Sonlight's L.A. philosophy explained...2003

Additional comments on LA 5.25.05 Because of our Language Arts philosophy, customers will run into assignments for areas they have not covered before (like complex sentences, see page 20 of the catalog for more on this). For 4th grade and up, customers should be aware that that there is a Glossary in the Language Arts IG that defines items such as "complex sentences." Also, they should have Writer's Inc. as a reference for questions like these since it is a necessary resource For 3rd grade - there isn't a glossary, but customers can still use Writer’s Inc. Since most of the material from Foundational Grammar was taken from 3TL there is no need for customers to purchase Foundational Grammar. We will add a note to the website alerting customers purchasing 4-6TL that they may want to purchase Foundational Grammar as an added resource. Some insight on why the LA programs are the way they are... [paraphrased] part of the reason the grammar is more "intense" is because of Sonlight's "desire to make the levels appropriate for multi-ages", and to get students used to hearing the terminology so it doesn't come as such a shock to them in later years.

Sonlight would rather err on the side of too much information than too little. Hopefully the guides (not Language Arts solely) give you enough information to make the curriculum flexible to the needs of your child. As far as the description in the catalog, I think the point is that people, teachers, education people in general all have different views of the amount of grammar necessary to know in order to write well. Sonlight seeks to give you the tools you need to accomplish your educational goals for your child.

How to use SL's LA First, I will say that I like these activity sheets because I have seen the results (used them all last year). Second, she really shouldn't be sitting down and doing it alone. Maybe some of these ideas will help:

1. Do half a sheet Monday after you do dictation. Then do the second half Tuesday. Half the next worksheet on Wed and finish on Thursday. Breaking it up may help.
2. Sit down with her and ask her if she feels confident about doing 1 or 2 exercises on her own. Then pick 1 or 2 others and tell her that you are going to do the discovery method. When you need to know something, do as you've already indicated - look it up in Writer's Inc. Go over the definition given there and the examples, then come up with examples yourselves. Once you think she gets it, do the worksheet exercise. Then go on to one more.
3. Each time you and she go through this process it will reinforce the concept she is trying to learn. Eventually, she won't need to look something up, and I bet by the end of the year she'll be doing 2 or 3 exercises on her own.
4. Remind her that this is a learning experience. If she already knew it all backwords and forwards, she wouldn't need to be doing grammar and usage!
5. I have my daughter use the term "teaching time" when she comes to something she needs help with. She used to be so mad at herself for not knowing it till I explained #4 above to her a few times! Now she just smiles and says "OK. Teaching time, MOM. I don't remember(or understand or "get") this term."

LA Philosophy discussions with John

Some comments about our thinking with respect to Language Arts K-2.

1. John & Sarita realize we need to EXPLAIN our philosophy and approach better in future IGs. We will seek to do that.
2. Here is an OUTLINE of (some of) what John expects we will explain.

Our focus in K-2 Language Arts is on LANGUAGE and PHONICS. When John says " language

Additional comments

It sounds to me as if, however murky things may still appear to you, they have become clear enough, in your mind, that you feel confident you "disagree" with what we've done, or are "not willing" to work with what we have provided. Moreover--and for this I am very grateful to you--you have stated quite clearly where and how and why you believe you "desire" something different from what you perceive we have done to date.

I would like to analyze what you have written about your understanding of our program so that I (and, by extension, we--i.e., Sonlight) can attempt to reply appropriately to what you have written. I want, then, to state my perspective so you and others on this forum can judge whether and to what extent you (and they) may want to change your perceptions or simply "agree to disagree."

If I read you accurately, you believe our program is "top-heavy," designed WITH THE PURPOSE "to benefit a variety of ages and stages" AND, THEREFORE, designed in such a way that, if you are to use it, you must "sift through" the material we provide "in order to ferret out usable material."

Moreover--again, if I read you accurately--you are upset because you believe our catalog description is inaccurate and/or unclear. Finally, you believe our catalog description is defective because we do not mention that (in your opinion) we have included "advanced grammar, even in the early years, which in many cases will require modification on the part of the teacher."

As you can tell, I have attempted carefully to modify my sentences here to differentiate between what I perceive as your charges against us--the things you allege--and the things that I believe are true. I want to make clear here, up front, that by making this distinction, I am not at all attempting to charge you with "lying," or "prejudice," or whatever. I "merely" want to leave some room for us to discuss (if you want to continue to discuss this), where and how and why we see things so differently.

At this time, then, will you let me attempt to "unpack" the differences in perception as I see them? Then, after I have attempted to clarify my perceptions, if you believe I have misunderstood or misconstrued or inferred something inappropriately, I will be very grateful if you will work with me to clarify further how and why you perceive things as you do.

1. Is our program "top-heavy"? Is it designed WITH THE PURPOSE "to benefit a variety of ages and stages"?

I think not. I have noticed, on the few occasions where I have observed some of this ongoing discussion, that some people would LIKE us to "clarify" what is "advanced" and what is "normal" (or something like that). They would LIKE us to provide, in each week's lesson, a series of questions that is organized according to difficulty: easier questions first, more difficult questions (for advanced students) later.

I have always had a hard time knowing how to respond to these suggestions. I have felt myself in a quandary. Sarita has felt the same. I think I am just now coming to figure out why we have been so flamboozled by these suggestions.

1. . You will notice we did NOT organize our questions in any such manner. THAT is because
2. . We did NOT design the program, from the ground up, WITH THE PURPOSE "to benefit a variety of ages and stages."

Rather, we approached this program, as we have approached virtually everything else we have ever done, with the delightful EXPECTATION that it simply WOULD, in every "Year" or "Grade" or whatever you want to call it, . . . --It simply WOULD "benefit a variety of ages and stages." That's the beauty of the "natural language" approach. That's the beauty of using "real literature" in history. That's the beauty of using discovery books in science. Everyone--including mom--gets to enjoy the opportunity of learning . . . all at the same time.

"But," I can almost hear someone object, "I have never seen anyone else touch on attribution in first grade, or mention appositives, or ask a student to identify palindromes. Therefore, from my perspective, your program is top-heavy and inappropriate for first graders."

Perhaps.

But if we are to work off of that logic, then the entire Sonlight Curriculum program--our entire approach to education--is suspect.

You mentioned awhile back that you have used Sonlight for three years. Or, rather, this is your third year to use Sonlight.

Let me tell you something about some "ancient history." From the very beginning of our existence as a company, and then ongoing until a few years before you began to use our program, we carried a book (Sarita says it was part of our Pre-K program) . . . --we carried a book that dealt with something called tesselation. I am told we no longer carry it because it went out of print.

Now. To my knowledge, before they had read this book (or read my description of it in the catalog) none of our customers had ever heard of tesselation. (I certainly had not!) None of these adults had any idea of what it was. Moreover, tesselation is a HUGE word. And NO ONE: NONE of our competitors, NO public school, NO private school, NO school in all of history, as far as we know-- . . . NO ONE included tesselation in their core curriculum. But we did.

Why? (That was crazy, wasn't it--to include a book that covers a topic that no one else studies and that touched on (or focused on--I can't remember) a concept that is referred to by means of a huge word?)

Well, crazy or not, we included that book "just for fun." And it WAS fun. And kids loved it.

I do not recall anyone ever complaining about it. I do recall that, over the years, several moms wrote to tell us how wonderful that book was, and how much pleasure they and their children got from astonishing their husbands/dads, or parents/grandparents, . . . or the cashier at the grocery store with a brief, impromptu discussion and demonstration, by a 4-year-old, of what tesselation means.

I should "take back" something I just said. I said we included the book on tesselation "just for fun." That is not entirely accurate.

We included it because we believed it provided wonderful mental exercise. And it introduced kids to just one small wonder of mathematics and patterns in the world. And we believe that when kids--even very small kids--begin to grab hold of new concepts and ideas that "older people" generally don't know: when they realize they have this special knowledge, they take special joy and pride in learning. They feel that they are receiving a very special education.

[Are they, really? Probably not. It's not as if their entire educational program is superior because they have learned what it means to tesselate. But, actually, they are receiving a special education. And the very fact that they have such fun in learning means they will, in future, learn more and more thoroughly than many of their peers.]

There is another benefit. When children realize that someone else doesn't understand something they do, they begin to figure out how to TEACH those other people. And what a wonderful blessing THAT is! . . .

There are all manner of benefits to this "method" of education: of immersing kids in thoughts and concepts and vocabulary that "no one else" teaches at the same age. The benefit comes not because we are touching on these items at the particular age we do. Rather, the benefit comes simply because we are touching on the thoughts, concepts and vocabulary. Period. Being immersed in a rich environment conveys benefits to the kids who are so immersed.

"But 'no one else' does these things!" someone objects. And we reply, "So? If the child can understand it, is there some reason we ought not to include it in the curriculum?" "But tessellation is something that 'no one' teaches until college or graduate school! That is totally ridiculous to include it in a Pre-K program!" Maybe. . . . Or maybe not.

No one ever complained that our Pre-K program was "top heavy" or inappropriate for 3- and 4-year-olds because we included a book on tesselation.

1. . Is Sonlight's Language Arts program designed in such a way that, if you are to use it, you must "sift through" the material we provide "in order to ferret out usable material"?

I don't think so. I believe it is ALL useable. The question(s) you must answer are these:

1. Do I want to use it?

And,

1. How much (what portion of it) do I want to use?

To use the analogy that Paula H once suggested about a banquet: it is not as if any of the food at the banquet is inedible (or, on our side of the analogy, it is not as if any of the material Sonlight includes in the First Year Language Arts program is unuseable by a child with the reading skills described in our catalog); the question is only how much of the food you want and/or are able to eat. If I recall accurately, Sarita has suggested that parents should normally limit the time a child is "required" to work on his or her Language Arts Activity Sheets to about 15 minutes a day. Some kids will blast through; some kids won't make it past two or three questions.

To use another analogy. Our second daughter just went off to art college. She said she has been struggling mightily in her drawing class. It takes her an entire three-hour class period to barely finish a SINGLE drawing when her classmates have finished THREE! It drives her a bit nuts. But she is building skills. And some of her classmates may have "gotten" those skills almost instantaneously. Some of them may not have the skills Jonelle is seeking to acquire. Some of them may never gain those skills . . . because they are unwilling to invest the time and effort into the learning process that Jonelle is investing. . . .

Should Jonelle's profs back off because Jonelle "can't" (or "won't") do what her classmates can (or will)? I don't think so. And Jonelle doesn't think so, either. So she struggles. But she is--she really is--gaining skills and building an understanding. And her speed is improving, too.

1. . Is our catalog description inaccurate and/or unclear?

Quite possibly. Maybe I should say, quite probably. . . . Which is why I will readdress it when I begin to work again on next year's catalog.

Right now, I am buried in trying to finish the revisions of our 8th Year BASIC program. And I would really prefer, if AT ALL possible, to try to keep my focus on that, to whatever degree I can.

1. . Have we included "advanced grammar, even in the early years, which in many cases will require modification on the part of the teacher"?

I don't think so. We have included references to words that aren't usually touched on by grammarians until very late in high school (if ever). I know I had never heard of an appositive until a year or so ago. But, then, I had never heard of a tesselation, either, until Sarita found that strange book 12 years ago!

In the introductions to our Language Arts guides, I believe I have said something about approaching the activity sheets like a game, a parlor game, a game of Scrabble with Grandpa at Christmastime.

ENJOY the PROCESS. Don't get all uptight about who "wins"! The benefit--the benefit, really, of Scrabble--arises from the PROCESS.

The fact that your child learns to play with language; the fact that s/he manipulates letters, that s/he generates or recognizes rhymes, that s/he recognizes palindromes, that s/he rearranges sentences that contain attributions: all of these exercises, over time, provide enormous benefits: benefits of confidence, benefits of mental agility, benefits of greater awareness, benefits of being able to take pleasure even in the small things (like three-letter palindromes, or rhyming couplets ("cat" and "sat")), benefits, even, perhaps (sometime LONG in the future!), of passing some kind of exam on advanced grammar.

Sorry. At this point, I sense no need to apologize for the program (the Activity Sheets) we have provided you. I am an unrepentant admirer of (what to me is) a program that offers wonderfully rich and pleasurable opportunities for anyone who is willing, simply, to "take it for what it's worth"--a collection of intellectually stimulating, linguistically profitable, EDUCATIONAL parlor games that will yield tremendous benefits for years to come.

That's my take on the "situation."

Let me conclude with some comments about my tone. I am concerned that you may think I have attempted to "put you down" or question your integrity. It has been my intent to do nothing of the sort. I have attempted studiously to focus my comments on the CONTENT and SUBSTANCE of your message.

I believe you have spoken relatively passionately and with conviction for some time, now. I have attempted, in this one post, to respond with similar force from my perspective.

I believe you have written with passion and conviction because, in integrity, you have believed in what you have had to say. I have replied from the same basis of conviction.

Let me assure you, I hold you in very high regard, and I believe you have written as you have from extremely HIGH motives. In whatever regard you happen to hold me, I pray you will recognize that I have attempted to write, here, from only the highest motives myself. Thank you for "listening" (all the way to the end of this VERY long message! [s]). I hope this may have been of some help.

Additional discussion

There is an "aha!" kind of DISCOVERY quality to the SL LA program. I think you will find it for yourself, and your son will find it, too. And, so . . . yes. You may feel like you (and your son) are being faced with a "quiz" each day, but eventually, through repeatedly "testing" yourselves against the problems and rereading the definitions and seeing how SL answers the questions . . . one day, probably about six or seven or eight weeks down the pike, SUDDENLY it will all snap sharply into focus. And neither you nor your son will ever forget what you have learned by discovery. And, better yet, you will be able to APPLY what you have learned . . . not merely in ANALYZING sentences, but in WRITING sentences. That has been my experience. That has been many other people's experience.

I just received a letter from someone today who wrote, SL's LA is not a plug-and-chug grammar program. The answers are not obvious. Easy Grammar is very much plug-and-chug. Each page has just one or two concepts and all the sentence structures are nearly identical on a single worksheet and they all look just like the examples. I used it as a supplement to SL LA before you offered the worksheets. My dd was able to get all the right answers and still wasn't able to apply the knowledge she had supposedly gained. LLATL is set up similar to Saxon. You learn one concept. You practice it and practice it and practice it using very basic examples while reviewing previous concepts. The answers are nearly always obvious because the simplest possible examples are used. You don't really have to THINK to get the correct answers. . . .

The best comparison I can make for SL LA worksheets is to Singapore Math. You get a brief introduction and then use it in a real-life application. Real-life can be messy. It is much more challenging. . . .

The SL LA worksheets provide real-life applications for grammar. It is a challenging program, but one that can yield excellent results because it is also engaging. I cannot comment on her analyses of other programs or her mathematics program analogies. I don't know how the other LA programs work.

But I sense her description of SL's LA is pretty accurate. I hope this has been helpful.