MCT language arts: Convince me

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Dear boardies,

 

as I work on the next edition of TWTM, I keep coming back to the MCT materials and wishing that I liked them more...since so many of you seem to be enthusiastic about them.

 

I won't lay out all of my difficulties with this program, because I'd like to hear what you think first, but I will say that ease of use is a major issue. But systematic development of concepts, step-by-step skill teaching, clear expression to parents of what needs to be done--to my eye, the materials continually fail on those points.

 

In addition, the publisher is super un-responsive to queries, which makes me nervous.

 

So: Convince me that they belong in TWTM. Tell me why. Or tell me that I'm right. :)

 

SWB

 

 

[rebbyribs]

I'm trying them out with DD8 this year because in the past grammar has been her least-favorite subject. We tried Growing with Grammar for grade 2 and FLL3 the next year. (She enjoyed memorizing poems with FLL but didn't like the other parts). She loves drawing and listening to stories, so visual and narrative aspects of MCT seemed like a potentially good fit.  It was also nice that my charter school was willing to pay for it this year.  

 

Language arts may never be her favorite subject, but at this point, it's helpful to have a bunch of recommendations and be able to switch materials when something isn't working well.

[Dmmetler]

For GT kids who pick up on LA concepts quickly, there really isn't a better fit. The combination of the storyline, the wealth and depth of writing examples and vocabulary, and the writing expected, with relatively low levels of repetition made it perfect. It does not teach writing-it's for natural writers who need to improve their writing. It's a special Ed curriculum in the same way that ones like Barton are-for the kids for which it's intended, it's awesome. For ones who don't need it, it's not. And it's not at all independent and is very parent-intensive compared to others at that age level, which, again, is typical of curriculum for special learners. I did find it easy to use because mostly DD would read it and teach herself, but that having another person to bounce it off of, the Socratic dialogue (and the questions in the TE) were an essential component. I would easily include it in recommendations for gifted kids who love words and language. But I would not include it as a general recommendation, any more than I'd list Barton reading as a good program to try with your 5 yr old who has no signs of dyslexia.

[AdventuresinHomeschooling]

I am just starting out using them this year.  At first, they seemed....too simple, too fluffy.  It took me a while to wrap my head around the concept.  One of the things that convinced me is that I wanted my son to have a deeper understanding of language and the way things tie together.  It seemed MCT users loved that aspect.  We may know what a noun is by definition, but do we really understand the way the parts of speech and sentences are connected?  My son did Shurley English for three years and could rattle off every jingle and definition, but he really didn't have a good, conceptual understanding of the parts of speech and the way they interacted.  He had no clue what the types of sentences meant.  I am an advanced grammar student, and diagramming and understanding the parts of speech are important to me.  (I plan to supplement a book on diagramming and utilizing it when necessary.)  If MCT is a bust, I'll go to something more rigid and systematic.  But I am buying on the promise that MCT instills a love of language and deeper understanding of its nuance.  My son is really looking forward to it.  We will still continue with CAP's Writing and Rhetoric alongside it though.  I don't feel Sentence Island is complete for writing, but an asset for what it does offer.  

 

I would recommend visiting Providence Classical School in Williamsburg, VA.  They use MCT as a follow-up to Shurley, and then use Warriner's afterward.  They turn out wonderful students with excellent communication and writing skills, and this was one of the reasons I felt confident in choosing the curriculum. Their teachers there could answer questions of how they integrate it and its strengths and weaknesses in their students across the board.  The principal is one of the best and is very accommodating and friendly.  I am sure they would be delighted to give you feedback on the results they have had with the curriculum.  

[Farrar]

Well, I feel funny defending it. I had serious problems with the vocabulary and writing elements of MCT (though we *adored* the poetry). The grammar was not right for our family, but I did think it was thorough and I thought it was good - just not good for us. Instead of step by step, it was more of an information dump, but I think the idea behind it is solid - that some kids need to see the big picture all at once in order to understand what they're doing. And then, sort of like a spiral math program reviews bit by bit, the grammar goes back over the information again and again, giving kids ways to break it down (the eight level analysis stuff). Basically, I think it has a place in TWTM for grammar programs.

 

And I think the poetry is great. I don't know if that has a place on the curriculum lists, but it's terrific.

[ByGrace3]

I never was able to wrap my head around it. I wanted to like it and looked at it regularly ... until I gave up and stuck with simpler alternatives.

[8filltheheart]

Well, you and I will be in the minority on your forums. :) I agree with your assessment. For parents who do not know **how** to teach writing or what constitutes good writing, MCT's materials lack instructional support.

 

I also believe the essays he uses as examples for proper essay writing are poorly written. He uses far too many block quotes, often 3+ in a simple 3 pg essay. He includes paragraphs that are composed of a single sentence introducing a block quote and that is the entire paragraph. He consistently ends his paragraphs with block quotes when he uses them. (In every example in EV, AAW 1, and AAW2, with the exception of one on pg 4 that is not even actually part of AAW1, every paragraph that uses a block quote ends with the block quote.) Unless he has updated his materials and corrected his teaching essays, in my opinion his essays ignore appropriate paragraph construction and development when he uses block quotes.

 

If you look at this example, all of his teaching essays are similar in format. http://www.rfwp.com/pages/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/3-pages-one-glance.pdf

 

I do like CE.

 

(Eta: I do like some of his essays in the first half of EV. His "Apples are Ridiculous" (or something like that) is a great sample essay. My issues are with the academic essays in the 2nd 1/2 of EV and the AAW books.)

[daijobu]

Caesar's English is just lovely.  Open and go, easy to use, beautifully done.  It makes vocabulary fun and meaningful.  

 

World Within the Word...well, what a disappointment.  My dd just pointed out that she has now learned 2 synonyms for tightrope walker!  (funambulist and equilibrist)  Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm not well acquainted with classic literature, but do tightrope walkers appear with such frequency that they warrant not 1 but 2 synonyms in a list of the most frequently used difficult words?  

 

Both books (CE and WWW) suffer from poor organization between the student and teacher editions.  Exams to be taken by the student are found in teacher manuals (not the student manuals where one would expect them to be), and are often found on the facing page to the answer key!  So now I must insert an opaque page so the answers are hidden.  The parent manual also duplicates much of the material in the student manual, thereby inspiring conspiracy theories on the wtm boards about overcharging for duplicated content.  I'll add to the conspiracy theories with my own about all the added essays on history which tangentially relate to the vocabulary words, and really should be in a separate history text.  We always skip them, thought admittedly they look interesting.  Perhaps if they were published separately in a history text?  

 

Grammar Voyage is great, but what happened to Magic Lens?  There is so much new difficult grammatical material: tenses and future past perfects and all that, but the accompanying exercise booklets (4Practice) do not dovetail with this new material.  At.  all.  It's basically a recap of Practice Voyage from the previous year with no new material.  

 

ETA:  We have also found many, many errors.  Beware, if you are like me and language arts isn't your strongest subject, that you will be scratching your head wondering if the answer he provides is in fact correct.  As far as I know, the RFP does not have an errata list, which makes this even more frustrating.  

[zarabellesmom]

Dear boardies,

 

as I work on the next edition of TWTM, I keep coming back to the MCT materials and wishing that I liked them more...since so many of you seem to be enthusiastic about them.

 

I won't lay out all of my difficulties with this program, because I'd like to hear what you think first, but I will say that ease of use is a major issue. But systematic development of concepts, step-by-step skill teaching, clear expression to parents of what needs to be done--to my eye, the materials continually fail on those points.

 

In addition, the publisher is super un-responsive to queries, which makes me nervous.

 

So: Convince me that they belong in TWTM. Tell me why. Or tell me that I'm right. :)

 

SWB

 

I have only used the Island level but we did enjoy it.  I didn't find it at all difficult to use. When I received the package, it came with a brochure that kind of gave the progression that one should follow through the books. It isn't super structured, so I understand why some people might find that part difficult. My daughter learned a lot of grammar that year and enjoyed doing it. She would ask to do it first and when I thought we had spent a reasonable amount of time on it, I would try to put it away and she always asked to read more. I will say that I didn't find the writing exercises super useful. My daughter needs much more explicit writing instruction than the Island level provided. We loved the poetry book and I found it very advanced but my daughter had no trouble with the material.

 

That said, I did not purchase the second level. I think the books are very expensive for what they are--especially so if you consider that you are likely to continue to need something else for writing. I also think the materials aren't a good fit for every student. My oldest learned a lot from the story presentation of grammar in the Island level, but my youngest prefers more direct instruction. I don't even intend to try it with her because it is so obviously a bad fit. (In fact, I already sold it on the classified board. I'm so thrilled it's popular because I was able to get a fair amount of my investment back.)

 

I don't know how helpful that was, but there you have it.

 

:)

[Laura Corin]

I never was able to wrap my head around it. I wanted to like it and looked at it regularly ... until I gave up and stuck with simpler alternatives.

 

Yes: I looked at the materials several times..... than ran back to Galore Park.

[Syllieann]

I agree with your assessment. Probably a good fit for a small subset of students, but it's impractical as an only curriculum or spine for the majority.

[Penelope]

I think it's hit or miss, but taken as a whole, more miss. My perception is some of the more active posters here that have liked it seem to only use the first few levels and also use other resources in combination with the program (or use it for after schooling).

 

I love the whole-to-part picture of grammar that the first two levels give. I think this is great for someone like my oldest child, who doesn't need lots of repetition. But basic grammar only-- facility with mechanics seems to be assumed (which I think is wrong-headed. Or maybe it was never written as an all-in-one English program for homeschoolers). I used Island with a third grader who had done FLL 1-2, then used the grammar part of Town in fourth grade. But I ended up using parts of FLL 3 anyway, to cover things that MCT didn't include.

 

I think Caesar's English is pretty good for vocabulary. The upper level vocabulary books look good to me, too, but there enough other strong, easier to use, and less expensive vocabulary options.

 

The instruction in the composition books is next to nil, and I can only guess that the original assumption is that they would be used by someone who is already accustomed to teaching writing. I haven't seen the writing books past Essay Voyage, so I don't know if that changes in the upper levels. The one thing I do like about Sentence Island, Paragraph Town, and Essay Voyage is that they show the student a "big picture" of writing. I especially liked Paragraph Town for this. However, I wouldn't recommend them for that unless someone had a lot of extra money to spend and a lot of children to use them with, because the instruction and exercises are so sparse. Completely inadequate on their own for homeschooling, IMO.

 

I didn't care for the poetry books at all. Parts were okay. Other parts- not so much.

 

ETA: I really understand why some who like MCT REALLY like it. We had fun with the Island level; I think I probably had the right child for this, at just the right age, and he and I thought the books were FUN. He liked the whimsical stories and doing the practice sentences. He really "got" the diagrams MCT uses to show how noun-verb and the other sentence parts hook together, and that stayed with him. This child likes to see the big picture and the "why" of many things he is asked to do before tackling the step-by-step, and MCT does that well at this level IMO. The second year, though, the cuteness of everything seemed lame to him, and the grammar was pretty much a repeat---and I got tired of cobbling things together when I could just use one thing that was more complete, so we gave it up. My second child in third grade thought the stories were silly and just wanted to get to the point of what he was supposed to learn. :) MCT=epic fail there.

[Ethel Mertz]

I am not thrilled with MCT. I really tried to like it ... and failed. I found the grammar unnecessarily convoluted, and also not the way I learned it. The poetry part is decent and we use it every other week as part of our poetry studies. However, I would not buy it again. We did a little of the vocabulary study early on and DS liked the story part of it, though I'm not sure he retained much. I like the idea of incorporating all the wonderful photographs of the ancient world - that has added a lot of interest to the books. Again, though, not sure it needs to be in a language arts curriculum.

 

I am irritated that every time I turn around he is revising the books again - making them new and improved.

 

I also own the literature guides (Alice, Peter, and Mole). They are totally unnecessary for studying those particular books, especially at the grammar stage. The Self-Evident Truth series (Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jefferson) looks intriguing and I am hoping that we like it as it too is sitting on my shelf.

 

Bottom line: if I had it to do over again, I would not choose these materials for my bright, cooperative (so far), eager (so far), parts-to-whole learner. They served well as "something different" for a season, but did not have the staying power of a stand alone language arts curriculum.

 

One other observation: we have had more than one book fall apart as we were using it. Maybe this was just a coincidence. Or maybe it was just a bad printing run...

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

Caesar's English 1 & 2 should definitely be in the vocab section. A million times more engaging than VfCR. The poetry is good as well.

 

The grammar worked with my visual learner where FLL 1/2 was a total failure (his big sister did great with FLL). But I have to say that *I* very much dislike MCT grammar as I find it ADD-ish with jumping back and forth between topics rather than logically organized as FLL is.

[Crimson Wife]

Caesar's English 1 & 2 should definitely be in the vocab section. A million times more engaging than VfCR. The poetry is good as well.

 

The grammar worked with my visual learner where FLL 1/2 was a total failure (his big sister did great with FLL). But I have to say that *I* very much dislike MCT grammar as I find it ADD-ish with jumping back and forth between topics rather than logically organized as FLL is.

[Spy Car]

Dear boardies,

 

as I work on the next edition of TWTM, I keep coming back to the MCT materials and wishing that I liked them more...since so many of you seem to be enthusiastic about them.

 

I won't lay out all of my difficulties with this program, because I'd like to hear what you think first, but I will say that ease of use is a major issue. But systematic development of concepts, step-by-step skill teaching, clear expression to parents of what needs to be done--to my eye, the materials continually fail on those points.

 

In addition, the publisher is super un-responsive to queries, which makes me nervous.

 

So: Convince me that they belong in TWTM. Tell me why. Or tell me that I'm right. :)

 

SWB

Absolutely love MCT.

 

I really enjoy the way Thompson teaches via stories. It makes Language Arts into a "snuggle time" activity (for the most part). His programs appeal to "big picture" thinkers, who once they understand a concept (which I feel MCT does a great job of making clear) can apply the concept to lessons.

 

The grammar part is developed in two books per level. Neither of which are difficult to teach/use. The grammar concepts are introduced and re-introduced (in slightly different ways) in the two books. They are *systematic*. MCT just doesn't beat kids to death. No offense, but two dozen (or so) lessons on nouns (as in FLL) would have caused my son's head to explode, along with mine.

 

The MCT treatments of grammar points are clear, efficient, and humane. Then using the Practice Books MCT amplifies the skills. There is real teaching in the Practice Books (both by challenging students to take leaps in the exercises, and then again in the solutions ("Comments") section where Thompson extends the basics to finer points of grammar through post-analysis of the work. There is a "discovery" aspect in the grammar that those who love discovery math programs (like Miquon, Beast Academy, and AoPS) would probably like.

 

People who want all learning to be "spoon-fed" might not like MCT, but I like programs that require a child to think. Thinking critically builds a better and stronger mind. Rote work, memorization, and really easy and repetitive problems do not work the higher cognitive regions of the brain. This is true with math programs and with LA. MCT makes students think. For students who *need* to think to enjoy activities like grammar or math, approaches like MCT are a godsend. Otherwise, how boring.

 

The Poetry components of MCT are the finest materials I've ever seen for either children or young adults. They are simply inspired. From the creative use of color and typography, to the poem selections, to the way formal elements (like meter and rhyme scheme) are taught is brilliant. The one "note" I have about the Poetry books is that they are "hard" relative to the other components of any given year.

 

The Vocabulary has its own book, but like every other aspect of MCT, "vocabulary" threads though every book. Words encountered in the Vocabulary book are found in the grammar and poetry materials as well. The Island level is not "essential" (it is a volume intended to inspire looking at Latin as a land-bridge to the past), but the next levels get meaty. I like that MCT points to the importance of Latin to both English and Spanish.

 

My son has thrived on MCT. I could not be happier. It is a program we both enjoy (as opposed to alternatives I'm confident we would not).

 

I think any belief that concepts are not systematically build in MCT is false. MCT is actually very systematic. Some people do not like multiple books. The same is true with Primary Mathematics/Singapore (with Textbooks, Workbooks, IPs, CWPs, etc). Some people don't find Primary Mathematics "easy to use" on that basis (not that I agree). You would not leave it out of TWTM for the reason of their being multiple books, right? Singapore is a world class math program. I think the same is true of MCT.

 

Some students need/like incremental "parts-to-whole" learning with massive amounts of repetition. For other students these types of programs are a killer.

 

MCT is a great program for "the others." I know it isn't your favored style, but being inclusive of great programs (which MCT qualifies as being) for learners that prefer "whole-to-parts" type materials with cognitively challenging work would make TWTM suggestions at lot more rounded than now IMO.

 

This program is deeply loved by a sub-section of boardies for a reason. I understand why it might not appeal to *all,* but....

 

All the best,

 

Bill

[Roadrunner]

We used the Island level when my older was 7. What I love about MCT grammar is the big picture. We could see the forest so clearly after working through his Grammar Island for just couple of months. I think one can work through more traditional grammar programs for years and never manage to put the pieces together. Oh, and we did this while my kids were enthusiastically begging for more Mud, the main character of the Island series. Both my kids love writing, so big assignments without any handholding are just right for them. They love, love, love everything about MCT.

Having said all that, I am still putting my older through R&S 6 this year along with WWS 1, because you recommend it, and because I want to make sure we aren't neglecting the trees while enjoying the beautiful pics of the forest.

We have used the first three levels of MCT. We plan on going back to his middle school series next year.

Just want to add that because his vocab program is done orally, the retention has been great!

[Sahamamama]

I never was able to wrap my head around it. I wanted to like it and looked at it regularly ... until I gave up and stuck with simpler alternatives.

 

 

Yes: I looked at the materials several times..... than ran back to Galore Park.

 

And I am yet another one who looked at the materials over and over again, thought that I was missing out on something great... and then happily stuck with FLL + WWE + AAS + Vocabulary materials (Latin, EFTRU, or Wordly Wise). Not only could I not understand others' enthusiasm, but the cost was a sticking point. Along with that, the samples did not impress me, and the overall tone of MCT's writing seemed (IMO) arrogant and condescending.

[Carrie12345]

It's a winner in my house so far.  I just re-ordered Island level b/c I was dumb enough to loan my first one out and never got it back.

 

My 2nd and 3rd kids do not do well with rote memorization (unlike my 1st kid, who is the person I go to with all my grammar questions.)  MCT not only entertained them, but simplified every single grammar concept to the point that they went from understanding simple subject/predicate to fully grasping everything it was teaching ME about phrases and clauses in under a year.  There was very little memorization, they just fully understood the explanations.  Getting MCT's autograph in their practice books was the highlight of my dds' Valley Forge trip.

 

Figuring out how to teach it is a royal pain.  A pain that is so well worth it, I'm about to do it again.

[Laurel-in-CA]

I've bought it used just to see what all the fuss was about. I also had a book fall to pieces on me. I've kept the "Voyage" level to use on our "off grammar" year. That is, one year we do Rod & Staff grammar and the next year we just sort of keep up with grammar using a mix of resources....for which we'll use Grammar Voyage. The Essay Voyage quotes literature that my 7th gr. student is mostly not ready for--tho' she's read Dorian Gray and Frankenstein on her own initiative, I just don't think that she's up for a steady diet of it or ready to write about it. The Vocab I have - Caesar's English 2 - looks ok, but we're already doing latin alive, so I'm not sure that we really need it.

 

My perspective would be that, at the grade levels specified on the web site, this is for gifted kids who don't need a lot of practice. But I didn't think the teaching helps were terribly useful...not much at all about scheduling/planning, let alone rubrics or scaffolding for slower learners.

[Soror]

Absolutely love MCT. 

 

I really enjoy the way Thompson teaches via stories. It makes Language Arts into a "snuggle time" activity (for the most part). His programs appeal to "big picture" thinkers, who once they understand a concept (which I feel MCT does a great job of making clear), can apply the concept to lessons.

 

The grammar part is developed in two books per level. Neither of which are difficult to teach/use. The grammar concepts are introduced and re-introduced (in slightly different ways) in the two books. They are *systematic*. MCT just doesn't beat kids to death. No offense, but two dozen (or so) lessons on nouns (as in FLL) would have caused my son's head to explode, along with mine.

 

The MCT treatments of grammar points are clear, efficient, and humane. Then using the Practice Books MCT amplifies the skills. There is real teaching in the Practice Books (both by challenging students to take leaps and in the solutions ("Comments" section) Thompson extends the basics to finer points of grammar. There is a "discovery" aspect in the grammar that those who love math  programs (like Miquon, Beast Academy. and AoPS would probably like).

 

People who want all learning to be "spoon-fed" might not like MCT, but I like programs that require a child to think. Thinking critically builds a better and stronger mind. Rote work, memorization, and really easy and repetitive problems do not work the higher cognitive regions of the brain. This is true with math programs and with LA. MCT makes students think. For students who *need* to think to enjoy activities like grammar or math, approaches like MCT are a godsend. Otherwise, how boring.

 

The Poetry components of MCT are the finest materials I've ever seen for either children or young adults. They are simply inspired. From the creative use of color and typography, to the poem selections, to the way formal elements (like meter and rhyme scheme) are taught is brilliant. The one "note" I have about the Poetry books is that they are "hard" relative to the other components of any given year. 

 

The Vocabulary has its own book, but like every other aspect of MCT, "vocabulary" threads though every book. Words encountered in the Vocabulary book are found in the grammar and poetry materials as well. The Island level is not "essential" (it is a volume intended to inspire looking at Latin as a land-bridge to the past), but the next levels get meaty. I like that MCT points to the importance of Latin to both English and Spanish.

 

My son has thrived on MCT. I could not be happier. It is a program we both enjoy (as opposed to alternatives I'm confident we would not).

 

I think any belief that concepts are not systematically build in MCT is false. MCT is actually very systematic. Some people do not like multiple books. The same is true with Primary Mathematics/Singapore (with Textbooks, Workbooks, IPs, CWPs, etc). Some people don't find Primary Mathematics "easy to use" on that basis (not that I agree). You would not leave it out of TWTM for the reason of their being multiple books, right? Singapore is a world class math program. I think the same is true of MCT.

 

Some students need/like incremental "parts-to-whole" learning with massive amounts of repetition. For other students these types of programs are a killer. 

 

MCT is a great program for "the others." I know it isn't your favored style, but being inclusive of great programs (which MCT qualifies as being) for learners that prefer "whole-to-parts" type materials with cognitively challenging work would make TWTM suggestions at lot more rounded that now IMO.

 

This program is deeply loved by a sub-section of boardies for a reason. I understand why it might not appeal to *all,* but....

 

All the best,

 

Bill

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

I love the systematic nature of TWTM and thought it was so perfect but it and the recommended methods and materials have often not been the best fit for my son. 

 

Please, pretty, pretty please include MCT and programs like it(BA!) in your book so other parents who have kids that also don't fit the mold will know there are other options. They will know there is nothing wrong with their kid and they can stop trying to push a square peg in a round hole. 

[5sons]

but I will say that ease of use is a major issue. But systematic development of concepts, step-by-step skill teaching, clear expression to parents of what needs to be done--to my eye, the materials continually fail on those points.

 

In addition, the publisher is super un-responsive to queries, which makes me nervous.

 

These are my issues that ultimately drove me to drop MCT. I absolutely love grammar island and use it as a fun supplement between FLL 2 and 3. All my kids have enjoyed that one. But honestly I had no grammar background until I went through FLL and then rod and staff with my kids after a failed MCT attempt. It is just too hard to use. I need a schedule or some sort of parent helps. I know not everyone is as needy as me. Maybe many of you who use MCT and like it have the background to use it?

 

My kids and I enjoy FLL and R&S, and it gets the job done. Now of course I would love more levels of FLL. Maybe written to the student? (shameless request 😆)

 

I also have had issues with costumer service. This of course is just my experience.

 

I think MCT is out there for those who are comfortable branching out in this area, and easy to find for those looking for something different. But honestly I would have been disappointed in the cost, time and effort I put into this program had WTM suggested it.

 

Just MHO. Hopefully helpful?

 

Kristen

 

ETA: those of you who use R&S or FLL please do not feel like you are "spoon feeding" your students. These are solid programs that teach the same info as other programs just in a different way. Sometimes it's more time efficient to present the info, learn it and move on. The discovery method can be wonderful (some of my dc use AoPS), but it's ok to pick curriculum that just states the facts. 😉. For us it gives more instrument practice and book writing time!

[fourisenough]

Didn't work for me. I adore all things language arts, but I could never wrap my head around this program. I found the story line contrived and, frankly, weird.

[kbutton]

But I have to say that *I* very much dislike MCT grammar as I find it ADD-ish with jumping back and forth between topics rather than logically organized as FLL is.

 

I believe that while people who strongly prefer very sequential styles of learning might feel as though MCT is ADD-ish, it's not at all illogically organized. It's just not a presentation that automatically makes sense to some kinds of learners. Those of us who are strongly big picture learners find that other grammar programs (or writing, etc.) feel like they lack a strong central focus. That's not true either in all cases, but that is how a lot of traditional programs feel to those of us who like MCT materials.

 

I think many of the criticisms of and concerns about MCT are valid, but I do not believe they are big problem for everyone. My son has some exceptionalities that mean he learns best by learning the big picture first, and then getting a quick run-through from a sequential point of view. MCT is perfect for giving him the framework that he needs. He needs a lot of handholding with composition, but MCT materials help him understand the end goal very, very well. Without it, he would not making progress with writing.

 

I tutored a young lady who was having trouble learning grammar sequentially. MCT made the lights come on for her. I demonstrated MCT's method of analysis to her mother (who HATED, HATED, HATED) grammar, and within minutes, her jaw dropped, and she completely changed her opinion of grammar. These ladies both needed that big picture, top down view of grammar that MCT provides.

 

By all means, include some kind of note about who MCT works for and who might hate it, but as far as I know, there really isn't anything else out there in the grammar world for big picture thinkers.

[kbutton]

I think one can work through more traditional grammar programs for years and never manage to put the pieces together. 

 

This was certainly true of me. I was the student in school who managed A's most of the time while still feeling utterly lost for lack of the big picture.

[EmmaNZ]

I would not choose these materials for my bright, cooperative (so far), eager (so far), parts-to-whole learner. They served well as "something different" for a season, but did not have the staying power of a stand alone language arts curriculum.

..

This is exactly how I feel about MCT. We enjoyed it as a change of pace for a while, but only as supplement to something else.

[Sahamamama]

Now of course I would love more levels of FLL. Maybe written to the student? (shameless request 😆)

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

[Reefgazer]

We used MCT with my DD when we first starting homeschooling; we used the lower levels and loved them, and I will begin using them (minus the writing component) with DS next year.  The vocabulary program is beautiful and inspiring, and provides for such a rich vocabulary experience!  IMO, that is the strongest part of the program.  The poetry is beautiful, but very advanced for the age level.  My daughter retained the grammar from the grammar books with no effort because the grammar books are so well-designed and engaging, and we both loved the way MCT taught grammar and pulled it all together for us.  The grammar was joyful and happy, which sounds like a really odd thing to say about grammar.  I was not happy with the writing component at all and thought that was the weakest link; in fact, I have absolutely nothing good to say about it.  MCT also publishes literature with a teacher guide for each literary work, and I think they are excellent.  The student version of the books has notes and definitions on the bottom, and the teacher guide has tons of ideas for exercises that even I can follow.  That literature is worth its weight in gold, and I will continue to use that. 

 

Now all that said, I no longer use the program with DD because she needed more explicit and direct instruction in writing mechanics than the program provided, and instruction in writing was her greatest and most pressing need.  I am soooo not an English teacher, and I need a scripted teacher manual that tells me *exactly* what to do next when it came to writing(Hello, Writing With Skill!).  I just did not know how to make writing work for us without clearer teacher instruction.  I agree with someone upthread who said that the writing component was for someone who is a natural writer (and, I might add, a natural teacher of English).  We stopped the vocabulary program because we were overwhelmed with work, not because it was unsatisfactory, and Latin was covering our vocab for us.  We stopped the poetry because it was over our heads and well...I'm not much for teaching the poetry component of English, either. 

 

I do think that this program should be included in the new edition of TWTM because for the right teacher, it is an excellent program.  It turned out not to be the best choice for me because I do not know how to add to an English program, or go off script and make my off-script ideas work with English, or to expand on a lesson when necessary.  However, a parent who is comfortable teaching English and who has the time to do it would do very well with the program.  I will say that if I had not ramped up Latin, I would have continued the vocabulary component, and if we had not turned to another English program for writing mechanics, we'd still be with MCT grammar.  As far as your take on MCT, I agree wholeheartedly with you that there is not enough teacher guidance for the writing component; I completely did not know how to make that work for us and abandoned it quickly.  However, the teacher instruction for the remaining components is online and very clear, and even my non-English, science-oriented brain could follow those instructions.

 

I'm surprised the publisher hasn't responded to you; they were very helpful to me as a parent, their customer service is top-notch, and TWTM seems like a good way to get some great publicity.

[Julie of KY]

MCT was not a good fit at all for me and my kids. I'll try to pull out some of the books and give more specific examples later, but here's the thoughts off the top of my head.

I gave it a real try with kids in lower and upper elementary as well as middle school.

 

Poor writing instruction - I didn't know how to "teach" writing using this.

"I" understood the teaching of parts of speach, but it didn't seem to work for any of my kids. I just wouldn't click no matter how hard we tried.

Ceasar's English didn't work well for teaching vocabulary to my kids and without learning the vocabulary there was no point in doing it.

I think we learned a little poetry, but there are better ways for us to learn poetry.

 

(My favorite things for teaching LA are SWB's lectures and generalities along with Brave Writer.)

'

[Loesje22000]

I can't even convince myself it is worth to try it and pay costum charges above shipping to Europe.

So I can't speak from experience.

[Soror]

I believe that while people who strongly prefer very sequential styles of learning might feel as though MCT is ADD-ish, it's not at all illogically organized. It's just not a presentation that automatically makes sense to some kinds of learners. Those of us who are strongly big picture learners find that other grammar programs (or writing, etc.) feel like they lack a strong central focus. That's not true either in all cases, but that is how a lot of traditional programs feel to those of us who like MCT materials.

 

I think many of the criticisms of and concerns about MCT are valid, but I do not believe they are big problem for everyone. My son has some exceptionalities that mean he learns best by learning the big picture first, and then getting a quick run-through from a sequential point of view. MCT is perfect for giving him the framework that he needs. He needs a lot of handholding with composition, but MCT materials help him understand the end goal very, very well. Without it, he would not making progress with writing.

 

I tutored a young lady who was having trouble learning grammar sequentially. MCT made the lights come on for her. I demonstrated MCT's method of analysis to her mother (who HATED, HATED, HATED) grammar, and within minutes, her jaw dropped, and she completely changed her opinion of grammar. These ladies both needed that big picture, top down view of grammar that MCT provides.

 

By all means, include some kind of note about who MCT works for and who might hate it, but as far as I know, there really isn't anything else out there in the grammar world for big picture thinkers.

I've thought myself  to be a sequential parts to whole learner but MCT made something click for me, it was so helpful for me to see the big picture and then to go back and see how the parts/details fit within it (something I could never quite grasp with my traditional grammar education). I didn't find it to be perfect by any means, I'm another that didn't really use the writing portion but the positives far outweighed the negatives for us. Aside from the the way he introduces grammar he also teaches the parent to discuss with the child how to examine grammar and sentences in a way that is so much more worthwhile and meaningful than so many exercises in countless other grammar books which require little more than following a pattern.  

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I haven't read the other responses yet, but will do so after I put in my two cents.

 

You mentioned possible issues being that it is not open and go (my paraphrase)- how many pages?  Which ones?  Which books on which days???  My response to that is that not all of us WANT open and go!  I thought I did for a long time, but it simply is not the way I work.  MCT lets us move through the materials "organically" at the pace that makes sense for us.  The stories engage my age range, while the practice book works well for my oldest.  The poetry books are wonderful.  

 

The material is simultaneously kid friendly and deep, silly without talking down to the student.  

 

The sentence-a-day approach to grammar is wonderful.  

 

The material can all be reused child after child (even the practice book, if you have the student copy out the work first.)

[Reefgazer]

Yes!

I've thought myself  to be a sequential parts to whole learner but MCT made something click for me, it was so helpful for me to see the big picture and then to go back and see how the parts/details fit within it (something I could never quite grasp with my traditional grammar education). I didn't find it to be perfect by any means, I'm another that didn't really use the writing portion but the positives far outweighed the negatives for us. Aside from the the way he introduces grammar he also teaches the parent to discuss with the child how to examine grammar and sentences in a way that is so much more worthwhile and meaningful than so many exercises in countless other grammar books which require little more than following a pattern.  

 

[Colleen in NS]

...but I will say that ease of use is a major issue. But systematic development of concepts, step-by-step skill teaching, clear expression to parents of what needs to be done--to my eye, the materials continually fail on those points.

 

In addition, the publisher is super un-responsive to queries, which makes me nervous.

 

So: Convince me that they belong in TWTM. Tell me why. Or tell me that I'm right. :)

 

SWB

 

I'm surprised the publisher has been unresponsive - didn't you once host a conference with them?

 

I've looked at but never used the MCT materials.  Just looking at and trying to figure out all the different parts to the various levels overwhelms my brain.

 

The thing about TWTM is this: you have given an understandable overview of and defense for a decent education, and then you've broken that down into step-by-step, doable parts.  This is what has made it so appealing to many homeschoolers over the years, esp. those of us who otherwise would not have known how to go about this home-ed. project.

 

Though the systematic development of concepts and step-by-step skill teaching has been boring at times (or has driven us crazy - hello, R&S worldview!), I now see the benefits of it all in my two teens (and in me).  They do, too.  And though they jokingly "accuse" me of making them learn academic skills over the years (as if it took up ALL their time), they know that they have had plenty of time to do lots of reading and free-time pursuits of interest.

 

You could include a huge variety of materials in the 4th ed. for a lot of valid reasons.  But to me, the strength of TWTM is the simplicity and straightforwardness of the methods and the recommended resources for getting the job done.  A reference in the 4th ed. to these forums will send readers to the bigger variety out there.

 

I think you're right.  :)  I also think you should pick up the Advanced Language Lessons project again.  The samples we beta-tested were yet another testament to your ability to make materials that are straightforward.  :D

[Chrysalis Academy]

Agreeing with others that the strength of MCT is in the presentation of the whole: it does such a great job of motivating language arts learning, placing it in the context of reading and enjoying great literature. We thoroughly enjoyed the lower levels - Island, Town, and Voyage.  The vocabulary - CE 1 & 2 - is fantastic.  The writing books, while not actually useful for teaching the components of writing, are great to cover first to present the big picture, the forest, the goal of why you are learning those pieces in the first place.  The grammar is good for people who prefer discussion-based, literature-grounded, Socratic style teaching, and for kids who don't need as much repetition.  It's a very painless, pleasant way to do language arts in the lower grades.

 

Having said that, I share many peeves others have mentioned.  I'm not as fond of the upper level books, and it isn't about the content, it's about the layout and presentation.  The errors drive me nuts, the editing is just terrible and some of the mistakes have made it through the revision process.  The revised books are very poorly organized and seem designed to force you to buy both the teacher and student books, when it really isn't necessary.  It is absolutely not a program that will teach a kid to write, by itself.

 

I think it has its place as an alternative to, and even a complement of, the more sequential and parts-to-whole programs recommended in TWTM. It's also secular, and other than FLL, I think a number of the other recommendations for elementary language arts are not.  It's a good alternative for many of us who are looking for a whole-to-parts, non workbook, secular, challenging program.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

 

 

The thing about TWTM is this: you have given an understandable overview of and defense for a decent education, and then you've broken that down into step-by-step, doable parts.  This is what has made it so appealing to many homeschoolers over the years, esp. those of us who otherwise would not have known how to go about this home-ed. project.

 

I posted a positive MCT review above.  The more I think about it, the more I think the quote above is very important.  

 

Does MCT fit with the WTM way of doing things?  Probably not.  And that is not an insult to either!  

 

I think one of the cornerstones of Classical is parts-to-whole.  

 

Every single amazing product cannot be included in WTM, or else the guide becomes a sort of curriculum review book and the great information- your ACTUAL instructions on schooling- get very diluted in the pages and pages of curricula to choose from.  All of us would rather you spend more time bringing the essence of your own talks on writing to the 4th edition page than that you add another person's curriculum.  

 

Those programs that certain amongst us love- BA, MCT, Miquon, BW- that are "outliers" in terms of structure, use, etc could maybe be mentioned in a "What's Outside the Box" section, which homeschoolers could refer to as they get their feet under them and a fee l for how they teach and how their children learn.  

 

So I've now contributed four cents.  Another half post and I'll be up to a nickel!

[Crimson Wife]

Does MCT fit with the WTM way of doing things?  Probably not.  And that is not an insult to either!  

 

I think one of the cornerstones of Classical is parts-to-whole. 

 

I disagree that one of the cornerstones of Classical education is "parts-to-whole" style of learning. The cornerstone IMHO is introducing the child to what Mortimer J. Adler calls "The Great Conversation". That's actually one of the strengths of MCT's LA program and in that respect it is FAR more "Classical" in nature than something like R&S. Throughout at least the lower level books, MCT is constantly talking about Ancient Rome, Shakespeare, and literary classics.

 

Parts-to-whole is a pedagological methodology, not an approach to education.

[Roadrunner]

Those programs that certain amongst us love- BA, MCT, Miquon, BW- that are "outliers" in terms of structure, use, etc could maybe be mentioned in a "What's Outside the Box" section, which homeschoolers could refer to as they get their feet under them and a fee l for how they teach and how their children learn.

 

So I've now contributed four cents. Another half post and I'll be up to a nickel!

Well, with that logic AoPS is the biggest outlier. It is certainly not a parts to whole program and is really intended for a very narrow audience - highly mathematically gifted kids. Yet it is featured on the Well Trained Mind Academy.

[Spy Car]

I disagree that one of the cornerstones of Classical education is "parts-to-whole" style of learning. The cornerstone IMHO is introducing the child to what Mortimer J. Adler calls "The Great Conversation". That's actually one of the strengths of MCT's LA program and in that respect it is FAR more "Classical" in nature than something like R&S. Throughout at least the lower level books, MCT is constantly talking about Ancient Rome, Shakespeare, and literary classics.

 

Parts-to-whole is a pedagological methodology, not an approach to education.

 

Spot on!

 

Bill

[The Governess]

I have only used MCT's poetry curriculum. I used it to teach beginning poetry to a group of 3-5th graders at a small classical school. It was, by far, the highlight of our language arts class. I *loved* the selections he included (we used the fourth grade book) and the way he talked to the reader about poetry - you could clearly hear his love of the subject speaking from the pages.

 

Now, I will say that I did have the students complete some written work, and not just read the textbook. We would cover a topic together, and then they would add work to a poetry binder. We had a section for definitions of terms (assonance, onomatopoeia, meter, etc.) that we would add to as they were covered, and a collection of examples of these terms - some from the text and some that we made up ourselves. There was also a section that the students used as a personal anthology - they chose poems we discussed in class (I usually read them the full version of whichever poems he took his examples from and we discussed them) and illustrated them and wrote a short response. The last section was a collection of poems the students wrote themselves, trying to follow a specific rhyme scheme or use alliteration, etc.

 

The following year, the teacher that inherited my students expressed some good-humored frustration when she began a poetry lesson (different curriculum) and the class became so animated about what they had learned about poetry the previous year that she could hardly get through it. It made me so happy to hear that, a year later, they still remembered what we had covered and still felt such a connection. It was so easy to be an inspirational teacher using that book. :)

[Targhee]

MCT doesnt fail on a systematic development of concepts, it just uses a different system.

 

I've already posted on Learning Challenges a plea to include at least an acknowledgement of different learning styles in 4th edition WTM, but here is an example of what I mean. MCT may seem to you very frustrating because that isn't the way you learn or approach things, but MCT is brilliantly developed for those of a different learning style. I agree with comments above that it probably doesn't fit in with WTM "how-to," but it certainly works for the achieving the same great end-goals that WTM sets.

[LMD]

See, I found MCT very systematic actually.

 

I was always naturally good at LA thanks to being a big reader, but had basically zero grammar instruction. My DD, the only child I've used it with thus far, isn't gifted or 'other' at all, a very average but bright student. We so enjoyed MCT island and so far through Town.

 

I guess, I just think it is beautiful and effective. I didn't find it difficult to teach at all.

 

Aren't they fairly responsive on their forums? I have a vague recollection of questions being answered there...

[Crimson Wife]

If you do decide to go ahead and include MCT in the 4th ed. of TWTM, please mention that it does not cover much in the way of mechanics at the elementary level (for whatever reason he leaves them for Magic Lens). So students required to take standardized tests should supplement with something like Evan-Moor Daily Language Review or Daily Paragraph Editing.

[Crimson Wife]

DP

[Farrar]

I guess my question is where is it going? I hear a lot of love for it as a grammar and writing introduction program and very little love for it as a standalone writing program.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I have a love-hate relationship with MCTLA. It's a beautiful program, philosophically and aesthetically. We did Island through Voyage. 

 

I think the suggested sequence provided with each level did clearly express what was to be done. It's just that the program is less A-Z and more A to blue to 3 to Shakespeare to... ;) This is a good thing for some kids, mine included, in some ways. Think mind map vs outline. It's easier to forge paths from topic to topic with a mind map.

 

There is definitely systematic development of concepts. In fact, conceptual understanding is the program's ultimate strength, in my opinion. I think there was step-by-step conceptual teaching, but the steps start at the top and go down, instead of starting at the bottom and going up. Just as a parts-to-whole kid/parent looks at the conceptual lessons in MCTLA and thinks but how do I get there?, a whole-to-parts kid/parent looks at the incremental lessons in WWS and thinks but where am I going with this? Because my kids are definitely whole-to-parts learners, MCTLA was loved here. As has already been said, it gave them a great view of the forest before asking them to climb a single tree. 

 

However—and this is a huge however that is the sole reason we stopped using the program—I felt that step-by-step skill teaching was woefully inadequate for writing. This was OK at first, probably because I fondly refer to my LA program as The Kitchen Sink. :lol: In other words, I used enough other things (including WWE and TWSS across the curriculum) to compensate for the lack of specific writing instruction in MCTLA. Unfortunately, as my three kids got older, the reality that there are only so many hours in a day hit hard here. I didn't have time to do MCTLA and other (IMO, much better) writing programs. It was hard for me to ditch it (and I hung onto all those pretty little books longer than I should have!), but one day, while struggling with my schedule yet again, I finally asked myself, what is the ultimate point of LA instruction? Clear written and oral communication. So if MCTLA wasn't working for us for the most important purpose, and if I had to continue using other programs to teach writing anyway, I figured I might as well just teach those other programs in a purposefully whole-to-parts way myself and cut out the lovely but very expensive and time-consuming middle man.

 

The vocabulary was nice but my kids like their TWTM style vocab notebooks pulling from our reading just as much. Plus, I've also heard time and time again that Word Within a Word (which starts with level 4) was not as engaging as Caesar's English. The poetry was very nice, but we are poetry lovers here and don't lack for instruction/enjoyment. The grammar was enjoyable, but didn't change enough from level to level for my taste (a lot of $$$$ for few new concepts per year). Oh, and also my particular kids vastly prefer diagramming to 4 level analysis.

 

I will say that if you have a chapter on after-schooling, I would wholeheartedly recommend MCTLA as an after-school LA program because kids would (hopefully) be getting the meat of their writing instruction at school, and the non-writing portions of MCTLA are the cream of the program, in my opinion. For full-time homeschoolers, I would probably recommend the program with caveats, mainly that the writing instruction (at least in the early levels) is not sufficient to stand alone but provides whole-to-parts learners with artful enrichment as a supplement.

[thebacabunch]

Caesar's English is a must have in my opinion.  Gorgeous!  I also really like Word within the word for  older kids.  My dd's are both gifted in the LA.  The older really liked WWW because it built her vocab for writing.  My younger 2E with dysgraphia loves the grammar portion of the lower levels.  She intuits the grammar without having to write a lot.  The diagramming is the least favorite of both.  I actually think that FLL with a supplement of  grammar island, grammar town, grammar voyage for the younger kids is great with caesar's english by mct.  I like the WWE or IEW for the actual writing component of LA.   I think that the grammar books for MCT are so lovely as a socratic tool.  sort of a read along and discuss book.  FLL, imo is better for grammar written practice and poetry.  My kiddos were losing their love of poetry as we discussed the minutia of poetry rather than reading and memorizing poetry.  I am a very neoclassical homeschooler as we don't do Latin (too many tears and fights) and the CE and WWW are a lovely compromise.  I don't think MCT is great for writing instruction.  The literature portion is ok.  The parent manuals for the literature are actually pretty good (MCT) in the upper levels.  I guess that I am a picker and choser.  The only MCT I can't live without and doesn't have an equal is Caesar's English and Word within the Word.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I have a love-hate relationship with MCTLA. It's a beautiful program, philosophically and aesthetically. We did Island through Voyage. 

 

I think the suggested sequence provided with each level did clearly express what was to be done. It's just that the program is less A-Z and more A to blue to 3 to Shakespeare to... ;) This is a good thing for some kids, mine included, in some ways. Think mind map vs outline. It's easier to forge paths from topic to topic with a mind map.

 

There is definitely systematic development of concepts. In fact, conceptual understanding is the program's ultimate strength, in my opinion. I think there was step-by-step conceptual teaching, but the steps start at the top and go down, instead of starting at the bottom and going up. Just as a parts-to-whole kid/parent looks at the conceptual lessons in MCTLA and thinks but how do I get there?, a whole-to-parts kid/parent looks at the incremental lessons in WWS and thinks but where am I going with this? Because my kids are definitely whole-to-parts learners, MCTLA was loved here. As has already been said, it gave them a great view of the forest before asking them to climb a single tree. 

 

However—and this is a huge however that is the sole reason we stopped using the program—I felt that step-by-step skill teaching was woefully inadequate for writing. This was OK at first, probably because I fondly refer to my LA program as The Kitchen Sink. :lol: In other words, I used enough other things (including WWE and TWSS across the curriculum) to compensate for the lack of specific writing instruction in MCTLA. Unfortunately, as my three kids got older, the reality that there are only so many hours in a day hit hard here. I didn't have time to do MCTLA and other (IMO, much better) writing programs. It was hard for me to ditch it (and I hung onto all those pretty little books longer than I should have!), but one day, while struggling with my schedule yet again, I finally asked myself, what is the ultimate point of LA instruction? Clear written and oral communication. So if MCTLA wasn't working for us for the most important purpose, and if I had to continue using other programs to teach writing anyway, I figured I might as well just teach those other programs in a purposefully whole-to-parts way myself and cut out the lovely but very expensive and time-consuming middle man.

 

The vocabulary was nice but my kids like their TWTM style vocab notebooks pulling from our reading just as much. Plus, I've also heard time and time again that Word Within a Word (which starts with level 4) was not as engaging as Caesar's English. The poetry was very nice, but we are poetry lovers here and don't lack for instruction/enjoyment. The grammar was enjoyable, but didn't change enough from level to level for my taste (a lot of $$$$ for few new concepts per year). Oh, and also my particular kids vastly prefer diagramming to 4 level analysis.

 

I will say that if you have a chapter on after-schooling, I would wholeheartedly recommend MCTLA as an after-school LA program because kids would (hopefully) be getting the meat of their writing instruction at school, and the non-writing portions of MCTLA are the cream of the program, in my opinion. For full-time homeschoolers, I would probably recommend the program with caveats, mainly that the writing instruction (at least in the early levels) is not sufficient to stand alone but provides whole-to-parts learners with artful enrichment as a supplement.

 

 

Well said, AVA. You articulated better than I did both what we liked about it, and ultimately why I stopped using it after Voyage.

[redsquirrel]

I really really wanted to jump on the MCT bandwagon. This was back when all the cool kids were talking about it.  My elder was going into 5th year (is about to be a 10th grader :w00t: ).  I joined the MCT Yahoo user group to get a better idea of what it was like to use the program, I am not even sure it exists any longer. What I saw there convinced me that I did not want this program. I saw quite a few, more than a  couple outliers, of people who bought the program and who could not figure out how to use it. They had the books there in front of them and it made no sense to them and the support was not there for them in the books.

 

Now, I think not that long after there was a change in how the books were laid out. Back then, a homeschooler only needed the teacher's book and not the workbook. That has since changed and I think you need both, adding to the already high price. I don't know if more obvious instruction was added in to deal with what was obviously a real problem for a significant number of users or not.

 

I think my son would have liked it if it was his only LA program. He likes out of the box...but he also likes to be done with school. And when I talked to other users it seemed like an MCT lesson could go on and on with no clear ending. I don't know for certain so others can speak to that.

 

More importantly, as we moved through the middle grades I needed school to be more and more 'to the point' for my smart but VERY impatient boy. He is a hard worker and he loves a challenge, but in those years he needed to see the point. He would do R&S grammar because he believes grammar is important and that looked like grammar, gosh darn it, lol. Same with WWS. He knew he needed to learn composition and WWS was no doubt about it going to teach him that. It was hard but he could deal with that, it didn't waste his time and that was the important thing.

 

He's much better now. It was a middle school thing. He was all about efficiency. He had very important imaginary trolls to battle, I am sure.

[HappyGrace]

Disclaimer: didn't read the other responses :)

 

I am a lover of MCT Town, used it with two children who have very different learning abilities, and also used the vocab (CE 1 and 2) in co-op class. BUT I cannot recommend it for inclusion in WTM as a complete curriculum.

 

Here are a couple random thoughts since I just have a minute:

 

1. CE 1 and 2 are excellent for vocab-should absolutely replace current WTM recommendations for elementary age. It is engaging and interesting. My high schooler still remembers her CE words all these years later! And most importantly, MCT did extensive research to come up with the words-they are the most commonly used words in British and American lit. They are not just random words, but words with a high rate of occurrence in lit. Note: several of my co-op students had leaps in their testing for vocab the year they did CE with me.

 

2. We love how the vocab is strewn throughout the other Town level books-great for retention.

 

3. Town level grammar is excellent as a supplement.

 

4. CONS: WAY too much repetition between levels, too many errors, may be difficult for some parents to teach

 

5. my overall opinion-MCT as a complete curriculum should appear in WTM as a (highly recommended) supplement only. I am a firm believer in systematic grammar education, with diagramming.

 

On that note, I'd like to put in a vote for Hake Grammar-excellent-it is like R+S but with spiral review, so my kids found it to be much better for retention than R+S. I really think you would like it if you check it out.