Jump to content

Menu

MCT’s vocab and giving Caesar’s English another chance


Condessa
 Share

Recommended Posts

We do MCT’s language arts here, and love it—with the exception of the vocabulary components.  Building Language is fine, but the material covered is so basic while the output expected is really tough, especially considering that it comes before poetics are taught for that level in their recommended sequence.  My oldest had a rough time with it, but I’ve learned and changed the order of the books and simplified the output requirements for my next two, and it’s going better.

I thought the vocab would get better, as so many people here love Caesar’s English.  Also, it looked like it actually taught words my dd didn’t already know, unlike most vocab programs I’ve seen marketed for her age.  Last year I had oldest dd doing CE I, and she absolutely hated it.  But I bought the ibook version because it was cheaper, and I was trying to get her to work on it independently.  And I think maybe, possibly, that the delivery method and me pushing her to be independent instead of us snuggling up together to work on it like we normally do with MCT might have been the problem.

So after much deliberation, I think we’re going to give it another shot with CE II, no ibook this time.  What do we actually need?  And which version?  I usually buy just the teacher’s manual for the other components, will that work for CE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CE books are the one part of the program I buy the student books for, but the teacher books don’t get used. The teacher books have the quizzes, but I don’t care about those. Most of the exercises are more discussion-based,  or they’re stuff like word searches, which don’t work in the TM. Plus, I spring for the color versions because those books are full of photographs and my daughter loves the photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we could use just the student book?  That’s good to know.

What do you think of the Classical Education Edition vs. the older version?  We already have Ancient Rome well covered, so if the difference is primarily adding more about Rome, I don’t think we need that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...