Do you agree? Can you raise a writer without a writing program?

[tjlcc]

I recently read How I Raised a Professional Writer Without a Composition Program by Linda Fay Johnson.  I have been intrigued by her site, Charlotte Mason Help for a while now.

 

Has anyone else achieved this while home educating?  Is anyone trying to achieve it?

 

I'm not trying to raise professional writers.  I just want my children to write effectively.

 

Would this method work if Mom is writing-challenged?

 

Thoughts?

[regentrude]

We never did any  "writing program" with DD. I am not an "English" person. I am a physicist, and English is not my native language, and I was a bit worried about English; I have to thank my DH who talked me down and pointed out that we ourselves basically learned to write by simply reading a lot.

We encouraged creative writing (without parental evaluation), taught her the format of the five paragraph persuasive essay for the standardized tests and practiced that a bit, and had her write a few essays about literature and history and some research papers in high school, where she chose her own topics.

 

She is currently taking a 300 level literature class on Shakespeare's plays at the university. It is her first English class; the course normally has the prerequisites of one semester composition and one semester literature, but the instructor waived those because DD was so interested in Shakespeare. DD's first essay earned her a perfect score. The professor's comment was "your parents taught you well".

 

Based on that, I would consider our homeschooling English rather successful.

 

You can ask me again in four years when DS is at the same point.

 

 

[mathmarm]

I agree that you can raise a writer without a writing program. But probably not in a linguistic and literature impoverished environment. I think that its possible, even in un-ideal environments but less likely.

[Penelope]

I have no doubt that works for plenty of kids. I do think that the breezy tone of that very encouraging article leaves a lot unsaid. What does "successful writer" mean, for instance? Did the children go to university, and were they successful in their writing endeavors there? Are they published authors? In what ways specifically did the author work with her children as they learned to write? Did she do at least some of the teaching that some moms rely on a writing program to provide? Did she help them to edit, make suggestions about paragraph breaks, transition, organizing, planning a composition, refining a thesis?

 

There are some kids that are going to do well by just doing a lot of reading and writing without a lot of help and input from a knowledgeable mentor, but I'm sure that there are at least as many that aren't. If a parent feels confident teaching writing more organically without a program, great. But those of us who lack that confidence shouldn't feel inadequate for wanting to use one.

[wingedradical]

My oldest only did grammar in grade school - then when I homeschooled him in late middle thru high school, we did not have a formal program. His writing skills are great (much better than his communication skills, lol - he has Asperger's)and he uses them in some capacities in his work. His biological father is a professional; historian and writer, though. I watched him on Book TV not long ago. So, I suspect there is innate talent.

 

My younger son had nothing but Winston Grammar up to 6th grade or so. After that, no grammar, no composition. We did read to him but it was  like pulling teeth to get him to read anything except scenarios in MMORPGs (which sometimes turned out to be quite literary). I did no formal writing program with him but he did write a lot of papers for high school We used Warriner's as a source and I did turn to it if I thought he didn't measure up. He is now an editor and a grammar nazi in real life who complains about the quality of writing he sees all the time. I take little credit. Again, I think it was an innate talent.

 

I used to write well. Brain fog from chronic illness, the internet and maybe age, have changed that..I very much tend to ramble use incomplete sentences now days. 

 

On the other hand, dfd does not seem to have such an innate talent or else it was somehow supressed in her. IEW has been good for her -- in some ways, it has been almost too simple in that she learned the content so quickly, but necessary because she didn't know the content naturally like my sons did. They just "heard" it and learned it the same way they learned to talk.  But DFD likes formulas in everything so IEW was good. Especially since, in spite of that, her writings don't sound stilted like some people say their kids' do when using IEW. The other day, she was writing to her grandmother and said, "Oh, I need to get a thesaurus so that it will sound better."

 

I also just bought and started listening to SWB's MP3 about high school writing. It is proving very useful. I have wanted to concentrate more on persuasive essays because she tends to skim over life. I think with her past, it hurts too much to look too deeply at anything plus she's very afraid of saying the wrong thing, but I'm trying to help her with that, using literature, current events, history, etc. So when SWB said they will mostly need persuasive skills in different ways, I was happy.

[Ellie]

I didn't do much formal instruction with my dds. They aced all of their college English classes, and did well in their other classes which all required writing.

[madteaparty]

I don't know, but I'd like to think so. We are not doing much formal writing or grammar based precisely on this theory that reading quite a bit will eventually translate into output, but in my case it is just a theory still.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I have been thinking about this lately. There is such a big emphasis on writing that the homeschool community spends quite a deal of money trying to find the one writing curriculum that will teach their children to write or have their child spend hours a day doing multiple writing related work. The joy of just writing is lost. Don't misunderstand me, I think writing well is important. Some students are natural writers (I have 1) and others need to be shown how to write (I had 3). None of the curriculums I used for writing, and I have used an extensive list of curriculums both big named ones and unheard of ones, actually taught the non writers HOW to write. Boiled down they either described the type of paper to be written or gave a formulized style of writing to follow. Basically they were just lists of writing assignments. It wasn't till actual words were on paper that the real lessons in writing began.  Discussing the order of thoughts and making sentences more grammatically correct. Discussions on vocabulary used and rewording or reorganizing their sentences to sound better. THIS is where the actual learning to write came in.

 

By High School 2 of my 3 non writers learned to write. Each one developed their own style of writing within the given writing assignments. Of the 2, one feels confident in writing and one still feels unsure (even though his finished pieces have made me question if he copied portions of them because they sounded so good...he did not).  Both always complained that the curriculums given were not teaching them to write. My natural writer is only 8...we will use a few curriculums along the way, not for instructional purposes but for the "fun" factor they will add to her writing (Wordsmith Apprentice, Cover Story, are 2 definites).

 

Basic grammar and vocabulary are important. Reading good writing is very important (from this they get grammar and advanced vocabulary in context). Extensive grammar can be taught as they write, it comes in when you help them clean up their writing.

 

I will add that of all the writing curriculums I used, only one really felt like it walked them through the actual writing and that was BJU (2nd-6th) only because each writing chapter had you and the child write a piece together before they did one solo. However this can be done with any curriculum you pick, work on a piece together with the child...it takes the "fear" of writing out of the assignment because they did it already with you.

 

I rambled, sorry...answer to main question, yes, I agree with the article, writing does not need to be taught with a curriculum.

[Laura Corin]

I taught writing mostly free-form.  I did use a programme that offered writing guidance (who are your characters; what is the setting, etc.) for one year when Calvin was 9.  After that, we worked from the simple titles given in the Galore Park English programme.

 

At 16, he has already been runner-up in a national poetry competition.  And his teacher at school is starting to send essays back to him without suggestions for improvement.

 

Now, writing is something that I care about, so I was able to give him a lot of free-form advice.  And I do think that extensive extremely high quality reading material caused the language to seep into his brain.

 

L

[maize]

I suspect that for many children deep immersion in high quality reading will do more for writing than a composition program.

[Sarah CB]

I have been thinking about this lately. There is such a big emphasis on writing that the homeschool community spends quite a deal of money trying to find the one writing curriculum that will teach their children to write or have their child spend hours a day doing multiple writing related work. The joy of just writing is lost. Don't misunderstand me, I think writing well is important. Some students are natural writers (I have 1) and others need to be shown how to write (I had 3). None of the curriculums I used for writing, and I have used an extensive list of curriculums both big named ones and unheard of ones, actually taught the non writers HOW to write. Boiled down they either described the type of paper to be written or gave a formulized style of writing to follow. Basically they were just lists of writing assignments. It wasn't till actual words were on paper that the real lessons in writing began.  Discussing the order of thoughts and making sentences more grammatically correct. Discussions on vocabulary used and rewording or reorganizing their sentences to sound better. THIS is where the actual learning to write came in.

 

I totally agree here - most writing programs I've looked at just teach the basic structures of assignments.  They don't get into refining writing.  Classical Writing is one that does this - they teach from a standpoint of thoughtful refinement.  I'm sure there are others as well.  

 

I do use writing programs, especially in the early years, but mostly they're for the framework.  The actual writing instruction comes with rewriting.  I'm working with a group of 12 grade 7-ish homeschooled kids right now and they can all write, but they need some coaching as to how to really refine their writing.  Their topic sentences are general and uninteresting.  Their transitions are sometimes lacking.  Their concluding sentences aren't powerful or satisfying.  What I'm doing with them isn't coming from a writing program, but I think it's necessary to the improvement of their writing.

 

I didn't get a lot of writing instruction in school.  Sure, we had assignments, but very little actual writing instruction.  I was an avid reader.  When I hit my college academic writing class I did well, but it was still a huge slog.  I remember the instructor telling us that we were going to keep rewriting our thesis statements until we cried.  It was the refining of our thoughts and words that really helped to improve my writing.  

 

So, no, I don't think a "writing program" is exactly necessary, but I do think developing writers need a lot of feedback and need to be shown how to edit and refine their own work.

[Rebel Yell]

Nothing killed the love of writing in Diamond like a highly-structured (and highly-popular :glare: ) writing formula program. She went into the co-op class (9th grade) with great anticipation, and came out angry, frustrated, and unwlling to write again for over a year. :crying:

 

She went back to her usual voracious reading of ALL levels and styles of books, and went on to write novels, short stories, poems, satires, and the stories for dance productions she plans to do when the time is right. :hurray:

 

This book is most highly recommended:http://www.amazon.com/How-Write-Clearly-Meaning-Approach/dp/0880620269%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q%26tag%3Dduckduckgo-d-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0880620269

[Chrysalis Academy]

We never did any  "writing program" with DD. I am not an "English" person. I am a physicist, and English is not my native language, and I was a bit worried about English; I have to thank my DH who talked me down and pointed out that we ourselves basically learned to write by simply reading a lot.

We encouraged creative writing (without parental evaluation), taught her the format of the five paragraph persuasive essay for the standardized tests and practiced that a bit, and had her write a few essays about literature and history and some research papers in high school, where she chose her own topics.

 

She is currently taking a 300 level literature class on Shakespeare's plays at the university. It is her first English class; the course normally has the prerequisites of one semester composition and one semester literature, but the instructor waived those because DD was so interested in Shakespeare. DD's first essay earned her a perfect score. The professor's comment was "your parents taught you well".

 

Based on that, I would consider our homeschooling English rather successful.

 

You can ask me again in four years when DS is at the same point.

 

 

Ok, regentrude, but your dd is profoundly gifted/accelerated, right?  Would you agree that her talents might have something to do with her success, and that not all kids will thrive without more explicit instruction?

[Chrysalis Academy]

I suspect that for many children deep immersion in high quality reading will do more for writing than a composition program.

 

 

I would like to believe this.  It was certainly my own experience - I don't remember being taught to write, and my 7th-12th school was abysmally horrible, but I was a voracious reader from a very young age, and was praised for my writing in college and beyond. 

 

However, I know that personally - while I suspect and hope what you say may be true - I am constitutionally unable to sit back and see if it is, in the case of my kids.

[regentrude]

Ok, regentrude, but your dd is profoundly gifted/accelerated, right?  Would you agree that her talents might have something to do with her success, and that not all kids will thrive without more explicit instruction?

 

Sure, quite possible. I am not claiming that every child can succeed without explicit instruction.

But the question was whether it is possible, and to that I have to say yes, it is.

And then of course there will also be kids whom no amount of explicit instruction will make into good writers. There is always the issue of innate talent and intellectual capability.

[regentrude]

I would like to believe this.  It was certainly my own experience - I don't remember being taught to write, and my 7th-12th school was abysmally horrible, but I was a voracious reader from a very young age, and was praised for my writing in college and beyond. 

 

However, I know that personally - while I suspect and hope what you say may be true - I am constitutionally unable to sit back and see if it is, in the case of my kids.

 

but you don't have to sit back and wait! You read what your kid writes, and you get an idea whether you are on the right track. Had my kids' free writing been abysmally bad, you can bet I would have pursued a more formal course of study.

But I have seen their writing improve over the years pretty much without any formal instruction, so I am quite confident that it works for mine.

I would not advocate NOT looking at their writing and trusting that good writing will magically appear once they are in high school, LOL. Of course you keep track of their progress. But since progress is made, I feel that backing off has been the right thing to do.

 

ETA: I found it actually quite remarkable how they themselves developed a feeling for quality. Both are prolific creative writers; DS has been working on various fantasy novels for at least 5 years. He goes back to his own writing and criticizes himself, finds weaknesses in his own, beloved, work, tells me how he is going to improve structure, incorporate stylistic tools, dialogue, dialects... He gets those inspirations from the books he reads. He tries to imitate how other writers create atmosphere, how they create something that sounds like ancient lore, like sacred texts, like a slang conversation between gang members. Careful reading of good books is the most helpful.

For non-fiction writing, the single most important other aspect aside from writing mechanics is logic: the argument must flow logically, with no gaps and jumps. This is something that can be trained very well though oral discussions, intellectual sparring, and exposing kids to adults debating controversial topics.

[8filltheheart]

I suspect that for many children deep immersion in high quality reading will do more for writing than a composition program.

 

I think the key word here is "many."  It certainly isn't true for all.   My worst writer, and I do mean abysmal, was my oldest dd, and by far, she is the most widely read of all of my kids.   She was bookworm from a young age.   However, she could not put her thoughts down in a coherent, logical order w/o a lot of work and direct instruction.   It took painstaking years of instruction to get her to quality writing proficiency.

 

I have 2 kids that tend to be more natural writers, but none of my kids have been what I would call great writers w/o direct feedback and instruction.

 

As far as the OP.....needing a writing curriculum?  No.   I don't use writing curriculum.   But teaching/feedback.....it is essential for my kids.

[Clear Creek]

I suspect that for many children deep immersion in high quality reading will do more for writing than a composition program.

 

There are natural writers who do not need a composition program.  There are children who grow up reading high-quality literature.  There are children who grow up reading high-quality literature that are natural writers, as well.  But correlation does not equal causation.

 

I am a great example of that concept being a total failure.  I read for hours a day growing up, the majority of it high-quality literature (Jane Eyre was my favorite book when I was a teen), but I ended up dropping my first English class in college because, in the words of my professor, I wrote "like an elementary school student."  Did I mention I was an English major, lol?!

 

I am a very technical and analytical person, so I am not naturally a descriptive writer (even though I think the opening of the first chapter of Bleak House is something to be read over and over in admiration of the sheer beauty of it, just as one would admire a piece of art).  I had absolutely no trouble writing research proposals and whatnot for my degree in psychology, but I can't write anything else without it sounding formal and stilted.  I am currently using one of the Killgallon books with my oldest (who is as technical and formal sounding in her writing as I am), and it is amazing what we are both learning.  I had no idea how to vary sentence structure, to use appositives to add description to a sentence...I wish I would have been taught like this!  As it is, I am a very well-read person who needs a significant amount of hand-holding just to evaluate and critique my children's writing, which is where most learning comes from in the process of learning to write.

 

My middle child hates to read, has the reading stamina of a child below her grade level, and is a natural writer and master storyteller.

[tjlcc]

Thank you everyone for your opinions and backgrounds.  I have much to digest.

 

I think we are going to follow Linda Johnson's advice.  It's easy for me to get pulled into various curricula that I don't have the time to teach well.

 

My writing education was not good, by any means, and it's been an enjoyable process to watch my sons narrate and learn how to carefully choose their words.

 

Last year was my oldest's first attempt at written narrations.  He did well, in my opinion, but I know if I educated myself more I could provide better feedback.

 

My desire is to teach skills efficiently, and provide time and opportunity for them to develop their talents.

[tjlcc]

Nothing killed the love of writing in Diamond like a highly-structured (and highly-popular :glare: ) writing formula program. She went into the co-op class (9th grade) with great anticipation, and came out angry, frustrated, and unwlling to write again for over a year. :crying:

 

She went back to her usual voracious reading of ALL levels and styles of books, and went on to write novels, short stories, poems, satires, and the stories for dance productions she plans to do when the time is right. :hurray:

 

This book is most highly recommended:http://www.amazon.com/How-Write-Clearly-Meaning-Approach/dp/0880620269%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q%26tag%3Dduckduckgo-d-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0880620269

 

Thank you for the Beechick recommendation.  I've enjoyed several of her books and was not aware of this one.

[laughing lioness]

I moved every 2 yrs as a kid and never took much formal writing, or never got it if I did. I read like crazy and was compelled to write, winning a few little awards here and there as a high schooler and being told by college friends they envied my writing ability.

 

That being said, I've learned an immense amount about writing by teaching it the past several years and believe that my ability has improved. Grammar, sentence structure, diagramming, style- these have all helped me to know what I intuitively knew but couldn't name, or simply ignored because I didn't know.

 

So, yes, I think it's possible with a motivated reader/ writer. I also think if one program doesn't work, get another one. And I really believe that mechanics benefit everyone, whether they like them or not.

 

 

 

[shinyhappypeople]

It's worth noting that the author of the article did use a writing program.  She was intentional about using Charlotte Mason's methods and it worked well for her kids. 

 

Regardless, very interesting article.  Thanks for sharing it.  It's very timely for me, as I ponder how to help older DD learn to write.

[Sorbie]

It's worth noting that the author of the article did use a writing program.  She was intentional about using Charlotte Mason's methods and it worked well for her kids. 

 

 

She also used Writing Strands with her students at some point: http://www.higherupandfurtherin.blogspot.ca/2008/08/teaching-writing-starting-late_8560.html

[Chrysalis Academy]

Right - there is an important distinction between raising a writer without a writing program vs. raising a writer without writing instruction.  I think the former is entirely possible.  The latter, not so much.

[MerryAtHope]

Haven't read her material, but I think the answer really depends on both mom and child. I lean toward more natural methods of writing in my own approach (think Bravewriter), but found these did not work as well for my children. They needed direct, incremental instruction. I also found that I needed more tools as a teacher to explain things. So...I changed my view on how to teach writing and what would be needed, and now love our writing program!

 

Merry :-)

 

 

[Kareni]

Do you agree? Can you raise a writer without a writing program?

 

I doubt that Shakespeare used a writing program in his youth. 

 

I agree with others who have said that some children will write well without a writing program while others might not.  I believe that copious reading will help many a writer.

 

Regards,

Kareni

[NASDAQ]

I don't think that a program is ever necessary in every situation. A program is a tool. You can teach anything -- phonics, spelling, math -- without a program. I tutor English, and I don't use a program; I set out a general schedule of what I want and pull resources accordingly.

 

That doesn't answer the question of whether it's _wise_ to teach without a program. If you aren't using a program, you generally have to have the material internalised yourself. You have to be confident and disciplined enough to make sure you cover the material without a set schedule. You can DIY, but you have to D it all Y.

 

I think that previously, the trend in home schooling had been to neglect writing. I do not think that a lot of reading makes a good writer. I think the current interest in programs is probably a backlash against that attitude.

[briansmama]

I remember reading that Joan Dideon claims she never studied the mechanics of writing and she's a professional writer.

[8filltheheart]

Joan Dideon claims she never studied the mechanics of writing and she's a professional writer.

 

Statements like this simply make me :confused1: :confused1: :confused1: :confused1: in terms of what does that really mean or matter??   My 12th grader never studied multiplication and he is a very gifted math student.   Simply b/c he observed the mathematical patterns of multiples in the world around him and "knew" multiplication w/o needing to be taught is completely irrelevant to anyone other than him.  I certainly wouldn't want to wait and see if my other kids somehow just spontaneously knew multiplication like he did.

 

I think the notion that somehow writing is simply absorbed and mastered is a fallacy for most students.   Thinking in terms of master wordsmiths like Tolkien, diligent study of linguistics and mythology was definitely a part of why his works are what they are.   Very few people are going to compose like Lincoln and use parallelism in compelling mastery w/o actually having studied it.

[8filltheheart]

I doubt that Shakespeare used a writing program in his youth. 

 

I agree with others who have said that some children will write well without a writing program while others might not.  I believe that copious reading will help many a writer.

 

Regards,

Kareni

 

I disagree.    Shakespeare was well-educated and studied the classics. (We know for a fact that he did b/c of the multiple allusions in his works.)  He had to commit them to memory, translate them, etc.   His education was probably very reflective of (authentic) classical methodology.

 

In his first year, therefore, Shakespeare would be occupied with the accidence and grammar. In his second year, with the elements of grammar, he would read some manual of short phrases and familiar dialogues, and these committed to memory would be colloquially employed in the work of the school; in his third year, if not before, he would take up Cato's Maxims and Aesop's Fables; in his fourth, while continuing the Fables, he would read the Eclogues of Mantuanus, parts of Ovid, some of Cicero's Epistles, and probably one of his shorter treatises; in his fifth year he would continue the reading of Ovid's "Metamorphoses," with parts of Virgil and Terence; and in the sixth, Horace, Plautus, and probably part of Juvenal and Persius, with some of Cicero's Orations and Seneca's Tragedies. In going through such a course, unless the teaching at Stratford was exceptionally inefficient, the boy must have made some progress in several of these authors, and acquired sufficient knowledge of the language to read fairly well at sight the more popular poets and prose writers, such as Ovid and Cicero.

 

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/whatdidshkread.html

The link has a breakdown of what typical days looked like at that point in time.   Lots of grammar, recitations, etc.   It was definitely a formalized education.

 

 

These were first put to read the Accidents, and afterwards made to commit it to memory; which when they had done, they were exercised in construing and parsing the examples in the English Rules, and this was called the first form: of which it was required to say four Lessons a day: but of the other forms, a part and a Lesson in the fore-noons, and a Lesson onely in the after.

 

"The second form was to repeat the Accidents for Parts; to say fore-noons Lessons in Propria quae maribus, Quae genus, and As in praesenti, which they repeated memoriter, construed and parsed; to say an after-noon's lessone in Sententiae Pueriles, which they repeated by hart, and construed and parsed; they repeated their tasks every Friday memoriter, and parsed their Sentences out of the English.

 

"The third form was enjoyned first to repeat two parts together every morning, one out of the Accidents and the other out of that forementioned part of the Grammar, and together with their parts, each one was made to form one person of a verb Active in any of the four Conjugations: their fore-noons Lessons were in Syntaxis, which they used to say memoriter, then to construe it, and parse onely the words which contain the force of the Rule; their fore-noons lessons were two dayes in Aesop's Fables, and other two dayes in Cato; both which they construed and parsed, and said Cato memoriter; these Lessons they translated into English, and repeated all on Fridayes, construing out of the Translations into Latine.

[ElizaG]

I disagree.    Shakespeare was well-educated and studied the classics. (We know for a fact that he did b/c of the multiple allusions in his works.)  He had to commit them to memory, translate them, etc.   His education was probably very reflective of (authentic) classical methodology.

 

Yes -- the traditional system of classical education was pretty much one big writing (and speaking) program.   :001_smile:

 

Roger Ascham, a well-known educator who taught Elizabeth I, said that the translation of authors such as Cicero, Demosthenes, and Isocrates was the best way to become a skilled writer and speaker of English.  This is because he believed that they were the most perfect models of eloquence in any language. 

 

And translation was just the most basic level of education.   We don't know how much schooling Shakespeare had, but the author of Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language makes a case for thinking that he also had an extensive knowledge of formal rhetoric. 

[Amy M]

I have a good friend who homeschools her 8 kids--very smart lady--she tutors high-school level math online as well--who, when I discussed IEW with her and my desire to try it if not for the $$, she mentioned having tried it (I think at the SWI-B level?) and thought that logic was just as or more important than the writing programs themselves. In other words, we can teach forms and show examples, but if they can't think logically about a matter, their paper will still be useless. That was a very interesting point to me. She wasn't saying, "Don't use a program," just emphasizing the importance of good logic in making an excellent writer. Made me wonder if so much emphasis on writing programs before high school is somewhat of a waste of time and money. I'm still going to use them, but I wish I had the experience and smarts to not, at least until high school.

[8filltheheart]

I have a good friend who homeschools her 8 kids--very smart lady--she tutors high-school level math online as well--who, when I discussed IEW with her and my desire to try it if not for the $$, she mentioned having tried it (I think at the SWI-B level?) and thought that logic was just as or more important than the writing programs themselves. In other words, we can teach forms and show examples, but if they can't think logically about a matter, their paper will still be useless. That was a very interesting point to me. She wasn't saying, "Don't use a program," just emphasizing the importance of good logic in making an excellent writer. Made me wonder if so much emphasis on writing programs before high school is somewhat of a waste of time and money. I'm still going to use them, but I wish I had the experience and smarts to not, at least until high school.

I think waiting until high school would put a student at a severe disadvantage. I agree that logic--as in ordered sequences, etc, not formal logic -- is necessary for clear, coherent writing. But students are certainly more than capable of achieving those skills before high school. Latin translations, grammar studies, etc are all exercises in logic and are easily accessible to the avg upper elementary and middle school students. We need to be careful to not underestimate the abilities of children.

[austen]

I am a writer who is mostly self-taught. I was an English major, but everything I know about professional writing I learned from books, critiques from other writers, and writing.

 

I used to follow Linda Joy's blog. I really wanted her system to work for my boys. I would've loved her system as a child.

But my boys need a lot of structure. Last year, we did Calvert (very structured), and my 11 year old's writing took off.

 

 I'm sure it can work for some students, but not for everyone.

[LindaOz]

I believe you can, and I am!!!!!

 

I feel so strongly about this that I could go on and on. But I won't. But I will say that I have a daughter who really struggled with writing. She was also eclipsed by her two older sisters who both wrote very well, and she just felt she was hopeless at writing. We didn't use a program, but I tried different things and kept on having her write narrations.

 

Enter a series of novels which she loved.

 

She read and read these books. I had her do some copywork etc from them and, suddenly, her writing took off. She started writing more chapters and episodes of the book series. And she was writing in the style of the author - it was quite amazing. She really took off with writing then as she wrote more and more episodes for the books she loved.

 

This has only taken place during the last two years. She is now 15 and is a capable writer. She does the writing assignments to go along with her Sonlight Core program and she does them well - something she would have struggled with two years ago. All this without a writing program and, basically, just writing from literature. It really works, but persistence is key.

 

My ds9 is also slower to develop writing skills, but consistent copywork, dictations, and narrations are seeing him improve to the point of wanting now to write his own stories in his quiet time.

[birchbark]

This book is most highly recommended:http://www.amazon.com/How-Write-Clearly-Meaning-Approach/dp/0880620269%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q%26tag%3Dduckduckgo-d-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0880620269

 

Do you use this book as a teacher, or do your students use it for themselves?

[1Togo]

Teaching non-natural writers to write has been the high hurdle of my homeschooling years since none of our children are natural writers.  However, I've taught writing classes to other homeschool students, so I've seen natural writers in action, and they seem to be able to make progress with some input or simple instructions or even on their own.  My non-natural writers have needed explicit instruction.  For years, my problem was finding a method or materials that didn't have gaps or make assumptions about skills and the thinking needed to produce a quality piece of writing.  I know that some mothers on this list have developed their own method of instruction for their non-natural writers, but I couldn't do that.  I began using the progym several years ago, and it has been a good fit for me and my student. 

 

 

[FO4UR]

Notice she said, "without a Composition Program."  That is not the same as ,"without any composition instruction." 

 

 

Linda Fay is a CM Educator.  Essentially, in becoming a CM Educator, she learned how to teach composition without using prefab curricula.  This is not, in any way, implying that the lack of composition instruction can produce a great writer...rather, the simple and natural methodology of narration/copywork/dictation can produce a great writer.