OK....one more time...WHAT'S HIGH SCHOOL?

[ErikaN]

I appreciate the high standards that Tapestry sets, and feel that the variety the curriculum offers is marvelous. However, I am feeling very anxious about ever operating in the Rhetoric world. Oh, we dabble a little. My kids are strong readers and have good comprehension, but the level at which we are supposed to grasp and discuss the material does not look comfortable yet. Due to the busy-ness of daily life and my own lack of time to soak in the reading/discussion material, I'm afraid we'll never do it justice. I have so many kids who need a solid foundation, how can I ever be well-enough prepared to help my robotically-inclined teen deal with all that high level history and literature?!

I have friends who simply regard the Rhetoric material as college level and don't even try to get there; their high schoolers just make the most of Dialectic. IS THIS ACCEPTABLE? ANY COMMENTS? Is it fair to dwell mostly in the Dialectic and wander into Rhetoric here and there and call that high school? I surely don't want to short change my own kids and limit their options in the future, but I'm sure I never got such rich material or challenging assignments until college.

Any comments or perspective appreciated.

[Marcia]

Erika,

Of course everyone has their own subjective levels. If we were sitting down to coffee, and you voiced the same thoughts, my first question might be,"What school did you attend?" I attended a New England prep school, and we most certainly did read the kinds of books and the classical titles that we have woven into TOG when I was in school. (This personal experience is part of what gave me the confidence to encourage others to challenge their kids with them!) It's not just me, however. Our forefathers in Colonial schools read the works of the classical canon that had been published by that time, and more. http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif My own children, and those I teach in a local co-op here also master these books. So, the human mind CAN absorb and engage with these works at the high school level. For a "normal" high school mind, it's not an unrealistic expectation. I just offer this as perspective. Sometimes it IS hard to believe that something CAN be done until we're assured that others have, indeed, done it.

That said, perhaps your school did not take you through these Great Books. That would be very normative in America in our high school generation. When I was in school (and, just for reference, I graduated high school in 1976), part of the reason that I was sent to prep school by my father, who greatly prized a liberal arts education, was that it has fallen out of favor in the main-and-plain public schools. I was actually in a public high school (just built that year) where they had "modular scheduling" with subjects that were more "relevant" than "meaty." This was the reason I was sent to prep school in the middle of my sophomore year! Again, the point of my sharing my autobiography is to say that it would not have been unusual for you to NOT be exposed to this level of academic rigor in MOST schools in America in the last thirty years or so.

I think the next question I might ask, and the one that's really important is, "What are your goals for the future and education for your child?" In our increasingly complex nation, more and more young people are going to need to have advanced degrees in order to get medium-level jobs. I was recently surprised to find that, after taking five years of college courses in order to earn her art-teaching degree/certificate, my daughter told me that she will be expected/required to earn a masters within five years. WOW! On the other hand, in many places in the country, farming, trades, and other alternatives still abound. So, again, it's a matter of goals.

The difference between our dialectic level and our rhetoric is essentially these:

1. Dialectics read/process at the level of facts and connections. The books are chosen to be accessible to strong 6th-grade readers, and still interesting to 8th-graders who are not yet ready for analytical works.

2. Rhetorics read/process at an analytical level. This means, they learn to break down information that is "whole" into parts, and then construct (synthesize) new worldviews out of these parts.

You can think of the dialectic ability as the level of the text book, if you will. Virtually all literate adults can reach this level, but these will not be the thinkers of our age to come, and I don't believe that students at this level will compete very well for the diminishing number of seats in the classrooms of competitive colleges (which then produce tomorrow's competitive workers).

The rhetoric phase is the phase of adulthood, and constitutes an essential skill for all functioning adults, especially (I would argue) in our modern, complex world where (even more important than their vocational aspirations) so many voices vie for the attention of our children's minds and hearts. A Christian person will meet all kinds of opposition arguments to the truths that he holds by faith, and the values that spring from them. Satan is more bold in our day than in any other previous era (I would hold) and, he is also most subtle. So, the ability to think, to analyze, and to know what they and their families should do in the years ahead is vital to our children's future lives.

Of course, your children don't NEED to read difficult classics in order to gain analysis skills: one can practice analysis of baseball scores, scientific data, or children's literature. But, in spite of the fact that they are challenging, classics are worthy books that both plumb the depths of the human experience and ARE the substance of the Great Conversation that mankind has been conducting ever since the dawn of time. If one can gain a vision for following such a conversation, it is not only fascinating and informative in and of itself, but gives our kids the deepest possible understanding of what has gone before, so that they are acquainted with their history and can thus sense their destiny. Informed by biblical truth and a study of history, a working knowledge of the classics of Western civilization give us the deepest possible sense of where we are in our journey as a race, and point us with greatest clarity of vision and depth of perspective to the future paths where we are headed. So: again, I'm offering you vision and a good reason for slogging on. http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That's just my opinion, of course. I'm hoping others will voice their opinions as well!

[Christine TX]

Hi Erika,

I think there is a huge difference in the rhetoric history and the rhetoric literature. I think it is reasonable for a high school child to do the rhetoric level history. My 9th grade son has done it straight and had no problems. I've moved my 7th grader up to the history section just for the Civil War since he has read voraciously about it for years. The questions are a little more difficult, but they aren't too bad. If they can't get the thinking questions, then you think through it with them.

The literature is a much different animal. I've only REALLY looked at the Year 3 rhetoric. To be honest, the literature is much deeper than what I did in college, and English was my teaching degree!! I love the curriculum, and it has gotten better each year. I don't think dialectic is enough for high school literature. I think the rhetoric is way too much. With my background, I just take out my teaching materials and do my own thing.

I never, ever taught things at this depth and I had junior honors classes. They had trouble reading things outside of class!!! If I didn't cover it in class, it didn't get done. That was 16 years ago as well. I had finally trained my juniors how to read things on their own and how to study for tests when I quit to stay home with my first child. I would include literature selections from the entire year, and it always blew them away. They had no idea how to think outside of rote memory.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I think another part of the problem is that the rhetoric is supposed to cover 9th through 12th, and that is a HUGE age range. I'm sorry, but there are a lot of literature selections that are too deep and dark for my 14yo to handle this year. Instead, I've substituted more regular 9th grade selections. You will just have to look for yourself. You could have them read the books and then just narrate the plot to you. Then together you make your way through the teacher's notes and analyze it together. You would both get better at it.

So I guess, I would say that dialectic isn't enough for high school credit, especially past 9th grade in my eyes. However, the rhetoric literature is overkill. My goal is for my son to do rhetoric literature as written by the time he is a 12th grader. If he can do that, he will have had a better education than 90 percent of the public schooled children.

I just thought I would throw in the works we studied where I taught:
9th grade: To Kill a Mockingbird, Romeo and Juliet, A short story unit, intensive grammar (all I can remember..I didn't teach this level)

10th grade: Julius Caesar (they spend a whole 9 weeks on this when I first came!!! I whittled it down to 3 weeks!), A Separate Peace, Lord of the Flies

11th Grade: The Crucible, The Scarlett Letter, Huckleberry Finn, My Antonia, Red Badge of Courage, play unit

12th grade: Beowulf, Canterburry Tales, Jane Eye, ( I only taught this one year and had a "practical" class, so I can't remember. I had to heavily modify.)

Basically, we did one major work a every 4 to 6 weeks. We covered about 6 major works a year.

Christine

[Marcia]

The literature is a much different animal. I've only REALLY looked at the Year 3 rhetoric. To be honest, the literature is much deeper than what I did in college, and English was my teaching degree!! I love the curriculum, and it has gotten better each year. I don't think dialectic is enough for high school literature. I think the rhetoric is way too much. With my background, I just take out my teaching materials and do my own thing.

I never, ever taught things at this depth and I had junior honors classes. They had trouble reading things outside of class!!! If I didn't cover it in class, it didn't get done. That was 16 years ago as well. I had finally trained my juniors how to read things on their own and how to study for tests when I quit to stay home with my first child. I would include literature selections from the entire year, and it always blew them away. They had no idea how to think outside of rote memory.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I think another part of the problem is that the rhetoric is supposed to cover 9th through 12th, and that is a HUGE age range. I'm sorry, but there are a lot of literature selections that are too deep and dark for my 14yo to handle this year. Instead, I've substituted more regular 9th grade selections. You will just have to look for yourself. You could have them read the books and then just narrate the plot to you. Then together you make your way through the teacher's notes and analyze it together. You would both get better at it.

Christine, if what you mean by "deep" is "detailed," then I agree with you about our Literature. It is probably more detailed than some college courses, which are rapid surveys and assume a working knowledge base of literary terms, concepts, and stories. By the word "deep," you could also mean the depth of coverage. Again, I agree; there is, as I have said above, a meaty list of challenging, classic books. But, as with my first post, your example class above is of high school juniors who were not being trained in analytical thinking, thus I infer you mean that they were functioning at the dialectic level. That said, we are aware of many students (especially older high schoolers--10th to 12th grades) around the country who use and love the program as written.

And you have hit it on the head with another comment: the issue for us in planning Literature readings and class plans is the range of both ages and interest. As a nod to this quandary, we encourage moms to be cutting/trimming/adjusting this elective for their individual students. Many moms miss our so-called "cutting charts" for Years 2-4, available on the Loom in Appendix D of "Teaching Rhetoric Lit." These allow you to easily customize the plan to your students' levels of interest/ability by omitting certain books from the list. It is also true that, with the 20th Century especially, books get dark and heavy. On the flip side of this point, it's also true that these darker works are a part of the experience (the Great Conversation) of the human race, and, unfortunately, they are expressive of the struggles that our culture is still working its way through in many ways. Some students are definitely too young to read some of the Year 4 books, and this is the beauty of homeschooling: we get to custom-tailor the list to their needs.

Another idea for customizing the Literature is this: look at your local school's choices for your student's grade level. Because our literature program is comprehensive, and thus in cutting titles students may miss some of the analytic concepts/skills that we offer, it is better (in our opinion) to master a few works well--and retain the joy of learning--than to either slog at too hard a pace OR to read books that are too dark or deep for their level (this is a concern mostly in Year 4).

Finally, a word about the class plans. Great literature is, by nature, intimidating to those who look at it from the outside. The reason that there are lengthy class plans, and vocabulary terms, and student questions is to help the *inexperienced* teacher to get a handle on great works that they have not read, and yet do a credible job with leading a student through a Socratic discussion and a meaningful analysis that helps them shape a worldview. The length of our class plans simply seem to be what it takes, work by work, to get the job done. Once you understand that the entire rhetoric Lit. program is one large SYSTEM that is intended to bring an overarching, *consistent* approach to literary analysis--and is thus teaching BOTH the system AND the application (use) of the system to individual works (while also seeking to highlight the worldview-shaping elements of the works)--you can find your feet. We hear that the system works better and better (and easier and easier) with application, use, and experience.

Many people get overwhelmed when first seeing Tapestry. Yet, we find that in virtually all experiences with the curriculum, TRYING it is easier than looking at it! http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif We encourage you who feel overwhelmed to try a Literature class plan or two and see if they aren't easier to implement than they are to read through.

Hope this helps! http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Mom29]

I am public-school educated, albeit at an excellent college prep high school, and I am an engineer by training, so the classic humanities are not my forte, to say the least. http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My learning has been right along with my students.

We have taken it easy, using both the green and blue cutting recommended in the literature (thank TOG VERY much for that!), and sometimes not doing all the history for our younger R level students. Sometimes we felt like we were swimming in way over our heads, but looking back, I can see that we learned during those times and absorbed more than we realized. After having gone through 3 1/2 years of R now, I can see that we didn't get it all, but that's okay - we learned a lot and our thinking has improved greatly.

My oldest son, the guinea pig, slogged through 3 years with his poor mother as clueless as he most of the time, but the teacher's notes and discussion outlines guided us. There were times when even those sounded like another language, so we just passed on, and gradually, much of it started to make sense. After some self-study, he just took the Interpreting Literature, American History, and Western Civilization CLEP tests and passed them all! I give much of the credit to the training he received through TOG Rhetoric. If we had done only Dialectic, he would not have had the terminology, background and thinking patterns to study for and pass these exams. Also, last summer, he went to Summit Ministries for a Worldview session, and found that he already knew much of what was taught, and had the skills to write a research paper and earn college credit.

Now, even if your students are not going to get a PhD and teach English, the critical and analytical thinking skills and the worldview training they receive through the R level (even a pared down version) will prepare them to be able to analyze what our culture is dishing out and better stand firm in their faith. It will also well prepare them to be better parents and educated citizens. This is the kind of training that they will not get in most colleges, nor will they be likely to learn on their own.

So I heartily recommend you consider covering at least some of the R level with your child in 10th - 12th grades.

[Eia]

New to Rhetoric-so far so good http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Janet, I am always so encouraged by your posts. I have learned so much from the questions you ask and appreciate your perspective. The fact that you are able to successfully implement TOG with 10 children in your home is always inspiring to me! Thank you for sharing your experience and offering encouragement to others.

Regarding the R level, I must confess, I was very intimidated by the idea of launching R in our co-op. We started R level this year with 5 boys in grades 9 & 10. We decided to use R for both history and literature and adjust if needed along the way. We do follow the cutting and trimming charts for Y4, which have been very helpful. My background is early childhood education at a state university. I was not exposed to many of the great literary works or anything close to what is introduced in Tapestry at the R level. So, I can assure you that it's not necessary to have a strong liberal arts background or a brilliant engineering mind to tackle the material at the R level http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If you desire this for your children, but don't feel qualified, I would encourage you to step out in faith and ask the Lord to show you how to manage it. It is a lot of work, but it has been so rewarding for all of us!

Forming a co-op for the rhetoric level is one way to lighten the load for high school. The benefits of accountability and shared workload have been a tremendous blessing to our group. In our co-op, we all take turns leading the discussion. We attempt to schedule responsibilities in a way that allows each person to specialize in the area they feel most comfortable. I normally lead history discussions, but choose to sign-up for R literature some weeks to force me to step out of my comfort zone and dig into all that great material. The teacher notes are excellent and truly give you everything you need to manage the material. For me, it does require more prep time to lead literature discussions, but it gives me a better understanding of the material and allows me to support my student more effectively. After we complete each unit, the leaders meet together to assess how everyone is doing at the R level and whether or not we need to make adjustments. Although I would continue to use TOG on my own, I am so grateful to God for providing families to partner with us in this great adventure.

R level is challenging, but if you follow the guide and start slowly, you may find that it's not nearly as difficult as it appears.

Blessings,
Eia

[Sharie in Maine]

Hi Folks-
Rhetoric Lit- wow!! It is heavy and I've taught it this year using Redesign 2- I really wasn't sure I could do it (and this is my 3rd time around on Year 2- but due to our wonderful co op, have not had to teach Y2R-lit until this time around). I must confess that we are taking it at half pace(also a first for our co op- but we had 10 new kids join Rhetoric). They are amazingly getting it. Of course they don't get it all but I don't think we are looking at mastery but at how it all ties together. What's so fun is how we can tie it back to last year's topics as well, which several remember http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif-yeah!!
I have learned so much and at first I also thought it was way over their heads but now I see the purpose behind the design and appreciate how Christy has laid it all out!! I personally have read all the lit assignments as well, (ok,I skipped a few of the sonnets) but it helps me to see where the kids might have missed something or even to get excited with them about the content.

My second child doesn't read for enjoyment typically but she has enjoyed most of our selections this year as well. She needs help dissecting the information but its important to teach them how to think deeply.

My oldest, now a Jr. in college, did it all at normal pace and never balked... he has done well in college and still enjoys reading and digesting information.

I also have taught dialectic level and I do not see it as High School level material either. It really doesn't teach them to think deeply and dissect the material.

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised if you used TOG's teacher's notes at how you as the teacher, really could lead the kids through a great discussion about these wonderful classics.

[Christine TX]

Hi Marcia,
Just wanted to tell you how much I LOVE what you have done with the curriculum. I didn't mean the quote to sound like I was unhappy with it. Quite the contrary, I LOVE LOVE LOVE the flexibility in it.

I think part of my confusion in the literature may be somewhat regional. For example, I NEVER in high school, college or teaching came across the term "experiment in living." I think I understand how you use it, but I've never encountered it. Some of the terms are the same. Your meaning through form stuff was also a little deep. I know what you meant, but it felt a little stuffy. That said, my 9th grader has eaten it up. He loves poetics and frameworks and prints and reads it all on his own. He does vocabulary cards. It is so well laid out that he just goes with it and has really enjoyed it. Who would have known that my math/science child would LOVE Les Miserables and read Hunchback for fun on top of his regular TOG work!!!! Amazing.

For the OP, try the rhetoric for high school. Dialectic isn't enough. Even if you only do half of the rhetoric, you will be doing quite well.

Christine


Originally posted by Marcia:

. That said, we are aware of many students (especially older high schoolers--10th to 12th grades) around the country who use and love the program as written.

in Year 4).

Finally, a word about the class plans. Great literature is, by nature, intimidating to those who look at it from the outside. The reason that there are lengthy class plans, and vocabulary terms, and student questions is to help the *inexperienced* teacher to get a handle on great works that they have not read, and yet do a credible job with leading a student through a Socratic discussion and a meaningful analysis that helps them shape a worldview. The length of our class plans simply seem to be what it takes, work by work, to get the job done. Once you understand that the entire rhetoric Lit. program is one large SYSTEM that is intended to bring an overarching, *consistent* approach to literary analysis--and is thus teaching BOTH the system AND the application (use) of the system to individual works (while also seeking to highlight the worldview-shaping elements of the works)--you can find your feet. We hear that the system works better and better (and easier and easier) with application, use, and experience.
Hope this helps! http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Christine TX]

One thing, when I say I didn't encounter it and my teaching field is English that may not be saying much. I only needed 24 hours in a teaching field. I placed out of 6 hours of freshman English and 3 hours of English literature. So I only had to take 15 more hours. I took advanced composition, Shakespeare, romantic poets, American drama and world literature. Most of these were sophomore/junior level classes. The one senior level class I took, I was completely lost. I only chose English and history as my teaching fields because I was a music major and switched my junior year. I had more hours in those subjects. I probably would have chosen math as a teaching field if I had started out doing secondary education instead of music education. My teaching fields would have been math and English. (Strange, huh!!)

I love reading and you have to know historical background to understand literature. I had a teacher at Baylor that was SO good about applying literature to life and that is what I tried to do as a teacher. I took the romantic poets class because of her and the different teacher took it into such abstract, analysis form that I HATED it. I would rather talk about how Brutus allowed himself to be manipulated by a "friend" and how you must be careful about the friends you choose than do deep literature analysis.

One thing I love about the curriculum is the biblical base you use to discuss things. It is fun.

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Christine TX:
Hi Marcia,
Just wanted to tell you how much I LOVE what you have done with the curriculum. I didn't mean the quote to sound like I was unhappy with it. Quite the contrary, I LOVE LOVE LOVE the flexibility in it.

I think part of my confusion in the literature may be somewhat regional. For example, I NEVER in high school, college or teaching came across the term "experiment in living." I think I understand how you use it, but I've never encountered it. Some of the terms are the same. Your meaning through form stuff was also a little deep. I know what you meant, but it felt a little stuffy. That said, my 9th grader has eaten it up. He loves poetics and frameworks and prints and reads it all on his own. He does vocabulary cards. It is so well laid out that he just goes with it and has really enjoyed it. Who would have known that my math/science child would LOVE Les Miserables and read Hunchback for fun on top of his regular TOG work!!!! Amazing.

For the OP, try the rhetoric for high school. Dialectic isn't enough. Even if you only do half of the rhetoric, you will be doing quite well.

Christine



Hey, Christine,

I didn't take it that way, no worries! I just feel that everyone has a point of view, and my coming in to explain at least our intentions clarifies things for some people who may look at someone else's experience/opinion and take it at face value without understanding another point of view.

Some of the examples that you give above, such as "experiment in living" are derived from other writers about literature. What we have done is to develop a comprehensive, unique system. We've written our definitions, for instance, to be self-consistent with one another and we've created our own handbooks in Frameworks and Poetics. So, it doesn't surprise us that others have "never had this." My daughter, and Patrick Henry graduate, wrote this program from a passion to give to high school students what she herself wished she had been given--in either high school or college--a unified approach that helps students to analyze the literature on its own merits, see the worldviews that underlie it, relate it to history (through other Tapestry readings) and then apply the lessons therein to their lives. All this gets us pretty "deep"--admittedly--and it's definitely up to parents as to how far into the pool they want to swim! http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[ErikaN]

Whee! It was great to check back this AM and absorb this conversation. I very much appreciate the time and thought you ladies put into your posts. You all have given great advice, and I'll heed it! We do pull in R level books at times when I recognize them (and being a bookaholic can't pass them by...) I personally would love to wallow and bask in every book recommended by TOG, but my oldest has some very special skills pretty well diametrically opposed to literature, and that is the tension I'm feeling. How much to press the child where he struggles to follow along? My second kid will love rhetoric. We'll just keep marching along and lean toward rhetoric as able, and it will work out. I myself have as much education as a body can tolerate, totaling 7 post-graduate years, but my real challenge and education is raising six dynamic kids! By the grace of God we'll do it and do it well, and I'll merit another degree when we're done. http://tapestryofgrace.groupee.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I like the swimming analogies...so much of life we are working as hard as we can, wondering if we're in too deep, but looking back later we wouldn't trade the adventure for anything.

Thank you, thank you; Erika

[kesgrant]

ErikaN

I recommend that you try allowing your R student to use audiobooks to help with Literature. The library has many of the titles available. As I've found that students who are typically not inclined towards literature respond well when listening via audiobook while following along with the novel. You can even chose to use the abridged on unabridged reading.