got so off track that we had to take four years of high school and make them four years of college, which means foundational education is being bypassed for upper level material...sort of like walking before learning how to crawl. As I read where colleges like Brown and Dartmouth are now declining to give credit for AP courses because the level of true college level knowledge of AP students is nowhere near what they expect to see, it begs the question...are we doing a disservice to our kids to press them for ever higher levels of academic "achievement" and critical thinking skills before they have had a chance to fully develop? Sure, I am fully aware that some kids are capable of that level of work at younger ages. But I think we need to start listening a little more closely to our Universities, who are trying to tell us something that we might not be paying close enough attention to.

 

No eggs, but I disagree; I see it exactly the other way around.

College is dumbed down because students leave high school with a mediocre education. Many college courses could easily be taken by high school students, but the material gets pushed into college because they have not learned it in high school.

I teach an algebra/trig based College Physics class; the level is far below what is a mandatory high school physics course for every college bound student in my home country. There, everybody who wants to go to university has to take calculus and study two foreign languages for 7 and 10 years, respectively. Or look at the level of math or science instruction in Russian schools.

 

I refuse to believe that American students are less intelligent or less capable than students in other countries. So clearly, it has to have something with the school system. A school system that does not allow for differentiation, that has every student march to the beat of the slowest drummer, that insists of keeping all students, irrespective of aptitude, in classrooms for 12 years, that has low expectations for the first nine years. The instructional level is too low, and there is too much time wasted in the middle grades.

 

For a strong student, the average high school courses are not challenging enough, boring, unbearable. For these students, AP and dual enrollment offer the only chance to receive an education that is an appropriate level for them. The sad thing is that instead of this being labeled a rigorous college preparatory high school level, it is called "college".

[Orthodox6]

Regentrude, another excellent post.

 

Although this may sound like changing the topic, I don't believe that it is irrelevant to speak of the unresolvable tension between states' rights and a federal system. This is both a strength and a weakness for the United States, and is an enormous, contentious topic. Whenever the U.S. government works toward a national curriculum, whenever the NEA struggles to grind up us homeschoolers and spit us out into the garbage can because we "lack credentials", both the champions of states' rights and of family rights (family rights to educate ones own children as one deems appropriate), fight back. Whenever someone suggests a dual-track education (college-bound versus direct-to-work), an average American is going to howl against elitism. In this country, the majority (I suspect, but possess no data) of citizens believe that higher education is some kind of "a right". Public education, then, by necessity sinks to the lowest common denominator. I appreciate that I was graduated from a large, urban high school, offering many subject choices, with a triple-track (for some subjects) of difficulty, forty years ago.

[PeterPan]

No eggs, but I disagree; I see it exactly the other way around.

College is dumbed down because students leave high school with a mediocre education. Many college courses could easily be taken by high school students, but the material gets pushed into college because they have not learned it in high school.

I teach an algebra/trig based College Physics class; the level is far below what is a mandatory high school physics course for every college bound student in my home country. ... Or look at the level of math or science instruction in Russian schools.

...

For a strong student, the average high school courses are not challenging enough, boring, unbearable. For these students, AP and dual enrollment offer the only chance to receive an education that is an appropriate level for them. The sad thing is that instead of this being labeled a rigorous college preparatory high school level, it is called "college".

 

Where I was in russia, kids didn't even have textbooks. There was a pile and they could use them when they were at school.

 

I'm not sure AP and DE is a substitute for good high school education. The things I see us doing as DE will be inferior to what I'd *like* to accomplish with her and what an excellent high school teacher *would* accomplish. (humanities classes) There's no time for creativity or exploration or soul-searching within an AP or DE class. I regret that our studies may get rushed into that format at some point. Yes you can go AP/DE and get content, but I have my finger on something *more* that doesn't get done that way. When I was in high school we spent weeks wearing the same clothes and pondering Transcendentalism. You don't get that in a rush to head through a syllabus. No creative projects or application, just rush rush.

 

And you know the trouble is, there's a sense in which college doesn't interest my girl. When she interviewed a history professor for her project recently, she realized her questions were what he lectures on in his 400 level history classes. So DE will let her tick through the boxes and get there faster, but it still won't answer her QUESTIONS.

 

And for me it was the same thing, with grad school and the 400-level and up classes being much more interesting than the lower ones. It's just tick, ticking your way through a system. Then when you get there you realize it was all about being a LEARNER anyway, not about having someone teach you. So I've given up on hoping someone else will solve her intellectual dilemma. For us AP isn't an answer. I'm looking for some more creative, more thoughtful, more holistic, with more connections.

 

And what did that have to do with the op's point? Absolutely nothing, lol. I just wanted to talk about it cuz Regentrude was talking about it. It's something I'm thinking about, trying to sort out our plans (or lack of plans?) for next year. I got some TLP guides, and they keep you busy without really scratching the itch. There are a few good things, but as a whole it's still too simplistic. But going up to AP/DE wouldn't solve that either. And maybe that's the issue with EIL (which I bought a book of for similar reasons btw, trying to find ideas for new ways to approach things), because it's trying to take what needs to be a connected experience for some kids and shoving it back into the linear/cram mold. It's SO close, but it's still all disconnected stuff. Even with the context study, some kids still need to go deeper. Like they need to read ALL of Jane Austen's stuff, not just one. They need to read ALL of the Bronte stuff (within reason), not just Jane Eyre. How else are they supposed to see connections and patterns? And what's WITH these guides that think that vocab study is a substitute for actually talking about anything of SUBSTANCE from the books?!?!

 

But whatever, lol. Haven't figured it out myself. I just keep thinking. But you know, and this is a total aside, I think it might actually be ok to sit through a survey class (which is all those 100 and 200 level classes are) if you have this whole body of experiences and are ready to make connections. But to pull one piece out and say you understand Bronte or Austen, how dissatisfying! I have a super-speed reader friend (like in grad school she read a book a night after finishing her MA in English reading for the day) who did that. Her mom just let her read ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING all through high school. They'd read and talk. Then in college she went back and started making those connections and formalizing everything. How much better to imbibe and enjoy than to recreate pseudo college in high school and come out HATING. And the chick could write just fine when she got to college. All they did was read and talk lit, read and talk.

[ktgrok]

I want to give you a standing ovation. I totally agree. About all of it.

 

Wish we could get our kids together and have our own "school". Alas..mine is heading to public school in the next year or two and it is killing me. My last ditch effort is to have him read Teenage Liberation Handbook and see how that fits him. Or maybe he will try it and beg to come home, a mom can dream. Cause I'd love to just shove books in our heads til the cows come home, then stay up late with coffee discussing them.

 

Where I was in russia, kids didn't even have textbooks. There was a pile and they could use them when they were at school.

 

I'm not sure AP and DE is a substitute for good high school education. The things I see us doing as DE will be inferior to what I'd *like* to accomplish with her and what an excellent high school teacher *would* accomplish. (humanities classes) There's no time for creativity or exploration or soul-searching within an AP or DE class. I regret that our studies may get rushed into that format at some point. Yes you can go AP/DE and get content, but I have my finger on something *more* that doesn't get done that way. When I was in high school we spent weeks wearing the same clothes and pondering Transcendentalism. You don't get that in a rush to head through a syllabus. No creative projects or application, just rush rush.

 

And you know the trouble is, there's a sense in which college doesn't interest my girl. When she interviewed a history professor for her project recently, she realized her questions were what he lectures on in his 400 level history classes. So DE will let her tick through the boxes and get there faster, but it still won't answer her QUESTIONS.

 

And for me it was the same thing, with grad school and the 400-level and up classes being much more interesting than the lower ones. It's just tick, ticking your way through a system. Then when you get there you realize it was all about being a LEARNER anyway, not about having someone teach you. So I've given up on hoping someone else will solve her intellectual dilemma. For us AP isn't an answer. I'm looking for some more creative, more thoughtful, more holistic, with more connections.

 

And what did that have to do with the op's point? Absolutely nothing, lol. I just wanted to talk about it cuz Regentrude was talking about it. It's something I'm thinking about, trying to sort out our plans (or lack of plans?) for next year. I got some TLP guides, and they keep you busy without really scratching the itch. There are a few good things, but as a whole it's still too simplistic. But going up to AP/DE wouldn't solve that either. And maybe that's the issue with EIL (which I bought a book of for similar reasons btw, trying to find ideas for new ways to approach things), because it's trying to take what needs to be a connected experience for some kids and shoving it back into the linear/cram mold. It's SO close, but it's still all disconnected stuff. Even with the context study, some kids still need to go deeper. Like they need to read ALL of Jane Austen's stuff, not just one. They need to read ALL of the Bronte stuff (within reason), not just Jane Eyre. How else are they supposed to see connections and patterns? And what's WITH these guides that think that vocab study is a substitute for actually talking about anything of SUBSTANCE from the books?!?!

 

But whatever, lol. Haven't figured it out myself. I just keep thinking. But you know, and this is a total aside, I think it might actually be ok to sit through a survey class (which is all those 100 and 200 level classes are) if you have this whole body of experiences and are ready to make connections. But to pull one piece out and say you understand Bronte or Austen, how dissatisfying! I have a super-speed reader friend (like in grad school she read a book a night after finishing her MA in English reading for the day) who did that. Her mom just let her read ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING all through high school. They'd read and talk. Then in college she went back and started making those connections and formalizing everything. How much better to imbibe and enjoy than to recreate pseudo college in high school and come out HATING. And the chick could write just fine when she got to college. All they did was read and talk lit, read and talk.

 

[regentrude]

I'm not sure AP and DE is a substitute for good high school education. The things I see us doing as DE will be inferior to what I'd *like* to accomplish with her and what an excellent high school teacher *would* accomplish. (humanities classes) There's no time for creativity or exploration or soul-searching within an AP or DE class.

 

 

And for me it was the same thing, with grad school and the 400-level and up classes being much more interesting than the lower ones. It's just tick, ticking your way through a system. Then when you get there you realize it was all about being a LEARNER anyway, not about having someone teach you. So I've given up on hoping someone else will solve her intellectual dilemma. For us AP isn't an answer. I'm looking for some more creative, more thoughtful, more holistic, with more connections.

 

OhElizabeth, I completely agree. I am not a fan of AP because it is too formulaic, but if the alternative is a mediocre English class where they only read a single book all year and the majority of students is not interested, it is better for the interested and motivated student.

The formulaic nature is exactly the reason we are NOT going the AP route, because in our homeschool we can have a great humanities education without jumping through these narrow hoops! But that is a luxury public school students do not have, and even the excellent high school teacher will still be hampered by having to teach ot the lowest common denominator, sigh.

 

I got some TLP guides, and they keep you busy without really scratching the itch. There are a few good things, but as a whole it's still too simplistic. But going up to AP/DE wouldn't solve that either. And maybe that's the issue with EIL (which I bought a book of for similar reasons btw, trying to find ideas for new ways to approach things), because it's trying to take what needs to be a connected experience for some kids and shoving it back into the linear/cram mold. It's SO close, but it's still all disconnected stuff. Even with the context study, some kids still need to go deeper. Like they need to read ALL of Jane Austen's stuff, not just one. They need to read ALL of the Bronte stuff (within reason), not just Jane Eyre. How else are they supposed to see connections and patterns? And what's WITH these guides that think that vocab study is a substitute for actually talking about anything of SUBSTANCE from the books?!?!

 

 

I agree.

 

I have a super-speed reader friend (like in grad school she read a book a night after finishing her MA in English reading for the day) who did that. Her mom just let her read ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING all through high school. They'd read and talk. Then in college she went back and started making those connections and formalizing everything. How much better to imbibe and enjoy than to recreate pseudo college in high school and come out HATING. And the chick could write just fine when she got to college. All they did was read and talk lit, read and talk.

 

 

That is the kind of approach I take with my DD.

The first actual English class she has ever taken will be this fall; it is a 300 level class on Shakespeare. The instructor has heard her in discussions in book club and has enthusiastically given consent for her to enroll, despite her lack of all the formal prerequisites.

[Susan of Croton]

Maybe the Oxford/Cambridge tutorial style of teaching would be useful or appealing?