Name: Thrive! NCHE Homeschool Conference
Start: 2025-05-22T00:00:00-05:00
End: 2025-05-24T23:59:59-05:00
Location: Winston-Salem, NC

This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by Brianna.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

Author
Posts
March 5, 2016 at 12:19 pm
KeriJ
Participant
I’m so close to embracing the CM philosophy of language arts. I really am. 🙂 But I still have a few reservations I’d love help in clarifying.
I understand the differences between a CM education and a classical/WTM education. and for the most part I lean CM, though I still follow a few of the principles from TWTM. So it’s hard for me to give up some ideas that are ingrained in me.
Specifically, I’d love some help (Sonya, I’d love to hear your thoughts if you read this) processing this quote from Susan Wise Bauer from The Well Trained Mind: “Grammar is the single language-skill area that you should study every year through senior high. Grammar, usage, and mechanics must become completely automatic for truly mature reading and writing to take place. And although the (middle school) student has been exposed to all of the grammar skills he needs, the skill haven’t yet had time to become part of his mental apparatus.”
Thoughts??
March 5, 2016 at 7:52 pm
HollyS
Participant
Our school is a bit of CM and a bit of classical/WTM. I see great value in both methods, and there is quite a bit of overlap between the two. I will say grammar is one area where I lean more towards WTM methods. While we don’t do heavy grammar, I do include it every year.
I think there is quite a bit of grammar with CM that many people don’t necessarily see at first. You can include gentle grammar with writing and dictation. Latin (which CM students definitely covered) includes quite a bit of grammar. My DS learned several languages while at the seminary, and it made him the grammar expert here and he credits it to learning those languages.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with following either method or landing somewhere in the middle. I’m actually more drawn to classical language art programs than CM…although I could never follow classical methods to a “T” either.
March 6, 2016 at 3:20 am
Melanie32
Participant
It all depends on what your priorities are. Is the formal study of grammar very important to you? Do you agree with Susan Wise Bauer? Do her words ring true in your experience?
If so, then you would probably want to teach formal grammar every year. Otherwise you won’t be at peace with your homeschool plans.
Susan Wise Bauer’s words don’t ring true to me, personally. Charlotte Mason’s teaching on grammar just make sense to me. I also love what Ruth Beechick has to say about grammar.
Ultimately you have to go with a decision that will bring you peace as you homeschool your children. I think it’s perfectly fine to add a formal grammar program to a Charlotte Mason educational program. Doing so certainly won’t make or break a CM education.
March 6, 2016 at 6:52 am
nebby
Participant
Personally I think grammar, like many other subjects, can be learned more quickly and efficiently if one waits till the child is s bit older. A year of grammar in 8th grade can take the place of many years with a younger child. IMO there is really just not that much to learn for a native speaker who had been exposed to good writing. Incidentally it has also been shown that math can be learned quite efficiently this way too. I also don’t think most approaches to grammar are that helpful. Typical workbook type exercises don’t seem to carry over into students’ own writing very well. I like the approach of KISS grammar which is functional (what does this word do? Not What part of speech is it?). I do do some grammar with my younger kids but it is very casual. At this point my 5th and 6th grader are doing 5 min a week. I am writing a story (supposedly told by my dd’s stuffed dog) and they fix the errors. My idea is that this will give practice for editing their own writing later.
March 7, 2016 at 9:26 am
Sonya Shafer
Moderator
Some of the discussion depends on how the word “grammar” is defined, I think. Some people use it as an all-encompassing term that includes punctuation, capitalization, word study, parts of speech, sentence analysis, and more. Others use it to refer just to parts of speech and sentence analysis. So that distinction is something to keep in mind when trying to figure out different philosophies.
I’m not sure how the author you mentioned is defining “grammar,” so I won’t give an opinion on that quote; however, I’ll be happy to jot down a few thoughts on some general philosophy differences that I see between the modern classical approach with the trivium and CM.
One of the biggest differences is in which comes first: analyzing or seeing the big picture. It seems like classical puts analysis first—looking at the pieces; then later, shows how the pieces fit together. Charlotte gave children the big pictures first, allowing them to form their own connections between them, and introduced some analyzing later after that foundation had been laid.
So for parts of speech, for example, she gave children a rich environment of good books and plenty of time to hear the English language well used. She gave them opportunities to use the language for themselves in oral narration. Then from that foundation, and when they were developmentally ready to think in abstract term, she introduced the analyzing part. Parts of speech is a very abstract concept, because it deals not just with words but with words and where they are placed in a sentence and how they relate to each other.
Another big difference I see between modern classical and CM is in the goal of education. It seems that classical is focused on exercising the mind, whereas Charlotte’s goal is to feed the mind with good ideas. Now, given the right quality of ideas the mind will naturally go to work. But that was not her main focus.
Another question I would have regarding the quote, along with defining “grammar,” is Are the children supposed to be going over the same material every year or is it more of introducing some one year then continually expanding on that and building on that in subsequent years? Charlotte would not endorse repeating the same lessons/material every year. She emphasized teaching something once, expecting the children to pay full attention, then holding them responsible for what they learned. They were expected to apply the concepts they learned in grammar, for example, in subsequent years; but the same material would not be rehashed every year.
The new video in the Learning Library, The Natural Progression of Language Arts, might be helpful in seeing how parts of speech/grammar fits into a CM philosophy.
I hope these thoughts help a bit. 🙂
March 7, 2016 at 1:14 pm
KeriJ
Participant
Thank you so much for all of these thoughts. and thank you, Sonya, for replying. Still much to ponder.
From my own experience: I was a huge reader as a child, and my mom read aloud to us regularly from classic literature. In school, English Grammar class was very easy for me, which I’m sure was a result of all the reading. But now, as I check someone’s writing (my preacher husband, for instance) I am able to tell them when something is incorrect, but not always able to tell them why it is incorrect. So I see the value of knowing grammar concepts well. I worry, like the quote I mentioned above, that it is one of those things that, if not reviewed, will be forgotten. (Though I suppose referring to a grammar handbook would be an option at that point.) I can see what SWB means by it being a skill that needs become automatic. (I also see value to her position that diagramming sentences will allow students to identify incorrect writing)
Right now, we use Rod and Staff English (and some CLE) in a somewhat gentle way. It does “repeat” material each year, although it goes a little further in depth each time around.
I think what I’m looking for is a better understanding of what all is covered in ULW and whether or not the information will stick over the long-term.
But at this point, I’m probably rambling a little bit. Thank you for letting me process through some thoughts here. 🙂 I truly love SCM and how much I have been helped in my homeschooling through the information here!

March 8, 2016 at 10:34 am
Sonya Shafer
Moderator
If you download the samples of the ULW teacher books, you will find a complete list of what is covered in those studies. Those lists should give you a good idea of the range and scope.
As to how well it is retained, I think some of that depends on the student and how God made him. Many of us went through a school system in which grammar, usage, and mechanics were taught every year; however, not everyone retained or even fully comprehended all of those points. Not everyone is bent toward being a grammarian.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think communicating clearly, accurately, and attractively is very important; but there is a lot more to achieving that goal than just learning parts of speech and punctuation rules and such. A lot of good writing has to do with the living ideas that are being communicated. Without the living ideas, there is no substance. The mechanics help communicate the ideas, but simply studying the rules and mechanics does not guarantee a good writer—or a good reader, for that matter.
I’ve been pondering this over the past day or so. Many people you and I know are gifted in other areas of life besides working with the written word and have valuable ideas to share. Some are bent more toward expressing ideas through speaking or music or art or building or cooking, etc. Some of our children may be gifted in those ways. And while we should give them the tools that will help them communicate effectively in writing, we also need to make sure we don’t hold that art form up as the ultimate test of education. We want to help them communicate in writing, but we don’t want to give them the impression that other forms of communication are inferior. It can be tricky to maintain that balance.
I guess it all comes back to Charlotte’s foundational tenet: The child is a person.
Thanks for sharing your valuable thoughts and ideas; they are helping me ponder. This is a good discussion. 🙂
March 8, 2016 at 1:41 pm
KeriJ
Participant
Sonya, thank you so much for sharing your wisdom. I have learned much from you through the years.

March 8, 2016 at 4:22 pm
Rachel White
Participant
Th quote by Bauer specified high school, so I don’t see that as a contradiction of CM’s waiting for grammar specific instruction till later
Start teaching it in 4th/5th/6th; more intensely in the middle years, then continually review it through high school and also the foreign languages reinforce, too
Writer’s Inc is useful tool and Our Mother Tongue for review, solidifying concepts through high school; after taking grammar specific courses beforehand
March 9, 2016 at 7:21 am
KeriJ
Participant
That’s a good point Rachel. I already wait until 3rd grade to begin more formal grammar. (Even then, we’re still pretty gentle here)
March 9, 2016 at 4:26 pm
KeriJ
Participant
Sonya, may I ask if you are planning to include grammar review in the last 2 ULW books?
March 9, 2016 at 5:54 pm
Sonya Shafer
Moderator
The grammar review in the last books will most likely take the form of referring to words by their grammar labels in the instructions and comments, assuming the student knows them. We will most likely have a review section in the teacher book and might give a reminder to the student the first time a term is reused; but right now I’m thinking that the lessons will be worded in such a way that assumes the student has learned the parts of speech and sentence analysis covered in previous books. So the review will be “built in,” if you will. Does that make sense?
March 9, 2016 at 7:03 pm
KeriJ
Participant
That makes sense. Thank you. I know you don’t have a projected date for when this series will be finished, but I’m excited about it!
July 17, 2016 at 10:35 pm
Kandi
Participant
Following.
July 18, 2016 at 6:41 am
Brianna
Participant
I think part of the thought process also needs to be the natural tendencies of the child. For example, I started by dd7 in the classical method, and she became very easily frustrated and disinterested because (as I see now), she is not developmentally ready for analytical concepts. Is she learning when her feelings toward a subject negative? Perhaps, but not as well as she should be. I switched to a wholly CM approach about 8 months ago and the difference now is dramatic. She may still grumble a bit about narration here and there, but our overall our school days flow by easily now and her natural love of learning is re-surfacing (that was a big learning experience for me, too!).
So if your child or children are more analytical at this age, they may do better with the classical method. This is a good discussion and I’m glad you brought it up, because I still struggle sometimes with how “I” want to do school (I like many aspects of the classical method) versus what style of learning is best for her. I’m interested to hear how you progress through this. 🙂