Reminder that the monthly drawing for a $25 gift card is still going on for December. See December's first blog for details.
I'd like to begin a series of blogs on the why's and how's of curricula subjects. As we are at or nearing the half way point in most people's school years, we sometimes become bogged down in the day to day. It is like trying to drive from a small, short car. You can do it, but, when you drive from a tall car perspective, you can see where the road leads and where the dangers and exits are, bringing some peace to you as you drive. So this blog will be about the why's and how's of literature as a subject. Let's start in Part One with the why's, and, in Part Two, we will deal with the how's.
When your student asks, "Why do we have to read this stuff?", it would be good to have more of an answer than "because we have credit checks to do, and I want you to graduate." So, why DO we read this stuff called literature?
To begin, literature is different from books. Thousands of books are published every year, yet few will ever be deemed literature. Cookbooks, encyclopedia, stat books, textbooks, etc., are not considered literature, though they MAY be fine books. Many fiction books and other non-fiction would not be considered literature, either now or in the future.
To be considered literature, the book or piece has to have survived some element of time. How long depends upon the genre. An analogy might help here. In baseball, there is a Baseball Hall of Fame. Not every player gets to be in the Hall of Fame. Some get in, and we amateurs don't always understand why. Some are left out, and we amateurs don't always understand why. "They" decide. Who are they? Those who have chosen to make baseball in some form a career. Now, baseball as an organized sport has been around pretty much around a hundred years. So, there are quite a few players out there who could qualify for the Hall of Fame, and, indeed, the list gets longer every year, both of who is eligible to qualify and who actually makes it into the HoF. Some sports have been around less time. NASCAR has been around 50 or so years, and have fewer players than baseball. Therefore, they have fewer members in their hall of fame. Sometimes an impatient hall of fame will lower the qualifications for members in order to have a hall of fame worth visiting. Those who have been fans of a sport for a long time will usually find it easier to appreciate why some people make the hall of fame while others don't. Those new to the sport or having never seen it will struggle more with the choices, and will have to rely more on the choosers.
Literature is the same way as a sports hall of fame. Think of literature as a writing hall of fame. You would expect to see not only those who were good at writing, but also those who made distinct contributions to the world of writing. For example, we might expect to see the first mystery story, the first biography, the first piece ever written about honesty. We might also expect to see the best poet, the best biographer, etc. We would also want to see the bests and firsts for different time periods (especially when rules changed) and the bests and firsts from other countries or areas. This is indeed what one sees in a literature book. It is not meant to be the only collection of literature, but the editors of that book have tried to create a hall of fame for a particular segment of literature, whether for a person's reading ability, a country's writers, a particular time period, or a specific genre.
Who is (are) the editor(s)? That's a very good question, and one for which the teacher of that subject should have an answer. That answer will usually determine whether the teacher thinks the book is a good selection of pieces or whether it is not. If the editor shares the teacher's viewpoint on life and religion, the teacher is more likely to agree with the selections. If the editor does not, the teacher MAY not find the pieces particularly enjoyable. I say MAY as some teachers enjoy the mental fencing with the editor's choices. Some do not.
A good study of literature will include examples of all the finest players in the sport of literature, as well as those who contributed in an important manner, much as film halls of fame usually include the camera people, the sound people, etc.
So, now that we know why something might be considered literature, we can ask why we all must study literature in school. I mean, we do not all study the sports halls of fame in school, do we? There are several reasons we study literature.
First of all, literature is one way of our avoiding personal pain. In general, mankind as a creature, is one of the few who learns well from other creatures' experiences. (I did not say a particular person learns well this way.) So, we can read about someone so obsessed with a particular thing that they were willing to risk their life and the lives of many others to pursue their obsession, such as we see in Moby Dick. We can then ask ourselves questions such as, "Is it probably going to end well if I choose to pursue item X (a person, a fancy car, a hobby, etc.) regardless of the cost to my family or my marriage. We can read Little Men, and learn about the pain the author went through trying to make little boys behave like little girls and how she finally resolved that issue. Knowing that information may save us some of the pain of similar experiences or cause us to feel not quite so alone when we experience similar events. When an author describes his feeling of aloneness as like being in a dark cave or a dark Antarctic night, we can then know when we experience loneliness that someone else also knows what we feel. This learning from others' experiences is one reason we study literature.
Another reason we study literature is as a way to improve our own communications skills. We do not live in a vaccum. We live with other people. Seeing how someone saw things only from his or her own perspective and what trouble that causes can encourage us to try to see things from different perspectives, as Dickens teaches us through Little Dorrit, a book written twice - once from one character's view and then again from a different character's view. It has the same events, mostly, but seen through different eyes, and we see how easily it is to misunderstand a person. It teaches us kindness and wisdom.
Another communication skill received is that of improving our own writing. In Europe, students learned to paint well by going to the museum and copying the paintings of famous painters. I think this is an example of learning better through osmosis. The same technique works in writing. If you want your child's writing to improve, you must improve the quality of books he or she is reading. I didn't say length of books or quantity of books; I said quality of books. The 600 page Harry Potter books are written at a 4th grade level, and aside from difficult names, requires little thought to comprehend. The long Tom Clancy books are written at a 5th-6th grade level. Long doesn't necessarily equal quality. Some students will do better with short stories or selections from longer books (hence, textbooks). I promise you that, if you have your child reading pieces written in the late 1800's, you will notice a dramatic change in their writing ability, their speaking ability, as well as their vocabulary. Reading poetry teaches us to think concisely and precisely, often about emotional issues, which otherwise would take many pages to explore.
So, the why of literature is that we learn to experience life, we learn to understand other people, we learn to understand ourselves, and we learn to communicate verbally, both in spoken and in written forms.
Part 2: how to adapt a literature course to meet the needs and tastes of your own student without losing the quality of the program.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Gender Language Issues or Do You Speak Kindergarten?
My husband has to remind me when we do projects together to speak in non-female language. He is convinced, having worked with a lot of ladies over the years, that most females speak without using specific nouns. This is especially true when giving directions, which is where he and I most often encounter this language problem.
For example, I'll say, "Put that over there." Now, since he is rarely looking just at me, and can't look at me at the same time he is looking at the objects, he is never sure what object I'm trying to get him to move. "That what?" he says. "That one there!" I say pointing. I mean, in my mind, it is obvious which one I mean, and when I work with other women, this whole problem never appears. Finally, I try to give more info, "the yellow one. No, not that yellow one! The thing! The yellow thing! Yes, THAT one. Now move it over there, no over there! Up higher. More to the left. Next to that one!" Sigh.
It doesn't help that most men speak in colors with only those colors present in an eight count box of crayons. An object can only be black, brown, red, yellow, orange, blue, green, or purple. Sometimes, they will allow you to use the words light or dark before the color name. Very early in our marriage, I gave in on the issue of brown; he saw light brown, brown, and dark brown. Tan, beige, creme, sand, taupe, sienna, golden brown, beach, and other shades didn't exist. After a while, I wasn't sure they did, either. I read an article once by the Crayola people describing this very issue.
Then he taught me to speak in what I later dubbed Kindergarten. Now I know, when we do projects to speak like this: "You see the small yellow cube that is next to the large triangular red vase? Please pick that yellow cube up and move it to the 2ND wooden bookshelf from the left, and 3rd shelf from the top. Put it on the right side, between the green cube and the blue book." I have to tell you, after all that, I'm exhausted! It would have been quicker to do it myself!
There seems to be an intuitive language that women speak, that men do not easily learn. HE claims that, when my friends and I speak, we don't always finish sentences, or even worse, one friend will be able to finish the other friend's sentence.
For these reasons, he hates to play the game Taboo in teams of women vs men. He says the men will lose every time. He believes there is some sort of psychic connection between the women, that allows them to say something like "Olive Garden" and the other women say "bread sticks." He claims women play Taboo by describing experiences, whereas men will try to give the hidden word an exact meaning, like "6 inches long, made of wheat, has garlic, served hot," by which time, the buzzer has buzzed. Women's clue "tired, cold, feeling blue, cup" and men's "made from a plant from the Orient, small leaves dried and then served by boiling water and pouring it over the leaves and then straining the leaves out" both of which clue sets get you to tea.
So, having experienced this numerous times and observing it happen many times in public and at parties and in meetings, I have found it helpful to recount this to parents of Kindergartners. Why?
Teaching kindergarten at home is largely a matter of having the mother change the way she talks. Colors, sizes, directions, and order are great parts of kindergarten curricula. Instead of "Use that one for that part.", we should say, "Use your yellow crayon, which is on your right, and color the left clown's hat yellow."
Many other aspects of Kindergarten involve teaching the child both to observe and work specifically. That is, we increase their skills and vocabulary for specific objects and habits.
Did you know that left and right are not innate concepts? Some cultures DO write from right to left, instead of left to right. Has anyone done research on whether dyslexia is prevalent in other cultures? I mean, while reading left to right is correct in America, that child who wants to read from right to left would be quite at home in say, Israel or Japan. In those countries, he does not have a brain problem or learning disability. The same is true for top to bottom. We in America read from top to bottom. Some cultures read from bottom to top. Then there are those that read from bottom to top and from right to left. So obviously, the order pattern of reading is not built into the mind, since it varies by culture. I have yet to see any research on reading that acknowledges this simple idea. Let me know if you have seen any, and where it is. That could mean we're trying to fix a problem by tackling the brain, that may not be the kind of brain problem we think it is. Maybe it really is a teaching problem, something all parents, regardless of where their child is educated, must pursue.
One of my own children had issues in this area. I had to put an index card above what he read, because his eyes tended to drift upwards when he read. (Weak eye muscles can also be part of this issue.) I also drew a tiny car on the left bottom edge - the one that would be next to the words beneath it - so he'd know from which side to start each time. I didn't give him any pressure, except for me holding that card in position and acting like what he was experiencing was normal. We spent a lot of time working on left and right as well as left to right, and I mean weeks of time where I made sure left and right were mentioned every 10 or 15 minutes, but not saying he had to learn it. Eventually, he did, and after that, he had no trouble with reading order. Later, he taught karate classes and said that right/left order was such a frequent problem that he had begun to assume it would be a problem for kids until he worked with them. Apparently, the same issues arose with men in his Army boot camp life, but he knew how to deal with it to help them.
My ideal kindergarten curricula would include lots of hands on time using play dough, crayons, and art materials. It would include learning the letters and numbers, learning community helpers and holidays, learning how to observe in nature and then describe what one does observe. It would include learning how to behave in a mannerly and respectful way to all peoples, not just by looking at lists of rules, but by interacting with people and seeing the parents properly interacting with other people. Time would also be spent talking about and experiencing other cultures, often through food and costumes, sometimes by attending fairs, or visiting people of different cultures, or finding recipes on the Internet or watching cultures on the Internet. Penmanship would come via a tablet and samples of Dr. Seuss sayings from Fox in Sox or from Oh Say Can You Say or other tongue twisters. Few materials would have to be bought. Most of all, mom (and dad) would need to remember to talk specifically.
First grade is time enough for the next step upwards. These are my thoughts, remembering how I brought my own three kids and helped many others get their kids through kindergarten. Maybe these ideas will help you. You can do it. We'll help you, but you'll be surprised how good it is. What do you think?
For example, I'll say, "Put that over there." Now, since he is rarely looking just at me, and can't look at me at the same time he is looking at the objects, he is never sure what object I'm trying to get him to move. "That what?" he says. "That one there!" I say pointing. I mean, in my mind, it is obvious which one I mean, and when I work with other women, this whole problem never appears. Finally, I try to give more info, "the yellow one. No, not that yellow one! The thing! The yellow thing! Yes, THAT one. Now move it over there, no over there! Up higher. More to the left. Next to that one!" Sigh.
It doesn't help that most men speak in colors with only those colors present in an eight count box of crayons. An object can only be black, brown, red, yellow, orange, blue, green, or purple. Sometimes, they will allow you to use the words light or dark before the color name. Very early in our marriage, I gave in on the issue of brown; he saw light brown, brown, and dark brown. Tan, beige, creme, sand, taupe, sienna, golden brown, beach, and other shades didn't exist. After a while, I wasn't sure they did, either. I read an article once by the Crayola people describing this very issue.
Then he taught me to speak in what I later dubbed Kindergarten. Now I know, when we do projects to speak like this: "You see the small yellow cube that is next to the large triangular red vase? Please pick that yellow cube up and move it to the 2ND wooden bookshelf from the left, and 3rd shelf from the top. Put it on the right side, between the green cube and the blue book." I have to tell you, after all that, I'm exhausted! It would have been quicker to do it myself!
There seems to be an intuitive language that women speak, that men do not easily learn. HE claims that, when my friends and I speak, we don't always finish sentences, or even worse, one friend will be able to finish the other friend's sentence.
For these reasons, he hates to play the game Taboo in teams of women vs men. He says the men will lose every time. He believes there is some sort of psychic connection between the women, that allows them to say something like "Olive Garden" and the other women say "bread sticks." He claims women play Taboo by describing experiences, whereas men will try to give the hidden word an exact meaning, like "6 inches long, made of wheat, has garlic, served hot," by which time, the buzzer has buzzed. Women's clue "tired, cold, feeling blue, cup" and men's "made from a plant from the Orient, small leaves dried and then served by boiling water and pouring it over the leaves and then straining the leaves out" both of which clue sets get you to tea.
So, having experienced this numerous times and observing it happen many times in public and at parties and in meetings, I have found it helpful to recount this to parents of Kindergartners. Why?
Teaching kindergarten at home is largely a matter of having the mother change the way she talks. Colors, sizes, directions, and order are great parts of kindergarten curricula. Instead of "Use that one for that part.", we should say, "Use your yellow crayon, which is on your right, and color the left clown's hat yellow."
Many other aspects of Kindergarten involve teaching the child both to observe and work specifically. That is, we increase their skills and vocabulary for specific objects and habits.
Did you know that left and right are not innate concepts? Some cultures DO write from right to left, instead of left to right. Has anyone done research on whether dyslexia is prevalent in other cultures? I mean, while reading left to right is correct in America, that child who wants to read from right to left would be quite at home in say, Israel or Japan. In those countries, he does not have a brain problem or learning disability. The same is true for top to bottom. We in America read from top to bottom. Some cultures read from bottom to top. Then there are those that read from bottom to top and from right to left. So obviously, the order pattern of reading is not built into the mind, since it varies by culture. I have yet to see any research on reading that acknowledges this simple idea. Let me know if you have seen any, and where it is. That could mean we're trying to fix a problem by tackling the brain, that may not be the kind of brain problem we think it is. Maybe it really is a teaching problem, something all parents, regardless of where their child is educated, must pursue.
One of my own children had issues in this area. I had to put an index card above what he read, because his eyes tended to drift upwards when he read. (Weak eye muscles can also be part of this issue.) I also drew a tiny car on the left bottom edge - the one that would be next to the words beneath it - so he'd know from which side to start each time. I didn't give him any pressure, except for me holding that card in position and acting like what he was experiencing was normal. We spent a lot of time working on left and right as well as left to right, and I mean weeks of time where I made sure left and right were mentioned every 10 or 15 minutes, but not saying he had to learn it. Eventually, he did, and after that, he had no trouble with reading order. Later, he taught karate classes and said that right/left order was such a frequent problem that he had begun to assume it would be a problem for kids until he worked with them. Apparently, the same issues arose with men in his Army boot camp life, but he knew how to deal with it to help them.
My ideal kindergarten curricula would include lots of hands on time using play dough, crayons, and art materials. It would include learning the letters and numbers, learning community helpers and holidays, learning how to observe in nature and then describe what one does observe. It would include learning how to behave in a mannerly and respectful way to all peoples, not just by looking at lists of rules, but by interacting with people and seeing the parents properly interacting with other people. Time would also be spent talking about and experiencing other cultures, often through food and costumes, sometimes by attending fairs, or visiting people of different cultures, or finding recipes on the Internet or watching cultures on the Internet. Penmanship would come via a tablet and samples of Dr. Seuss sayings from Fox in Sox or from Oh Say Can You Say or other tongue twisters. Few materials would have to be bought. Most of all, mom (and dad) would need to remember to talk specifically.
First grade is time enough for the next step upwards. These are my thoughts, remembering how I brought my own three kids and helped many others get their kids through kindergarten. Maybe these ideas will help you. You can do it. We'll help you, but you'll be surprised how good it is. What do you think?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Classical Value
All those who read and post a reply to the Principally Sandy blog entries for December will have their email name entered into a monthly contest for a free item, usually a gift card to a national establishment, such as Starbucks, McDonald's, Barnes & Nobles, Amazon, etc. You get one entry per blog that I write that month. If your name is drawn by one of my compadres in the office, we will email you to find out how to send you the card. One post per person per month per blog entry written by me. If you have questions, email me at SANDYHOME@aol.com, subject line "blog question." Emails do not count as blog entry replies. Let the December contest begin! If you want to know when a new entry has been posted, become a follower. {see directions in the right hand column.} Responses without names will not be entered in the contest, though they will be published.
If it's been a while since you've read early American literature, and you suddenly pick up a Hawthorne short story or a JF Cooper chapter, you might be surprised how difficult the language seems. Therefore, one should avoid trying to do so, right?
If that is correct, then let's just move the idea down just a bit. Perhaps it's not early American literature, but you're now in middle school, and you've gotten a bit of high school literature in your hands to read. It's difficult. So let's avoid it.
If that seems okay, let's move it down a ways further. You're a Kindergartner, and the reading in your reader is difficult. So the best thing to do is avoid it, correct? Give it up!
Well, now, Sandy, you're being unreasonable. Every child must learn to read! You can't avoid the early reading, now can you?
In essence, this is all the same scenario. When the Kindergartner finds it difficult, you encourage them. You even read aloud to them to bring excitement to the text. You may even use different voices for different roles. You ask questions as you read to make sure Little One is actually paying attention. You have him or her read a few lines or words, and the success makes him or her want to read even more. Eventually, he takes the book from your hands, and he accomplishes his first read of what he considered impossible material just a few weeks ago.
The same thing can be done with the classics. There is so much of value in reading the classics. The vocabulary is rich. The characters have depth. The story line may move slow, but that allows your mind to put all the thoughts in order, indeed for your own mind to begin to anticipate (think forward) where the author is beginning to take you or even for your mind to develop its own original thoughts. You may even find yourself in a time period of which you are unacquainted, and you are provoked to grab an encyclopedia and read about that age. You are required to trace multiple ideas through the story.
And your mind grows. You learn, unintentionally perhaps on your own part - yet intentionally on your teacher's part, to sift and cull information on the events, to think forward and anticipate consequences, to evaluate the moral reasoning of the characters and the author, to research needed information rather than waiting for it to be spoon-fed into a numb mind. You learn to wait, wait, wait, yes, there it is: the resolution for which you had patiently hoped over the 300 pages, rather than simply grabbing the quick ending of 100 pages.
Was it hard? Maybe the first 2-3 books were. Maybe mom or dad had to read it as well to encourage the student. Maybe conversation had to be forced to cover the points. Yet, by book 4 or 5, student is more comfortable and is even bringing up points and ideas distilled from the longer, deeper, more thoughtful experience of reading a classic book, whether a novel, a biography, or non-fiction work.
Referring to muscles, the first few times you use a set, it is hard and hurts. Yet, daily practice (called exercises) in doing so brings facility with those muscles. It is no different with classic book. Reading things that are difficult SHOULD be done daily. If everything your child reads is easy for him or her to read, they are reading the wrong books. It should be difficult and require time to reach that level of reading we call proficiency, which doesn't mean just getting the words but also getting the thoughts.
However, as a wise woman once revealed to me, reading should be like a meal: short, sweet appetizer pieces, veggies that are good for you, tougher to chew meats, and sweetly anticipated desserts. There are also the popcorn books you read just for fun, but you cannot make them your only source of nutrition.
One thing many homeschoolers do is read books to their children. However, if they have multiple children, they will often read books at a level that the youngest can handle, meaning it is less than want the oldest can handle. This holds back the oldest child, getting that one accustomed to doing less to be part of the crowd. Not a good lesson. Group reading should be done, but it should be aimed at the oldest child, allowing the oldest children to explain it to the younger ones as needed. That way, everyone's need is met.
This Christmas, I challenge every family of New Covenant School to buy a classic book for the family or, if possible, for each child. Buy the best binding you can afford so that, some day, your child's grandchildren can read from granddad's childhood copy of the classics. Then read those books as individuals or as families, comparing ideas with one who read it in the past, whether mom or dad or a sibling.
If you do not require your children to read the classics, you will be locking a door to the extensive collection of literature of hundreds of fine authors, many of whom were deep Christians with fine thoughts of God. You will be separating them from the collected wisdom of many quality writers. You will keep them from our foundation of learning, and telling them, in essence, that they are limited in their abilities to press forward. You would be reducing them to the pablum and drivvle promoted by our get-it-quick culture. Sure, eventually, on their own they might, when they are 35 decide to go back and redo this aspect of their education, when they have a full time family, full time career, and church life, leaving oh, so much energy to do hard things.
Read hard books this year. No one ever says, "I wish I had done less reading or less math when I was young." Accept the challenge. Excelsior!
If it's been a while since you've read early American literature, and you suddenly pick up a Hawthorne short story or a JF Cooper chapter, you might be surprised how difficult the language seems. Therefore, one should avoid trying to do so, right?
If that is correct, then let's just move the idea down just a bit. Perhaps it's not early American literature, but you're now in middle school, and you've gotten a bit of high school literature in your hands to read. It's difficult. So let's avoid it.
If that seems okay, let's move it down a ways further. You're a Kindergartner, and the reading in your reader is difficult. So the best thing to do is avoid it, correct? Give it up!
Well, now, Sandy, you're being unreasonable. Every child must learn to read! You can't avoid the early reading, now can you?
In essence, this is all the same scenario. When the Kindergartner finds it difficult, you encourage them. You even read aloud to them to bring excitement to the text. You may even use different voices for different roles. You ask questions as you read to make sure Little One is actually paying attention. You have him or her read a few lines or words, and the success makes him or her want to read even more. Eventually, he takes the book from your hands, and he accomplishes his first read of what he considered impossible material just a few weeks ago.
The same thing can be done with the classics. There is so much of value in reading the classics. The vocabulary is rich. The characters have depth. The story line may move slow, but that allows your mind to put all the thoughts in order, indeed for your own mind to begin to anticipate (think forward) where the author is beginning to take you or even for your mind to develop its own original thoughts. You may even find yourself in a time period of which you are unacquainted, and you are provoked to grab an encyclopedia and read about that age. You are required to trace multiple ideas through the story.
And your mind grows. You learn, unintentionally perhaps on your own part - yet intentionally on your teacher's part, to sift and cull information on the events, to think forward and anticipate consequences, to evaluate the moral reasoning of the characters and the author, to research needed information rather than waiting for it to be spoon-fed into a numb mind. You learn to wait, wait, wait, yes, there it is: the resolution for which you had patiently hoped over the 300 pages, rather than simply grabbing the quick ending of 100 pages.
Was it hard? Maybe the first 2-3 books were. Maybe mom or dad had to read it as well to encourage the student. Maybe conversation had to be forced to cover the points. Yet, by book 4 or 5, student is more comfortable and is even bringing up points and ideas distilled from the longer, deeper, more thoughtful experience of reading a classic book, whether a novel, a biography, or non-fiction work.
Referring to muscles, the first few times you use a set, it is hard and hurts. Yet, daily practice (called exercises) in doing so brings facility with those muscles. It is no different with classic book. Reading things that are difficult SHOULD be done daily. If everything your child reads is easy for him or her to read, they are reading the wrong books. It should be difficult and require time to reach that level of reading we call proficiency, which doesn't mean just getting the words but also getting the thoughts.
However, as a wise woman once revealed to me, reading should be like a meal: short, sweet appetizer pieces, veggies that are good for you, tougher to chew meats, and sweetly anticipated desserts. There are also the popcorn books you read just for fun, but you cannot make them your only source of nutrition.
One thing many homeschoolers do is read books to their children. However, if they have multiple children, they will often read books at a level that the youngest can handle, meaning it is less than want the oldest can handle. This holds back the oldest child, getting that one accustomed to doing less to be part of the crowd. Not a good lesson. Group reading should be done, but it should be aimed at the oldest child, allowing the oldest children to explain it to the younger ones as needed. That way, everyone's need is met.
This Christmas, I challenge every family of New Covenant School to buy a classic book for the family or, if possible, for each child. Buy the best binding you can afford so that, some day, your child's grandchildren can read from granddad's childhood copy of the classics. Then read those books as individuals or as families, comparing ideas with one who read it in the past, whether mom or dad or a sibling.
If you do not require your children to read the classics, you will be locking a door to the extensive collection of literature of hundreds of fine authors, many of whom were deep Christians with fine thoughts of God. You will be separating them from the collected wisdom of many quality writers. You will keep them from our foundation of learning, and telling them, in essence, that they are limited in their abilities to press forward. You would be reducing them to the pablum and drivvle promoted by our get-it-quick culture. Sure, eventually, on their own they might, when they are 35 decide to go back and redo this aspect of their education, when they have a full time family, full time career, and church life, leaving oh, so much energy to do hard things.
Read hard books this year. No one ever says, "I wish I had done less reading or less math when I was young." Accept the challenge. Excelsior!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
November Blog winner
Congratulations to our November blog response winner. The name drawn by the staff was Joann Parker, and we will contact you regarding getting your prize!
Time for the December contest to begin. Expect a new blog post by the end of the week. Or sign up as a follower, and you'll get an email notice when it is posted.
Time for the December contest to begin. Expect a new blog post by the end of the week. Or sign up as a follower, and you'll get an email notice when it is posted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)