Language Lessons through Literature- questionable assignment

[...................]

My dd6 did this assignment. She drew the frog in pieces in the water with the ox wading in. It didn't bother me. It didn't bother her. Neither of us batted an eye.

 

That being said if I knew it would cause problems I would substitute it for a different fable.

 

To answer your original question, I haven't come across anything else questionable for them to draw, but we are only a couple of weeks ahead of that assignment due to Christmas break.

 

I can list the fables that they are asked to illustrate in Level 1 if you'd like for me to. I have them typed up and filed so it would only take a few minutes instead of wading through the pdf.

My dd is Ten and she would be horrified if I asked her to draw a frog in pieces, and even my son would probably not wish to do that and he isn't sensitive. Who wants to draw that? However, we are very adaptive so we are used to making up our own assignments or skipping! OP, I say you need to read ahead and also do more research on the book lists.

[Rai B.]

I can't answer for actual lesson assignments—I have an older edition, I think, so I haven' t been posting because I' m not sure what is the same. But I did use all of levels one and two and only switched because level three wasn't around yet.

 

The course uses all, or nearly all, of Milo Winter's Æsop. A few of the fable have morals that are sometimes changed in more modern editions, and in a few instances characters get hurt a bit more than we might think necessary. We didn't end up substituting any fables, and none of dd's narration pictures were violent. I think with the fables it would be easy enough to read a day's lessons ahead and either skip the moral or substitute the fable.

 

Regarding the novels, since they are much harder to substitute on short notice, in level one we skipped Ch. 10 of Five Children and It. I considered saving Pinocchio for later, but we did end up using it. Pinocchio misbehaves, and while it is not condoned, it isn't explicitly condemned either. Also the conscience gets squished. I would actually recommend reading the novel if you haven't already or haven't read it recently enough to remember. But the assignments didn't include those parts.

 

In level two, in Peter Pan, there are a couple chapters in the middle I considered substituting with an abridged version because of violence to real(ish) people. Dd read ahead though. One of Tinker Bell's favorite phrases and the name of the Indian tribe were things I noted to Dd as not nice to say to people in real life.

 

(Sorry the titles aren't italised, I'm on a tablet.)

[Mergath]

I never liked most of the Saturday morning cartoons. They were not funny to me, or interesting in any way. I'm just curious if they are still on, and if their removal is part of a cultural shift in how people think about such things.

 

I've never expected people to share my sense of humor. I've always been differnet that way, sitting stone faced while others laughed. I have never felt above others when I didn't think Bugs and the Three Stooges were not funny. It just wasn't funny. But it never occurred to me to think they were wrong. And many people don't label things that surreal as violence.

 

And I don't think this assignment was written with humor, but the link to the website with the fable is funny to me. I will be using that with this lesson plan. There is nothing violent about that graphic at all.

 

Now Hansel and Gretel is violent! And Little Red Riding Hood. What about the Little Gingerbread man? Is it violent for a cookie to get eaten? Traditional literature is violent. That's why I didn't use it during my very rigid and religious phases. I don't know how you can use traditional literature and CM, Waldorf and other vintage and ancient teaching methods to teach them, without dealing with drawing and retelling violence.

 

For those that won't draw violence, what about retellings? The type where a student creates their own similar story, rather than talking about the story.

 

Yes, many old children's stories are extremely violent.  And in some of them, the violence probably outweighs any redeeming qualities the story might have.  I'm not one who thinks anything old is automatically better the way some homeschoolers seem inclined to do (at least when it comes to literature).

[Mergath]

See, my second-born would want to draw things exploding just because he likes explosions. My first-born cries at weird things and I can't predict it.

 

I think the negative feedback is coming because most of us don't think that being willing to draw a picture of something violent happening to an animal translates to finding violence against animals particularly funny. Which might not have been what you meant, but it does come across a bit like that on a cursory reading.

 

I don't understand why someone would want to draw a picture of something violent happening to an animal at all.  But apparently I have a different perspective on this than most people.

[Hunter]

The assignment does not include instructions to draw a violent act. But, of course SOME students will CHOOSE to draw one or more of the events being described HERE as being violent.

 

I do not think old is better. But often old is free and familiar and expected, so I too use a lot of older resources.

 

One of the goals of LLtL is to keep the curriculum affordable so everyone can afford it. I think that is a VERY noble goal. If the curriculum is based off of copyrighted texts that must be purchased, shipped and stored individually not only is that so much more expensive, but so much more cumbersome too.

 

LLtL is affordable and works on my iPad mini. That is only possible by using older texts. PERIOD.

 

I have a dear friend that always want to have their cake and it too. This person wants theoretically impossible things form me, and sometimes it irritates me to no end. Wanting me to do something differently is one thing, but wanting something that is theoretically impossible is taking it to a whole new level. And it makes me  :cursing: .

 

LLtL is not possible without inclusion of older texts. If someone doesn't want older texts and older methods of instruction, not only do they not want to use LLtL, they also don't want a "classical" or "Charlotte Mason" education either. Classical is…well…classical.  :huh:  And as for CM, well come on, she was a British Victorian lady.  :lol:

 

LLtL does come in hardcopy, but it's also a tablet friendly curriculum that people from all over the world can download. That is NOT possible without inclusion of public domain texts.

 

LLtL is the new trendy thing right now, but maybe some people haven't thought out what THEY want in a language arts curriculum. In years past, I wouldn't have used LLtL, because it didn't meet my needs and beliefs, then. But, I would have known that long before I purchased it, even without samples. I wouldn't have been shocked when a lesson didn't line up with my goals and beliefs. I wouldn't have expected it to.

 

There are alternative ways to teach language arts. I have used some of them in the past with success. I think some of the problem here is not with LLtL, but more with using a STYLE of language arts instruction that is not compatible with one's belief system.

 

Wanting LLtL not to be classical is like when my friend wanted me to go back to my apartment and exchange my black t-shirt for a more appropriate "blouse". WHAAAT :w00t:  ME. Own a "blouse". Umm, yeah. NOT going to happen. I can't be all the things this person person appreciates so much, AND be the type of person that own blouses at the same time. It's not possible. Take me out to eat somewhere that will allow me in the door wearing hiking boots, black t and yogas, and a backpack, or don't take me out at all. Because obviously you want a different friend.

 

[Chelli]

My dd is Ten and she would be horrified if I asked her to draw a frog in pieces, and even my son would probably not wish to do that and he isn't sensitive. Who wants to draw that? However, we are very adaptive so we are used to making up our own assignments or skipping! OP, I say you need to read ahead and also do more research on the book lists.

 

I'm not sure why you quoted me since I have no problem with anyone skipping or changing the assignment based upon the sensitivity of their children. I have no judgment call on this fable at all. If you don't want your child to draw it, then do a different fable. 

 

For our family, dd6 was able to separate violence done to an animal in real life (which is not okay at all) to a story about a frog who can puff itself up until it explodes (which is a little ridiculous and obviously make believe). However, that is OUR family. I have no problem with the OP being appalled by the assignment and changing it for her family. In fact, I tried to help her by letting her know which fables in Level 1 were to be illustrated so she could make that decision for HER family.

 

To be honest, Mergath, I'm not sure why everyone is making a big deal of this. You didn't like the assignment. You were curious if the other fables were too violent for your taste. You asked. I really don't understand the turn this thread took. As parents we ask for information about books, movies, music, etc. to decide if it is suitable for our family values all the time. Sorry if you feel a little attacked.

[KathyBC]

To be honest, Mergath, I'm not sure why everyone is making a big deal of this. You didn't like the assignment. You were curious if the other fables were too violent for your taste. You asked. I really don't understand the turn this thread took. As parents we ask for information about books, movies, music, etc. to decide if it is suitable for our family values all the time. Sorry if you feel a little attacked.

 

 

I think the negative feedback is coming because most of us don't think that being willing to draw a picture of something violent happening to an animal translates to finding violence against animals particularly funny. Which might not have been what you meant, but it does come across a bit like that on a cursory reading.

[Dory]

My dd drew the frog running towards the pond. No violence depicted yet. My oldest (very sensitive fellow) drew a picture of his little brother sliding down the house roof. When I asked him how that connected to the story, he said he was showing what happens in real life when someone thinks they are bigger than they are and acts foolishly.

Violence is part of life, I would rather my kids hear it in a story that actually has a good lesson, than to first be hit with it when they come across something in real life. My oldest will never be the type of guy that will do well as a police man or a fireman or something like that. He is a gentle soul. My youngest is more like my little brothers and handles violence fairly well. I feel with him, it's my job to help him learn empathy to go with that violence. Ignoring violent stories won't teach my youngest better empathy or my oldest better tolerance of the world. We read them and learn and move on.

 

If you don't like them, I don't see a problem with just skipping that assignment. After all, most literature based curricula have something in them that a person might not agree with.

[Mergath]

To be honest, Mergath, I'm not sure why everyone is making a big deal of this. You didn't like the assignment. You were curious if the other fables were too violent for your taste. You asked. I really don't understand the turn this thread took. As parents we ask for information about books, movies, music, etc. to decide if it is suitable for our family values all the time. Sorry if you feel a little attacked.

 

Thanks. :)  I've since added LLtL to my mental list of "curricula you aren't allowed to mildly criticize or have questions about that might lead to mild criticism, ever," along with HoD and ToG, lol. :P  (Btw, don't ever tell someone that you think ToG would be hard to secularize, or the people who use it will make you live to regret it. ;) )  I don't know, some people seem to take it as a personal affront if everyone doesn't love every page of what they use.

[Hunter]

There is the original question, and then there are all the additional side issues presented by the OP and others. Sometimes they are not the same thing, and are being responded to differently. 

 

Criticizing a specific issue in a literature based curriculum that is SPECIFIC to THAT curriculum and NOT one that is generally encountered in ALL literature curricula, is different than bringing up something that is generally an EXPECTED part of using this TYPE of curriculum.

[Hunter]

My dd drew the frog running towards the pond. No violence depicted yet. My oldest (very sensitive fellow) drew a picture of his little brother sliding down the house roof. When I asked him how that connected to the story, he said he was showing what happens in real life when someone thinks they are bigger than they are and acts foolishly

 

I LOVE this! That is so cute!

[NASDAQ]

I don't understand why someone would want to draw a picture of something violent happening to an animal at all.  But apparently I have a different perspective on this than most people.

 

I do think that the attitude "I don't want to depict visually anything of which I disapprove" is a very unusual one. And not even disapprove, because an ox trodding on a frog (is that what happened? I don't use LLtL) is morally neutral.

 

But I repeat that what's getting people's backs up is your belief that there's something weird or wrong about drawing a picture that depicts violence. If you had said "this makes me squeamish," you'd get less virulent reactions.

[teeniebeenie6]

I do think that the attitude "I don't want to depict visually anything of which I disapprove" is a very unusual one. And not even disapprove, because an ox trodding on a frog (is that what happened? I don't use LLtL) is morally neutral.

 

But I repeat that what's getting people's backs up is your belief that there's something weird or wrong about drawing a picture that depicts violence. If you had said "this makes me squeamish," you'd get less virulent reactions.

Really, I though Mergath had more people agreeing with her then not. I too find that there is something very odd about drawing something that died or is dying in a horrible way. 

[PhotoGal]

Issues like this make me move away from curriculum that is made specifically for homeschoolers. Sometimes assignments are just odd or bizarre. It is like as long as a story or book is old, it is somehow better than a modern story. Somehow the fact that kids at the turn of the last century were exposed to it is an acceptable reason to expose my kids to it? I'm sorry, I just don't get it! If I'm opposed to violence, racism, sexism - why use these materials for our homeschool? Even with an explanation of "those times were different" I don't think it is worth it.

 

Note: I'm not talking about this curriculum specifically, since I haven't seen it in person, but assignments like this I find just strange. I have been moving to more "mainstream" curriculum and actually pretty pleased with what I have found. Multiculturalism, diverse characters, women who are professionals, people with disabilities - all very hard to find in homeschool-specific curriculum.

[Korrale]

My son took from the fable that he was not to try anything impossibly dangerous, lest he got hurt. He was not to cook with the oven. Or use a chainsaw to cut down a tree. He only just turned 4.

 

We haven't done the drawings yet but I think I am going to make it an emphasis for him to draw a picture relating to how he see the moral rather than the story itself. Maybe that it what could be used as a substitute for the lesson?

[Mergath]

But I repeat that what's getting people's backs up is your belief that there's something weird or wrong about drawing a picture that depicts violence. If you had said "this makes me squeamish," you'd get less virulent reactions.

 

I don't think it's odd for kids to draw that sort of thing on their own.  Kids draw all kinds of weird and random stuff.  But an adult asking a child to draw it seems strange to me.

 

I know I'm not going to agree with everyone, though.

[Korrale]

Maybe the moral should be..

Proceed with caution when attempting the unknown.

[Mergath]

Issues like this make me move away from curriculum that is made specifically for homeschoolers. Sometimes assignments are just odd or bizarre. It is like as long as a story or book is old, it is somehow better than a modern story. Somehow the fact that kids at the turn of the last century were exposed to it is an acceptable reason to expose my kids to it? I'm sorry, I just don't get it! If I'm opposed to violence, racism, sexism - why use these materials for our homeschool? Even with an explanation of "those times were different" I don't think it is worth it.

 

Note: I'm not talking about this curriculum specifically, since I haven't seen it in person, but assignments like this I find just strange. I have been moving to more "mainstream" curriculum and actually pretty pleased with what I have found. Multiculturalism, diverse characters, women who are professionals, people with disabilities - all very hard to find in homeschool-specific curriculum.

 

:iagree:  I would love to see more elementary curricula geared toward homeschoolers but using modern literature.  I suppose a lot of them use old literature because it's in the public domain and is free, though.

[stripe]

:iagree:  I would love to see more elementary curricula geared toward homeschoolers but using modern literature.  I suppose a lot of them use old literature because it's in the public domain and is free, though.

Galore Park's English texts use modern material heavily. (In fact, I saw a negative review of it by one member on here because of it.) Examples are works by Dick King-Smith, Roald Dahl, Jamila Gavin, Madeline L'Engle, and Gerald Durrell. They provide a brief excerpt of one work at the start of each chapter, and everything in that chapter relates to it thematically, and the end of each chapter suggests other books on the same topic.

[KathyBC]

Thanks. :)  I've since added LLtL to my mental list of "curricula you aren't allowed to mildly criticize or have questions about that might lead to mild criticism, ever," along with HoD and ToG, lol. :p  (Btw, don't ever tell someone that you think ToG would be hard to secularize, or the people who use it will make you live to regret it. ;) )  I don't know, some people seem to take it as a personal affront if everyone doesn't love every page of what they use.

 

 

I do think that the attitude "I don't want to depict visually anything of which I disapprove" is a very unusual one. And not even disapprove, because an ox trodding on a frog (is that what happened? I don't use LLtL) is morally neutral.

 

But I repeat that what's getting people's backs up is your belief that there's something weird or wrong about drawing a picture that depicts violence. If you had said "this makes me squeamish," you'd get less virulent reactions.

It's not the program critique, it's the morally superior tone.

[Mergath]

It's not the program critique, it's the morally superior tone.

 

I think you're adding that in yourself.  I can only say so many times that this is just my family's perspective on violence.

[Mergath]

Galore Park's English texts use modern material heavily. (In fact, I saw a negative review of it by one member on here because of it.) Examples are works by Dick King-Smith, Roald Dahl, Jamila Gavin, Madeline L'Engle, and Gerald Durrell. They provide a brief excerpt of one work at the start of each chapter, and everything in that chapter relates to it thematically, and the end of each chapter suggests other books on the same topic.

 

Thanks!  I'll look into GP for the future. :)

[MommytoFour]

This thread got slightly ugly for no real reason (in my opinion). All that the original poster wanted to know is if anyone had gone further in the curriculum and had found similar situations. She wasn't saying that everyone else needed to agree with her. She wasn't even bashing the curriculum. She was just asking a question that a lot of us might ask about any curriculum to try to find out if it might (not) be for her.

Anyway, I know it's hard to read tone and intention sometimes on the internet, so it would be great if we could all just give each other the benefit of the doubt. We are all in the same boat -- just parents looking to educate our kids the best we know how.

[KathyBC]

I think you're adding that in yourself.  I can only say so many times that this is just my family's perspective on violence.

My apologies.

[BatmansWife]

Well, a good thing that came out of this thread for me, is that I found read.gov has a nice compilation of these fables on their website, with the Milo Winter illustrations.  I went looking for the fable so I could read it myself and then read it to my kids if I found it appropriate to see how they responded (mine are older, but extreme animal lovers).  I found it on http://read.gov/aesop/index.htm and funny enough (or not, depending on your persepective), this particular fable has a little interactive picture you can click on to "make" the frog puff up until it explodes.  It's done in a cute, humorous way, if such a thing can be called cute or humorous. Obviously it wouldn't be either with real frogs, but with cartoon frogs in a fable of this nature, it wasn't at all disturbing to my kids.  In any case, my only point in posting is that others using this curriculum (or otherwise using fables), might find the website a good resource.  Looks like they have an app version you can download for your ipad or iphone as well.

 

This is an awesome resource to use along with LLTL (or even if you aren't using LLTL).  Thank you for posting it!