LTW Journal 9/18

(previous LTW journal entry)

(all LTW journal posts)

We have been bogged down in Invention.  I am surprised.  I would have predicted slow and muddy progress through Arrangement or Elocution, but not Invention.  We're creative at our house, right?

In Lesson 2, students are asked to list twenty affirmative, twenty negative and twenty interesting points about their issues.  My students had a hard time!  Their issues this time are taken from government and politics, so it may have been subject matter, but they even struggled to find twenty things in favor of 'their' sides.

In order to list sixty different points on an issue, you have to know it very well.

We reviewed the questions to ask several times.  Each time, the girls went back to researching answers on their own, but still came up short.  Finally, we all sat down together and worked as a team to put twenty things on each list. (20 on Aravis' affirmative, 20 on her negative, 20 on her interesting; 20 on Mariel's affirmative, 20 on her negative, 20 on her interesting.)  We were stuck in Invention for two weeks!

Also, I failed to notice that Lesson 2 Invention is an *introduction* to the Five Topics and questions.  I got a bit discouraged that the girls weren't embracing these new tools.  But we are going to handle each Topic in detail in future Invention lessons!  Note to self:  do more than just scan the Teacher's Guide.

LTW Journal 10/19: Finding an Issue

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.) 

I realized this week that several posters on the LTWMentor group write essays along with their students, following the guidelines of their classes' current lessons.  I have not been doing that, although I consider our practice essay somewhat my own.  In this essay cycle, I decided to go through the process myself, doing everything I am requiring of my kids.

We are in Invention this week, so I have to find an issue.  LTW does not give too much guidance on actually picking something to write about.  I told the kids that this essay needs to be about what they are reading for school.  I am reading several books with the kids.  Gathering fodder for an essay is tough, so I want to pick a book that fascinates me.  Here are the ones I find most interesting:

1.  Plutarch's Life of Crassus
2.  Paul Johnson's History of the American People (currently dealing with 1880s-1920s)
3.  This Country of Ours (currently reading about the 1800s)
4.  Testament of Youth by Vera Brittain
5.  The Bible (Matthew/Leviticus)
6.  Emma by Jane Austen
7.  The New World (Henry VIII just established the Church of England)
8.  As You Like It by Mr. William Shakespeare

Next I need to discover anything debatable in these books-- an issue.  In other words, a topic that can be turned into a 'whether', ie., "Whether Boromir should have tried to take the Ring from Frodo".  (That is our practice essay issue.)  I did not peek into the books to make my list because I want to pick an issue that inspires me to wonder.  Off the top of my head, I wonder:

1. Whether Crassus should have decimated the legion
2a. Whether Congress should have dismantled the Standard Oil Trust
2b. Whether Congress should have enacted the Robinson-Patman Act (also known as the Anti-Price-Discrimination Act)
3. Whether General Jackson should have conquered Florida
4.  Hmm...
5.  (Sort of hard to find a debate in the commands of God (Leviticus).  Ditto for Matthew, since we are reading Christ's sermons.)
6.  Whether Harriet should have refused Robert Martin.
7.  Whether Henry should have broke away from the Catholic Church.
8.  Whether it is better to live at the ducal court or in the wilderness.

Here my two favorites:

*  Whether Crassus should have decimated the legion
*  Whether Congress should have dismantled the Standard Oil Trust

In the next LTW Journal post, I will let you know which one I picked. :)

LTW Journal 10/20

Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

A thought I have been pondering:

These rudimentary lessons bring essay-writing down to its lowest common denominator, enabling students to learn a process.  I hesitate to be happy about that.  As I work on my own basic persuasive essay, I find that I want to go deeper and explore the issue more than the form allows. 

As an autonomous adult student, I can break out of the basic rules in LTW in order to explore the issue, but I wonder about students enrolled in a class or being taught this at home by their parents.  They will be brought back to simplicity if they want to include elements not yet covered.  I have already done this once or twice with my own kids.  The student may adhere to form while either struggling internally over what he wants to SAY or pacifying himself with his passing grade.   When lessons are made simple, it is tempting to believe that getting 100 means you have everything you need, when in reality it is only the beginning of understanding.  How do you teach simplified lessons without lowering the standard? 

I have tried going from complex to simple.  I originally taught the Essay to my oldest by having her rewrite great essays-- a method described by Benjamin Franklin in his Autobiography.  Franklin successfully learned to write by doing this, but I am not sure our attempts were effective.  Now I am going the opposite route, moving from simple to complex.  It is easier, but the temptation to lower standards bothers me.  I would love to hear from folks who have successfully used LTW and can explain how it actually raises both a student's standards and the quality of his writing.

LTW Journal

We started Lost Tools of Writing yesterday. I want to keep a journal of how things go with this program-- I have such high hopes for it. My plan is to post twice per week.

Aravis (16) and Mariel (13) will be doing the program, but not Cornflower. I may casually incorporate some ideas into her composition instruction, but she won't be in the full-blown program.

Yesterday was our first day. I listened to the instruction CDs during a cross-country trip we took a couple of weeks ago, so the kids (especially Aravis) had some taste of it already. As a result, we whizzed through the introductory lesson (supposed to take two class periods) and got into the first day of Lesson 1. I had done ANI charts with the kids before, but didn't fully understand all the ins and outs, so some portions were new to us. We decided to deal with the issue of whether Boromir should have tried to take the Ring from Frodo.

We thought it would be difficult to come up with affirmatives, but it was actually harder to find negatives! Even though we all instinctively take the negative side of the issue, as we reasoned it through, we discovered how easy it must have been for him to convince himself he was doing the right thing. Wow.

Now they have their own ANIs to make for Thursday. More to come!

LTW Journal 10/9

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)

We are finishing Lesson 2 Elocution.

FYI:  The program is organized into three-week, three part lessons.  Each week we focus on a different canon, or "body of rules".  (LTW is based on the first three of the five canons of classical rhetoric:  Invention, Arrangement and Elocution.)  We whizzed through the first lesson, but the second one took longer than three weeks!  As long as we learn the material, I am okay with that.  But back to my subject.

One of the friendly people on the LTWMentors yahoo group helped me quite a bit by pointing out that I was making grammatical parallelism more complicated than it needs to be at this stage.  I needed to hear that.  I tend toward an inflexible attitude when teaching a new format, and run the risk of exasperating my children with too much detail work.

So.  The nouns do not have to be the same exact word.  They just have to be nouns.  Yay.  Sometimes things really are as simple as they look.

What follows are the first paragraphs of the girls' introductory persuasive essays.  I hesitated to post these, as they are political in nature.  Therefore, I might get unnecessary political traffic on my educational blog.  So if you are reading this post to find out more on Rick Perry or the TSA, please understand that we are doing a junior high/high school academic writing exercise.  We are not looking to debate these issues.  Yet.  Let us master our rhetoric skills first.  :)

(I wanted to use the Boromir/Frodo practice essay, but we did a lot of new work on it last week and I cannot find my notes.  Phrasing the proofs in different ways taught us more perfectly what we were trying to prove, so we decided to alter the proofs.  I'll post all that later if/when I find it.  :disorganized:)

They both ended up with subject, verb, direct object as their grammar in parallel.  (We found it much easier to rearrange words if we first analyzed the proof sentences a la Winston Grammar.)  These paragraphs are very simplistic, so remember (with me) that our efforts will get more refined over time.  Right now we are learning the form.

Aravis, age 17

The TSA should not be able to pat us down or put us through full-body scanners for three reasons. The TSA searches invade privacy, violate the law and do not catch terrorists.

Mariel, age 14

Rick Perry should be President of the United States of America for three reasons. He is a Republican, he shows leadership qualities, and he gets great results.

 

(For the record, her father and I are leaning more toward Herman Cain.  Again, not looking for a debate on the subject.  If you want to debate my husband, you can do so on FB.)

LTW Journal 9/20

I accidentally deleted my LTW post from yesterday!  What follows is my rewrite, hopefully a bit more succinct and coherent! 

Yesterday we began the Arrangement portion of Lesson 2.  It was time to group all the kids' affirmative and negative ideas into groups according to kind.  Using the practice essay issue, the girls made five groups and used the most 'telling point' in each as the main proof. Then they selected the three strongest supporting point in each as subproofs.  They discarded the two weakest groups.  They also had to decide which side of the issue they would argue.  Here are Mariel's groups (we worked together while Aravis worked on her own):

Issue:  Whether Boromir should have taken the Ring from Frodo.

(She chose the negative, so her thesis is:  Boromir should not have taken the Ring from Frodo.)

% Boromir was angry and irrational.

i)  Boromir was under the Ring's spell
ii)  Boromir was concerned with saving Gondor
iii)  Boromir was a spoiled, favored son

#  Frodo was idealistic

i) Frodo sacrificed a lot
ii) Frodo cared for all of Middle Earth
iii)  Frodo was chosen by the Council and the Ring

+  Authorities knew the Ring should go to Frodo

i) The Ring was hypnotic
ii)  The Ring was too powerful for anyone
iii) Aragorn knew the Ring needed to go to Frodo

Interesting note:  Mariel discovered not just one, but three of her ideas on the affirmative side were actually negatives!  So she moved them over.

Also during this process, Mariel and I noticed that the arguments are only as good as the ANIs.  We could only work with what we had.  Then came the resolve to make better ANI charts in the next essay cycle.

One thing I really like about this curriculum is the way these needs emerge rather than being foisted upon us before we realize their importance.

I am very happy we are using an issue from LOTR.  Every time we talk about it we go deeper.  When Mariel said that Boromir was only concerned about Gondor, Aravis and I realized he was a nationalist, and there followed a brief discussion on LOTR as political commentary.  Tolkien was a genius.

Their homework assignment is to go through the same process using their actual Lesson 2 ANIs-- the political issues they chose during Lesson 2 Invention.

LTW Journal 9/5

NOTE: Blogger changed on me and I cannot figure out how to insert paragraph breaks! I hope it isn't too confusing. I'll try to figure it out as soon as I can. And now on to the post...

Additional note: I figured it out, but it's pretty time-consuming to fix. I hope there is an easier solution I just haven't found out about yet.

Yes, we did school this morning. I couldn't explain it to the kids, but it just seemed like we ought to. Anyway, today we started Lesson 2: Invention.

We decided to keep the Boromir/Frodo issue as the practice essay for both Aravis and Mariel, because they both have strong opinions on it, and I have read that book. Lol. The practice essay is used as the "dry run" for new techniques before using them in the "real" essay.

Today we learned how to ask questions of our issue in order to generate more ideas. LTW does this in five topics or categories. I'm not going to list the categories or questions because I don't want to get too detailed. I want you to go buy the program at Circe Institute if you think it would fit your family. :)

I will tell about one question which dealt with what witnesses thought. The practice essay issue is from _The Fellowship of the Ring_: whether Boromir should have tried to take the ring from Frodo? This is our list of what witnesses thought--

1. Aragorn said it should go to Frodo.

2. Gandalf said it was Frodo's responsibility.

3. Saruman believed in survival of the fittest.

4. Elrond said it was Frodo's.

5. Denethor wanted the ring. (He was insane.)

6. Gollum thought he should have it. (He was insane as well.)

7. The people of Middle Earth, for the most part, did not know what was happening.

8. The Elves did not think it could be destroyed.

These statements are judged by the student, who places them in one of the ANI lists-- affirmative, negative or interesting. Each of the five topics (categories) contains several questions. We generated eight relevant statements from one question! Wow.

The kids enjoyed this process immensely. In fact, I tried to wrap it up after forty minutes, but we had only gotten through the first three topics and they did not want to stop!

For Thursday, they are to 1) list twenty things in each ANI list for their practice essays, and 2) think of a U.S. government question/issue for the Lesson 2 essay (the "real" one). Their daddy picked the essay topic.

LTW Journal 10/25

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)   

Most controversies would soon be ended, if those engaged in them would first accurately define their terms, and then adhere to their definitions.  --Tryon Edwards

We stayed in Invention today.  First we took turns reading our definitions.  The LTW way of defining a term causes us to look at both generalities and specifics.  We have to keep our focus on the actual issue, too.  At our house we tend to randomly include ALL the possibilities and go off on tangents, but definitions ought to discriminate.

After definitions, the kids turned in their ANI charts.  Aravis was distressed because she only had around eighteen things on each list.  (We were going for thirty.)  She had detailed sentences for most of her points, sometimes several lines long.  I was sure she already had thirty things on each list!  I told her to list only one detail per bullet point.  She was relieved.

On Thursday, we will move into Arrangement and learn about the exordium.  I am excited.  The exordium is the introductory part of the essay.  At our house we have always called it the hook.  This is the part where the writer reels us in and we as readers decide whether we want to stay.

I started this post with an exordium.  I came up with several others, too:

* Three out of five members of our family are learning to write using Lost Tools of Writing.


* There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire to become a great writer.  When asked to define great, he said, "I want to write stuff that the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl in pain and anger!"   

He now works for Microsoft writing error messages.


* Dare to define! 


 * I first learned about defining terms from Mortimer J. Adler in How to Read a Book.  He said to me, "Reader, you cannot understand where an author is coming from until you know his terms."  (Okay, I am paraphrasing a bit.)


 * Imagine a world where words have no meaning. 

LTW Journal: 10/24

Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)   

While the Warrior Poet watches the Rangers in the World Series, I am keeping him company.  Well, sort of.  We are in the same room, but I am working on my ANI chart for the question, "Should the Supreme Court have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust?"

I have been working on this ANI chart for several days now. On the one hand, I think it is terrific.  It makes me slow down.  I have a sense of leisure about developing my opinion since I need thirty items each for affirmative, negative and interesting.  (I might as well wait until I have all of them before deciding.)  I need that time and additional information to correct my faulty notions about the issue, too.

On the other hand, it is torture.  It forces me to look at all sides of the issue! Besides being time-consuming, looking at all sides of an issue means I cannot get comfortable with a straightforward answer.

If I had chosen an issue from an organizing story, in which good and evil are presented in black and white, it would be easier.  Perhaps this is what my middle schooler needs as she learns the concepts in LTW.  But my issue this go-round is one of the first debates between big business and government in the U.S.  And it just is not that simple.  My middle schooler's issue this time is "whether Mr. Elton should have married Harriet Smith."  Much simpler than mine, but not quite an organizing story issue!

I learned about organizing stories in a book on learning differences.  Interestingly, I cannot find any info on it by googling. Organizing stories are fairy tales, parables, etc., that help us "organize" our ideas about good moral character.  Opposite are the more complex, mixed-bag stories in which people aren't only good or only evil.  In organizing stories, good always wins.  Children need organizing stories in their young lives.  They realize early on that "something is everywhere and always amiss."  They need to know that dragons can and will be slain.  And I am beginning to think issues from those types of stories are the simplest to debate when beginning to learn the persuasive essay!  Get all the messy issues out of the way while learning the process!  But I don't know.  It is wonderful the way these messy issues make us think.

Some folks believe that an issue like the dismantling of the Standard Oil Trust does contain characters stolidly good or certainly evil.  That is not what I found, though.  John D. Rockefeller and his cronies were complicated guys.  People representing the U.S. government, whether politicians or statesmen, had to grapple with their own interests as well as governing principles. The world was exploding with new processes and unprecedented success in many areas.  Failure flew in the face of such possibilities.  And people tried to fix things.

Today the world is exploding with children who think they can fix things.  Are these kids that did not have the benefit of organizing stories or never moved beyond them?  I wonder.  Probably the reason is something altogether different.  But they do seem to lack a sense of reality.

Now I am rambling!  I will stop.

Updated 10/28:  That last paragraph about lacking a sense of reality has bothered me ever since I published this post.  You mean we cannot fix things?  You mean we have to move beyond the idea that dragons can and will be slain?  That's not what I meant.  I was trying to make sense of my mind's intuitive leaps:  Katie, have you considered this?  Have you considered that? etc.  I need to be cautious about hitting 'publish' in the midst of ruminating!

We do not need to give up the idea that dragons can and will be slain.  They can be.  They will be.  But we need to understand that human beings are fallible-- more than that, they can be stupid, and greedy, and even evil (in some areas) at the same time that they are kind and generous and good (in other areas).  People are weird.  They have blind spots.  NO ONE is going to behave righteously every time.  Sad, but true.  It is just not going to happen.  That is reality here on earth.

The broader reality is that the good is coming, and it will not be ushered in by earthly governments, or by pure capitalism, or by parents or teachers or students or bosses or workers getting everything "right".

Should we try to get everything right?  Yes, we should.  We won't make it, but we will get closer than if we don't try.  Should we be surprised when others do not get it right?  No, we shouldn't.  People are unrighteous.  Should we work toward improving the likelihood that people will do right?  Yes.  (I'm sure I don't have to point out that we as individuals do not get it right either.  We all already know that about ourselves.  Right?)

As a nation we need to understand that people sin.  This is wisdom.  We also need to learn how our systems work.  Unfortunately, a lot of what gets passed off as teaching is merely talking points for one agenda or another.  When we learn to value mercy and truth more than we value our own 'side', we will be able to educate our children.  Perhaps then our children will be able to articulate what they think is right and wrong about the world, and act effectively in the direction of right, instead of flailing around in anger.  But only if they first understand that all have sinned, and do sin, and will sin.

Updated 10/27 to add a great article that illustrates the impact of reality on idealogy.

LTW Journal 9/27

(Previous Lost Tools of Writing posts)

Today's session was exciting.  I thought so, at least.  After last week's feeling that the sub-proofs were "off" somehow, I was encouraged by the LTWMentor group to decide whether to deal with logic now or work up to it in the next lesson.  Since Aravis has studied logic and Mariel has been introduced to it, I decided to mention sequitur and non sequitur and see what happened. 

Yesterday I visited with Mariel about how a point either "follows" an assertion or it does not.  If a point "doesn't follow," it is a logical fallacy, which makes a very weak argument.  She pointed out that no one was going to read her little essay and asked if it really mattered.  I listed the various ways she would use her persuasive abilities throughout her life.  She hadn't thought of it that way and decided she should practice persuasion now.  This made me happy.  :)  I asked her to find the unity (unifying thought-- this is from How to Read a Book) for each of her groups.  After some questioning and discussion, she had actual main proofs to go above her sub-proofs.  Then she determined which sub-proofs were strongest and edited her outline. 

(Aravis' sub-points followed her main proofs already.)

This morning we went to work on the practice essay outline.  We ended up rewriting the main proofs.  Discussion was lively.  As we talked about the third proof, Mariel objected to using only wise authorities that favored Frodo, saying that we were not considering both sides of the argument.  I rejoiced inwardly and explained that Mariel was exactly right, and that later we were going to add an excellent element called "refutation", but first we needed to get the foundations straight and strong.  And I saw the light dawn for Aravis, who has felt a little like the rudimentary essays are a waste of time.  Now she is ready to do the tedious early work.

THEN Aravis mentioned Matthew Henry's commentary on Leviticus.  We are reading that along with the book of Leviticus for our Bible twice a week.  Mr. Henry got poetic this morning with his comments on the meat offering.  Here is the portion we talked about:

Leaven is the emblem of pride, malice, and hypocrisy, and honey of sensual pleasure. The former are directly opposed to the graces of humility, love, and sincerity, which God approves; the latter takes men from the exercises of devotion, and the practice of good works. Christ, in his character and sacrifice, was wholly free from the things denoted by leaven; and his suffering life and agonizing death were the very opposites to worldly pleasure. His people are called to follow, and to be like him.

See how it fits with Boromir and Frodo?  Aravis said we could contrast Frodo's fitness as Ringbearer with Boromir's lack of fitness.  This sort of gets into the Elocution portion of the lesson, which I hadn't planned to teach until Thursday... but I went ahead and talked about "parallelism" and how we were setting up a lovely opportunity to employ that scheme.

It was like being in a fast-moving stream, teaching that class this morning.  We are heading somewhere good.

Here is the revised practice essay outline:

(the old outline for comparison)

%Boromir was not fit to be Ringbearer:

1)  He was spoiled.
2)  He was obsessed with saving Gondor.
3)  He was a Man.

#Frodo was fit to be Ringbearer:

1)  He was humble.
2)  He wanted to save Middle Earth
3)  He was chosen by the Council and the Ring

+Wise authorities chose Frodo.

1)  Aragorn let Frodo go.
2)  Gandalf refused the Ring when Frodo offered it to him.
3)  Galadriel resisted the Ring when Frodo offered it to her.

LTW Journal 10/13: Defining Boromir

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)

One of the five tools in the Invention canon is Definition. Aravis and I went through workbook exercise to come up with this definition for Boromir:

"Boromir is the member of the Fellowship who does not want the Ring destroyed."

One result of this exercise was our realization that Boromir's motives place him directly in conflict with the rest of the Fellowship. Everyone else is committed to destroying the Ring by helping Frodo get to Mordor so he can throw it in the fire. But Boromir thinks he can use the Ring to destroy Sauron.

Cornflower observed and made comments, but Mariel was sick and stayed in bed. Cornflower then wanted to define her own term, so she and I came up with this about Sir Kay in the King Arthur legend:

"Sir Kay is a man who is Sir Ector's real son."

As the girls discovered, the exercise is a bit like a Venn diagram: How is this thing like others of its kind? How is it different?

The essay for this three-week cycle will be student's choice-- anything that has to do with their reading for school this year. I'm done giving them tough topics! Learning the form is tough enough.

Update:  Mariel is feeling better.  We worked together to come up with another definition for the Boromir issue.  She wanted to define the word, "take".  I was not sure this would be a good idea, but I was pleasantly surprised--

"The word, 'take', is an action verb with a negative connotation."

I am not sure we are using "connotation" correctly.  I think what we really want to say is that "take" is negative in this context.  I get context and connotation confused.


connotation:  an idea or feeling that a word evokes for a person in addition to its literal or primary meaning. (Google)


context:  the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.  (Google)

LTW Journal 8/25

Yesterday we had our second meeting of the Lost Tools of Writing group (consisting of Aravis, Mariel and me). The girls turned in their issues (writing topics) and ANI charts. One of the issues concerned personal experience and the other considered the actions of a legendary figure, Havelock the Dane. These two sorts are researched differently, so we talked about that.

I required them to list ten items for each group-- affirmative, negative and interesting. It seems to be easier to come up with 'interesting' items than the other two. One of the girls did not complete her lists, and the other said she was grasping at straws by the end. We decided to write down 'interesting' things until something for or against came to mind, and then look at the interesting items and see which of them might be changed into for or against.

Next week we will begin the Arrangement lessons.

LTW Journal 9/1

Today we moved on to the first Elocution lesson. This week was supposed to be Arrangement, but the kids grasped the outline very quickly.

In Elocution the student takes the outline she made in Arrangement and fits it up with proper words. We started by describing what is meant by a 'sentence'. Then they were supposed to turn the thesis and points into complete sentences and string them together.

"Okay, give me one of your points as a complete sentence."

"They are complete sentences."

"What?"

I looked at their outlines, and it was true. The only two items in the outline that weren't already complete sentences were the issue (beginning with "Whether...") and the enumeration (represented by the number 3). So we decided to skip Elocution this time and start with Lesson 2 next week.

I can only assume that the complete-sentence-outlines are the result of years spent reading and narrating. As Aravis said, the girls are used to answering in complete paragraphs. Even complete sentences seem somewhat sparse.

LTW Journal 10/27(b)

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

My exordium examples are done.  I enjoyed making these!  I suspect one cannot have too many examples of a writing "hook", so I am sharing mine here.  Also, here is a link to sample imperative sentences.  And a link to a hilarious joke that illustrates the vague nature of competition law.  It might be a bit long for an exordium, but I liked it.

My essay issue is whether the Supreme Court should have ordered the dissolution of Standard Oil.

(I don't know how to fix the weird bullet points. Apologies for the formatting.)

UPDATE:  Let me know which one is your favorite!

Where is the balance between liberty and justice?

Should a cartel be allowed to suppress trade?

If you build a better mousetrap, will the regulators beat a path to your door?

In 1890 the Sherman Anti-trust Act was passed. That year, Standard Oil possessed 90% of American refining capacity. In 1911 the Act was invoked against Standard Oil, but due to competition from other firms, Standard's refining capacity had already gone down to 65%. (Wikipedia.)

By 1890, the United States was transitioning from an agricultural to industrial society. In the midst of unprecedented growth, the Senate passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act, 51-1. The Act then unanimously cleared the House and became a law. (Wikipedia)

Label the good guys and bad guys in this story: In 1870, John D. Rockefeller started in the oil business. His shrewd success reduced kerosene prices for Americans, and also put many would-be oil magnates out of business. Rockefeller got rich. He and his cronies were condemned for suppressing the oil trade with their innovative business model.

You are a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The world is changing. New technology and production techniques have brought about new business models. Decide which are lawful and which are not.

In my twenties, I tried to sell Avon. Competition was fierce, and I never liked to persuade hesitant customers. I was terrible at it.

“If I never had a cent, I'd be rich as Rockefeller... Gold dust at my feet, on the sunny side of the street.” (old song) 

In 1952, a representative from the Rockefeller Foundation called leprosy specialist Dr. Paul Brand. “Your work with leprosy shows good potential. Why don't you travel around the world and get the best advice possible? See anyone you want-- surgeons, pathologists, leprologists-- and take whatever time you need. We'll foot the bill.” The trip gave Dr. Brand much-needed confirmation of his findings on the dread disease. (Brand/Yancy, The Gift of Pain)

"Nothing was left to chance, nothing was guessed at, nothing left uncounted and measured. Efficiencies down to the smallest detail of the business were the order of the day. Economy, precision, and foresight were the cornerstones of [Standard Oil's] success.” (Professor Keith Poole, The American Experience, www.pbs.org) 

LTW Journal 8/29

Yesterday we began the Arrangement portion of the essay cycle. This is where the student plugs the appropriate words, phrases and sentences into a perfunctory outline. I tend to want to flee the curriculum at this point and search for something less likely to stifle creativity. But I stay, perhaps because I know Arrangement is only one-third of this particular writing program. We did get a whole week on Invention, after all.

The kids' issues are very different from each other. One is a question of life-or-death in a legendary context (very black and white!) and the other is an area of Christian liberty-- whether to study a subject at home or enroll in an outside class. We talked about the difficulty of evaluating arguments in the latter case. We also discovered that the way an issue is worded may limit the satisfaction a person gets from arguing it to a logical (and moral) conclusion. (I know that's cryptic, but I guess that's all you're getting for now...)

The girls produced their outlines lickety split. So far this program has not been difficult. In fact, they rolled their eyes when I began the review portion of the lesson-- they already knew that stuff. First the teacher is to teach the lesson, then the kids do the equivalent of narration, then they apply, then the teacher asks questions for review. It was the ask-questions-for-review part. The girls weren't disrespectful, but they sort of looked at me like, "We have a lot to do today. Do we REALLY need to go over this a fourth time?" So I think I will respect that, assuming they continue to understand the directions as easily as they have so far.

Their homework is to produce a rudimentary persuasive essay outline for their practice essays. The practice essay is going to span the entire year and be changed over and over again as we learn new skills. Mr. Kern says it will resemble an old, barnacle-covered ship by the end of the year. :)

LTW Journal 10/27

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

Today we began the Arrangement portion of Lesson 3.  After introducing the types, we came up with some exordia for our practice essay.

(The issue is whether Boromir should have tried to take the Ring from Frodo.)

1.  If everyone was against you, would you still hold your opinion?
2.  Can all tools be used for good?
3.  Do you know the definition of pragmatic?
4.  Imagine being in a forest, chased by a tall dude trying to take the ring you inherited from your uncle.
5.  Consider having the fate of a world in the palm of your hand.
6.  80% of Men are prone to greed.  Nine of these men are Ring Wraiths.  One of them is Boromir.
7.  Only three Hobbits have held the Ring.  Two of them have been consumed.
8.  "It is a gift, a gift to the foes of Mordor.  Why not use this ring?"  --Boromir

(The kids thought of all but #3.  That one was mine.)

Now I am off to work on my own essay exordium while watching the Texas Rangers with the Warrior Poet.  :)  Here we go, Rangers!

LTW Journal 9/25

I seriously questioned my set-up this week.  My two students have different needs.  I wondered if I was serving them both adequately by teaching them together.  The LTWMentor yahoo group helped me decide what to do for now:  I will keep introducing the lessons to both of them together with discussion, and then give as much individual help as necessary.  It is okay for one to go deeper than the other.  I am going to have Cornflower sit in on the intro and discussions too.  She will learn a lot.


***************


I find myself thinking of everything in terms of Invention, Arrangement and Elocution.  It's a fun new game:

In math--  Invention is uncovering questions to be answered, Arrangement is placing terms in the proper formula, and Elocution is the (hopefully elegant) solution. 

In piano--  Invention is the combination of tones and rhythm, Arrangement is phrasing and dynamics, Elocution is touch and artistry.

In personal relationships-- Invention is discovering connections, Arrangement is good manners, and Elocution is warmth.


(I am either embracing the three canons or imitating the medical student that diagnosed his friends with every disease he studied.)

LTW Journal 11/10: Defining the Ring

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

On to Lesson 4 Invention!

(Reminder of our practice essay issue:  whether Boromir should have tried to take the Ring from Frodo.)

We defined the Ring today.  It is a magic object, like:

1.  Merlin's wand
2.  H.G. Wells' time machine
3.  Frodo's light
4.  the nickel in Half Magic
5.  the metal horse from Arabian Nights
6.  the golden tablet of Ra from "Night at the Museum"
7.  the cake in Alice
8.  Lucy's cordial in Narnia

These are all objects that can be used to do something extraordinary.  The Ring is unlike these other objects in that it is immoral.  (The others are either moral or amoral.)

It has the following characteristics:

1.  it is round
2.  it has Elvish writing on it
3.  it is jewelry
4.  it is gold
5.  it was created by Sauron
6.  it is from Mordor
7.  it is evil
8.  it is hypnotic
9.  it is pretty
10.  it makes people invisible
11.  it corrupts its owners
12.  it is magic

LTW Journal 9/29 (Addendum)

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)

Update:  Grammar Girl to the rescue with a down-to-earth article on parallel construction!  I knew I was making it harder than it was.  Grammar Girl rocks.

I am getting in a little practice myself before my next teaching attempt.  I thought I would try again with the original thesis and proofs:

Boromir was not a fit Ringbearer
Frodo was a fit Ringbearer
Wise authorities chose Frodo

First I need to fix that last proof so it lines up properly.  Grammar Girl quoted Sesame street: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong..."  I got confused looking at these sentences, but Aravis happened to be nearby.  She is insanely good at grammar.  This illustrates both a curse and blessing of homeschooling.

The curse is not knowing enough on some subjects to "be the teacher".  Often, the homeschooling mother ends up learning along with her students.  (When I taught Aravis grammar, the answer key was my best friend.)  The blessing is that by a certain age their affinities emerge and, never having had their enthusiasm quashed by institutionalized competition*, they begin passionate independent studies.  Eventually, they are able to help younger siblings in ways the mother never could.  Along the way the younger sibs embrace their own affinities and *they* start passionate independent studies.  Life becomes a joyous celebration of all the things God placed in the world for us to know.  I love learning.

Anyway, Aravis patiently explained that the first two sentences contain predicate nominatives-- a predicate that renames the subject.  The third sentence does not.  We either have to rename the wise authorities, or make Frodo the subject and rename him, or add Boromir as the subject and rename him.

(I should probably have Aravis teach the Elocution portion each time.)

Wise authorities were fit choosers.  (yuck)
Wise authorities were fit judges.  (hmm)
According to authorities, Boromir was a  bad choice. (complicated)
Boromir was a bad choice.  (too similar to first proof)

Or maybe we could take the predicate nominatives out of the other two sentences:

Boromir had bad qualities
Frodo had good qualities
Frodo had the confidence of the Council and Fellowship

It still seems like the subjects ought to be the same.  Otherwise, how to line them up in a sentence?

Boromir should not have tried to take the Ring from Frodo for three reasons.  Boromir had bad qualities, Frodo had good qualities, and Frodo had the confidence of the Council and Fellowship.

I don't know.  It still looks complicated.  If we could change the subject of #1 to Frodo, it might work.  But that first point is important, and Frodo has nothing to do with Boromir's bad qualities.

Still thinking...

*I am not against competition per se.  I think it is a useful tool in the learning toolbox.  However, I believe it is wrong to apply it arbitrarily across a system.