Via Facilis

Here's the situation.

Your kid has the opportunity of taking one of the following languages:

French, Spanish, German, Latin, Mandarin

Which one is best?

Hmmm, you think.
Well, if we go by what everybody else thinks, the answer is obvious.
(this requires us to be followers and easily persuaded by others, no matter how well thought out their reasoning is)

Mandarin, right? (linguistic flavor of the month and all that....and no, I don't judge books by their cover, unless the cover says "New York Times Best Seller", in which case, I run very fast and far in the other direction.)

If we go by perceived usefulness, then the answer is:
Spanish.

Right?

(Begging the question, what the heck do we mean by "usefulness"?)

If we go by Classical Education (What is "Classical Education"? What are "The Classics" or "Classics", for that matter?), the answer is:
Latin

I mean, hey, it's the root of 60 per cent of our words in English, so it'll help with SATs, etc. (as if the SATs are the be all and end all of an academic's existence - not)

or French (nobody speaks that any more - welllll, that's just a little off, as in wrong)
or German (might as well just speak English, right? uh, no)

Actually, the answer is:
none of the above.

You don't make this choice by language.

The learning of a language is automatically advantageous, regardless of what that language is.

The answer is,

In which is the the teacher superior?

Latin can be mistaught.
So can any language.
If the teacher is awful, or even so-so, your kid is in a lose-lose situation, no matter how interesting the subject matter may potentially be.

It will be an automatic turn off.

If the teacher is excellent, your kid is in a much better position to learn something tangible and real.

So, as I say above,

Caveant Parentes

Let The Parents Beware

Schools which drop Latin completely.
Schools which think that modern language learning is better.
Schools which believe that Mandarin Chinese is the Wave of the Future.

These schools, the administrators who run them, and the the trustees/regent types who tacitly or openly condone such actions and the belief systems whence they spring, are ruining their own academic integrity.

Worse, they are setting their students up for failure.
Failure on every level.
How?
By stripping students of the opportunity to establish foundational linguistic understanding, one which Latin, and Latin alone, achieves for the speaker of English.

How did this happen? In next few posts, I will be addressing these issues.

I'll begin with where and how Latin Lost Its Way.

Let's Face It.
Latin has been taught in - to put it mildly - an inaccessible manner.
Not just for years.
For centuries.

Poor pedagogy has fed the bondfire of the ever more widely-held belief:
"only the most academically advanced/gifted/brightest students have a prayer of ever learning Latin."

The Message:
"If you aren't gifted, you aren't good enough."

Students' translation:

"You can only learn Latin if you're super smart"

ergo,

"I'm not taking Latin, so I must not be smart."

ergo

"I must be stupid."

Factor into this the shift in the American attitude about learning languages to a type of linguistic utilitarianism -

"Learn a Language That You'll Use, Like Spanish"

"Spanish is preferable to French, but French is better than nothing"

"Let's All Learn Mandarin Chinese"
(The Latest So-Called "Language of the Future", replacing Arabic, which replaced Spanish, which replaced Russian as former "Languages of the Future" according to Public School educator Honchos and NAIS)

And folks come to the insidious, dangerous, but not unpredictable conclusion,

"If it's dead, why learn it at all?"

and the equally shallow

"If most of the world doesn't speak it, why should you?")

Surprise, Surprise!
The study of Latin finds itself beleaguered, if not endangered.

Yet Latin was the language of Europe for over a millenium – one that was so flexible, it gave rise to an entire family of languages, and greatly influenced and affected the development of English. St. Jerome's Vulgate is proof of that – the Vulgate, the Bible for the Common Man, was written in the Common Man's tongue: Latin. Yet the feeling of the inaccessibility, and therefore of the uselessness of Latin, persists. Classicists have felt the public's loss of understanding. School systems have done away with Latin on utilitarian grounds. Even in private schools, Latin and the classics have lost their footing.

To restore Latin's lost prestige and traditional place in the typical school curriculum, classicists have in the last thirty years or so come up with several different approaches, all with emphasis on reading Latin. The Cambridge Latin Reading Course, Ecce Romani, the Oxford Latin Reading Course, and Latin Via Ovid are examples. The Cambridge series, for instance, has students reading about a family in First Century Britain around the time of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in Italy; the Oxford, meanwhile, follows the life of the Young Horace, the great Latin lyric poet. Ecce Romani chronicles the life of another Roman family. The didactic premise of all these works is this: students learn more effectively when they read a story than when they have to sit down and just memorize paradigms and forms. As far as that goes, the premise is sound. No classicist would deny that it is wonderful for students to read Latin from day one. But what type of Latin are they in fact reading? And here is what we find. They are learning a lot about culture; they also learn about history and Roman politics. Again, all to the good. But the main question is this: What are the students learning about how to read Latin -- not canned Latin, but real Latin? The texts are effective in Europe because the people who teach Latin there know the language and its background extremely well. If the teachers did not, then these texts would be useless. And this is what has happened. Now students like these books; they also wouldn't mind eating nothing but candy for a week. These texts tend to give students a false sense of accomplishment.

More Tomorrow.

Dear Readers -

I did not write the following tongue in cheek piece.
I wish I had.

"I think we should forget Latin! You know what? You're all wrong, every last one: you [drg], Mr. Francese, and anyone who holds Latin with any smidgen of worth. Emma Willard had the right idea. Drop Latin! Let's write all the diplomas in Chinese instead. (that seems to be the fad language everyone's flocking to these days) In a few years, English will be practically archaic! Why not get ahead of the curve? And besides, Latin is so illegible; Chinese is much clearer!

Speaking of illegible, these days, when one can photoshop a diploma and print it out in the same amount of time as it takes to TiVo "Desperate Housewives," it doesn't matter what you say or in which language you say it, because with the click of a mouse, you can make it seem important. Arial Narrow might make it easy to read, but one of these loopy ones might have more of an effect on whoever happens to be looking at it. The less work, the better, right? Latin text would be too much work, and like I said, Chinese is the language of the future. Now, if I only spoke Chinese... oh well, I’ll just use Rosetta Stone and my handy, reliable online translator.

Annno. Honestly! Who proofread the thing? Did anyone, or was it a nearsighted person (in a half drunk stupor) rushing to get them off to the printer? And I hate to burst the bubble, but if they get the same person to type them up, it won't matter in what language it's written. Most people with a first year knowledge of Latin could spot that. Does any word have three of the same consonants in a row? i thinnnk not. Chinese is harder to mess up! Those characters all look so different and are formed in such a different way from each other!

You should write that "an encyclopedia for every child" part down. I think you have a real winner there. Send it to the president; then diplomas won't need to be written in any language because teachers would be obsolete, and the woman who had her diploma returned wouldn't have a job for which to apply. Just teach them some Chinese and maybe how to make change for a dollar, and they can go off, read the encyclopedia, and get their job at the fast food restaurant of their choice. Problem solved!

A diploma isn't supposed to be an elegy. It's not an epic poem. It's not a Shakespearean sonnet. Heck, it's not even supposed to be eloquent prose. It's a diploma. So, with that logical progression of thoughts, I think..... Chinese."

I read the New York Times these days.
It's a trashy paper.
I should probably read the Wall Street Journal.
Or the Daily News.
Or the Post.

But let's face it: The Times has the best crosswords.

Still, it is with considerable angst, disgust, anger, rancor, annoyance (not to mention a bile-in- the-throat, queasy, sickening feeling) that I read the op-ed piece by Christopher Francese, associate professor of classical studies at Dickinson College.

He wants to get rid of diplomas written in Latin.
He thinnnks that the Latin used therein is full of "maddening syntax and appalling neologisms."
(Ovid, Catullus, Cicero, et al. - not to mention the Bard, i.e., our friend Shakespeare - all better run for it - they're well known for their neologisms - which, by the way, is the creation of a new word - and one of the reasons English is so flexible).

I'm not sure that English legalese on a diploma is preferable, by the way. The syntax there is stunted as well. At least Latinists have a sense of the power of syntax - unlike their English counterparts, who seem to think that grammar and syntax have nothing to do with anything when it comes to excellent writing. Latinists at least have a prayer of understanding the English of their diplomas.

I have a lot of problems with this piece.

Problem #1:
While I can commiserate with the author about his Latin faux pas ( - "annno" instead of "anno" written on the diplomas at Dickinson one year - wait a second, "faux pas" is French. Can I use French instead of English? It's possible nobody will understand it, but I think I'll use it anyway. It gets the point across, and is better than "my bad"), his real error occurred not in making the mistake.

That happens.

The real error was his failure to pass the piece by colleagues and students.

Another set of eyes or three always helps.

Especially in Latin.

(Obviously, as one of the guy's own students identified the error.)
Especially when we take so much pride in our work.
Pride, it's always good to remember, goeth before a Fall.
Thank you, Proverbs.
I know, I could have used "hubris", more in keeping with the Classics theme of the piece.
But I didn't want anybody to miss what I was saying (not that anybody would).
So I'll use Pride instead.

Problem #2:

"When one Dickinson College alumna recently applied to work at a public school, she had a photocopied version of her Latin diploma returned as foreign and illegible."

News flash.
Latin IS a foreign language.

As for "illegible", heck, that has to do with font, not choice of language.

But that's incidental.
The problem here is not that the diploma was written in Latin.

The problem is that the folks in a public school didn't recognize it as such.

Didn't realize what that meant.

Didn't get the import of the Latin.

That is a more egregious error than that they couldn't read it.
It speaks to a shallowness of understanding and learning in this country at the most basic level.
And that's what's troubling.
Not that the diploma was returned as "foreign and illegible."

Problem #3: Two different "goals/purposes" of education.

"The goal of education is the creation and transmission of thought."
"[The] purpose [of education] is the development of the mind and social usefulness through the clear communication of information and ideas."

Well, which is it, mon frere (damn, there's that French again.)?

I find the first quotation representative of an absurd oversimplification.
First of all, think twice before you use the word "goal".
It is not a service industry with "products".
Indeed, real learning occurs when our students realize that education is more of a road than a pitstop.

To continue: If the goal of education is to merely create and transmit thought, heck, just buy every kid an encyclopedia, and have him read it.

The second quotation, meanwhile, highlights a preferable precept, at least in terms of the "development of the mind".
I would instead speak of it in terms of "harnessing" the mind, having students tap into their own powers. But I accept what the prof here has to say.
To a point.

As for "social usefulness".
Hello, 1984.
George Orwell, where are you?
I mean really,
What is it?
Who decides what is "socially useful"?
Society thinks a lot of things are "useful" which in fact are questionable, at best.
Society teaches that professional athletes are more valuable than good teachers.
Society teaches that if you keep telling people a lie, they will believe you.
Society teaches that if you screw up, trust people you had no business trusting, that it's their fault, not yours.

Society, in short, is not trustworthy at all.

Not surprisingly, when students harness their minds, they find that a lot of things which are socially acceptable are the epitome of shallow.
They reject such things and redefine that which is "socially useful."
As well they should.

Problem #4. Why diplomas in Latin?

"I've heard some argue that Latin is on diplomas because it's beautiful and the language of Virgil and Cicero. The sad fact, though, is that diploma Latin is a far cry from Cicero's Latin."

Latin in the wrong hands, like any other language, can be a bludgeoning object of disgust.
English can be atrocious as well.
The vocabulary and syntax of diplomas - regardless of language - is meant to be legalistic.
It grates in any language.

The question is, why Latin?
The answer?
Latin was the language of scholarship well into the 17th century and beyond.
The University movement was founded by theologians who wrote, argued, spoke, etc. in Latin.
The degrees they earned were written in that language.
That universities continue to have their diplomas written in Latin is a lesson in history.
It requires students to wonder and ask the question, Why Latin?
If only for that reason, thank god that some universities continue with the practice.
The practice facilitates the question Why?
And this question is the most facile in helping students harness their brain power.

And for those of you who are intimidated by Latin, do yourself a favor.
Learn Latin.
It is the nervous system, the linguistic spinal cord, of our language.
It will help you do or be whatever you want.

Even if your goal is to be Socially Useful.

Vale atque Ave,

drg

I just returned today from the annual American Philological Association meeting down in Philadelphia.

I haven't been to one of those meetings in a long time.
Twelve years, probably.

I saw my old UPenn profs - they probably don't like being called 'old'.
But they are definitely wise:
Ralph Rosen.
Joe Farrell.
Bridget Murnaghan.
The inimitable, incomparable Jim O'Donnell.

I had been hesitant, fearing to go.
To no avail.
I did, in fact, go.
And found that those fears were all in vain.

I also got to see old "classmates", fellow strugglers now making good for themselves, including Eric Casey (now of Sweet Briar College) and Nigel Nicholson (Reed College).

I've been, as some know, teaching at every level from third graders through graduate students.

And recently, the last two years, I have heavily invested/been investing/involved in my own company, both in the US and in the UK.

CAGSE, which gets Latin into schools - state schools, public schools - at an early age.

Not just into schools -
Into their curricula.

Into the life blood of the public/state schools' academic life.

My method of teaching is different from most.
I do not shy away from teaching the tough stuff.
The grammar, the syntax, the vocabulary.

Everything my teachers in the UK - that is, the teachers who teach for CAGSE - do, they do in English first.

We treat English as a case/inflected language.
We use English as a vehicle for Latin;
Then, we turn around, and use Latin as a vehicle for English.

Ultimately, it is about language acquisition.
Latin is key in that acquisition.

Because these are all keys to reading, writing, thinking effectively.
But it has to be age appropriate.
Games, singing, manipulatives are all part of the delivery mechanism.
Story-telling - a major piece.
How to breathe life into the material.
And pervading all - the credo that students are capable of whatever they aspire to.
And we foster those aspirations.

CAGSE will be coming to America in the Fall of this coming academic year.
Probably in New Orleans, but discussions are on-going.

So why did I go to the APA?
Not for the papers.
Not to see the meat market of candidates going around to various and sundry interviews.

To reconnect. As I did.

But also, to deliver a message.
To be the message.

(But people kill messengers.
Worth the risk.)

And what message is that?

This.

All around us, the world is reeling in economic mayhem.

People are looking to put their money, what little they have available, into real things.
Into The Real.

And what is The Real?
Real skills.
Understanding the nuts and bolts of language.
The beauty of it.
The art of it.
The drudgery of it.

Classics is one of the few fields that is still in The Real.
We have to teach basics.
Our students have to learn grammar, the blood and guts of language.
They have to learn paradigms and morphology - the bones of language.
And they have to be able to put it all together and see how it works in context - syntax.
And what is syntax? The nervous system of language.

People who go through a rigorous Latin/Greek study learn, above all, how to think.
Deeply.
Critically.
Flexibly.

We do this in our field better than anyone does in theirs.

My favorite oxymoron?

An English Grammarian.

Nobody ever would even attempt to make the same joke with Classics.

So what then am I saying here?

I urge folks in professional organizations to make a major commitment - not lip service, not just the award here or there to the occasional good teacher of the subject - to the study of Classics from the ground up.

The Ground Up.
Ground Zero.

And what is Ground Zero?
Primary Schooling.

A concerted, coordinated effort.

An urging of graduate students to go into teaching at any and all levels.
Especially the lower levels.

Lower does not mean "worse" or "less-qualified".

We need to think of this rather as getting in at the groundfloor.

We in Classics have always been able to see the value of the double accusative:
We teach the subject.
We teach the students.
And sometimes, when everything goes right, we teach the one to the other.

This needs to come not just from the ACL.
Not just from the JCL.
But from the APA.

Digital Portals are nice.
But what are we supposed to do, virtually walk through them?
Who besides Classicists benefit from such a thing?

But:

Who would benefit from studying Latin and Greek, taught well, from the earliest age?

Everyone.
Anyone.

So what?
Here's so what:

Because Classics has always done the gritty work, always required its students to master the basics, Classics is in the position to become The Means by which education in this country and in the world, maybe, can change for the better.

We stick to our guns.
Our students can learn real skills: reading, writing, thinking.
Whether they remain in the field or not, those skills will always be with them.

It is our Secret Weapon.

If we dare to use it.
If we dare to say, This is What We Are About.

And Classics will cease being a marginalized field.
Cease to be that living exemplar/epitome of "Ivory Tower".
Cease to be just for "The Best and Brightest" - whoever they may be.
Universities will run in the other direction before they even think of cutting a department.

We will not just become relevant.
We will define Relevance.

But directed leadership is absolutely necessary.

And then - watch how the money rolls in.

-drg

Almost a year ago, I wrote the following post.

Given recent developments, documented in an article by Robert Winnett in the Telegraph of December 28, it seems germane to reissue that post of 1/22/08 once again.

A Silver Bullet? Latin, Modern Languages, and UK National Literacy

'[earlier this year] I commented on the sentiments expressed by the authors of The National Curriculum regarding modern languages.

This is That Post, Part II, Paragraph II of Modern Languages:

"Learning languages gives pupils opportunities to develop their listening, speaking, reading and writing skills and to express themselves with increasing confidence, independence and creativity. They explore the similarities and differences between other languages and English and learn how language can be manipulated and applied in different ways. The development of communication skills, together with understanding of the structure of language, lay the foundations for future study of other languages and support the development of literacy skills in a pupil's own language.

I'm a Latinist/Classicist/linguist.
I agree with the sentiments of this paragraph wholeheartedly.
The question is how to effectively achieve its purposes.

Here is my response:
Learn Latin.

"But Latin isn't a modern language."
"True."
"It's also dead."
"Also true."
"So?"
"So, word one: Frisp."
"Frisp? Never heard of it."'
"French
Romanian
Italian
Spanish
Portuguese

Which are all recognized languages of the European Union.

We also refer to them as Romance Languages."
"So?"
"So the structural basis of these languages is Latin.
Learn Latin, and you exponentially increase your capability of learning a Romance Language."

"Okay, but what about the other EU languages? Latin can't help with those, can it?"
"Actually, it can."
"How?"
"Many of the languages of the EU are inflected."
"Infected?"
"No, 'inflected'. A language that is inflected establishes meaning by changing the forms of its words, particularly nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. The form of the words shows their function in a sentence."
"And?"
"And Latin is also inflected.
Learn Latin, and you exponentially increase your capability of learning a non-Romance language."

"But it's still not spoken, right?"
"Right."
"So how does that address the "listening, speaking, reading, and writing" part of the paragraph?"

"In terms of listening and speaking, it doesn't."
"But isn't that a problem?"
"Actually, it's a solution in conundrum's clothing."
"You'd better explain."
"Sure. When students learn a foreign language, it often happens that their proficiencies - speaking and listening - mask their deficiencies - reading and writing."
"So they can't read or write."
"And how would you rate the literacy of someone who can't read or write?"
"Low?"
"There is a technical term for it. A person who cannot read or write his own language is 'illiterate'."
"So much for national literacy."
"You said it."
"But how does Latin help deal with this problem?"
"Which problem?"
"The literacy problem."
"With which language?"
"Better start with foreign languages."
"Fair enough. You have to ask why students find reading and writing difficult in the first instance."
"Okay, consider it asked."
"They find reading and writing difficult because they have done very little of those exercises with their own language. To really read and to really write, you have to more than inherently know a language; you have to understand it. You have to understand how words relate, how they fit together to make sentences, ideas, concepts, etc. You have to have done time, so to speak, working with the nuts and bolts of language - its grammar, its syntax, its vocabulary. To write it out long-hand, type it, chant it, play with it. Become friends with it. Writing is the tactile recording of literacy. Reading allows you to see how others go through that experience. Literacy is, in effect, the expertise with which you deliberately handle your own language. So if you are going to master another language, you will have to spend some serious time with your own."

"But why Latin then?"
"Because when students learn Latin, they cannot hide behind a good ear and convincing accent. They must focus on the other two aspects: reading and writing. Latin forces them to account for everything. That, in turn, forces them to account for everything in English. Which reenforces what they are doing with language in Latin. It becomes a benevolent cycle, feeding on itself."

"So, you're saying that Latin is good because it addresses reading and writing almost exclusively?"
"Basically, yes."
"So it makes students hyper-aware of their choice of words, and why they are saying what they are saying?"
"Yes. It turns a potentially passive exercise into an active one. It requires that they develop critical tools of linguistic discernment."

"And the student who takes Latin will be ready to study a modern language in all aspects?"
"Yes. They will be happy to be speaking a foreign language, but it will not be so completely different in terms of vocabulary or structure. They will have already been there. They will be jazzed up about going forward in their study of language."

"And this same student will have done a tremendous amount with the building blocks of English, too? All that grammar and vocabulary?"
"Yes."

"But doesn't that take care of two major concerns of the government?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well, there's the national literacy recommendations, and there's the modern language entitlement, too."

"Right."

"Wouldn't a serious study of Latin help students, particularly at Key Stage 2, make significant strides in both these areas?"

"Let me get this straight. You're saying that you think that the study of Latin at...?"
"Key Stage 2."
"What's that mean in American English?"
"Ages 7 to 11."
"Oh, right. Okay, so you're saying that you think that the study of Latin, particularly CAGSE's Latin, at Key Stage 2 will facilitate both a growing mastery of English and set the stage for the thorough learning of Modern Languages? As required by the UK government?"

"Yes."

"I couldn't have said it any better. Thank you."

"You're welcome."

drg'

You may have noticed that the blog's name has changed to "Latin, Literacy, Learning, Life - An Educationalyst's Journey".

You may have asked yourself,
"Why?"
Or maybe it struck you that something was different, but you couldn't put your finger on what that difference was. (Isn't it funny how we use concrete terms in abstract ways? I mean, can you really put your finger on a "difference"?)

Perhaps you observed that there were suddenly a lot of L's all up front, and thought, Cool, Alliteration!

But what the heck is an "Educationalyst"?

In any event, the change of title bears explanation, as Bill Landau, old friend and colleague, gently brought to my attention.

The first part of the title reflects the direction this blog has gone in.
It is about Latin.
It is about Literacy.
It is about Learning.
And it is about Life.

I may change it again to "Latin, Language, Learning, Life - An Educationalyst's Journey".
In any event, the title now is more representative of where I am than the previous "For Teachers of Classics and Lovers of Language".

Certainly more inclusive.

But what is an Educationalyst?
Why not "Educator"?
And why a journey?

The 'journey' part comes from how I view the living and progressing of my life.
I have always thought of it as a journey.
Maybe because a lot of what I have read speak of journeys.
JRR Tolkien, one of my all-time favorite authors, always talks about how
"The road goes ever on and on, down from the door where it began...."

Sheldon Kopp wrote one of the most amazing books I've ever read, entitled,
If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him!

As any reader of epic could tell you, the Road, the Journey, plays a major role.
Often, it is the occasion of the piece.
Think of Homer's Odysseus.
Or Vergil's Aeneas.
Or the far-travelling meandering brilliance that is the poetry of Ovid.

It is why I'm not really interested in "goals" per se.
I used to have to write about "goals" when I was teaching for others.
To me, they were but pit-stops on the way, rest areas, not particularly germane, and, indeed, physical and mental digressions from the real business at hand.
But that was not the correct answer.

Which is why I do what I do now.

Which is why I speak of myself as an Educationalyst.
And again, What Is An Educationalyst?

The term is one I came up with.
I am not an "Educator".
An "Educator" is someone who stays within the parameters of education as it currently goes about its business.
Who is satisfied with the system as it exists.
Who promulgates that system.

I do none of that.
Look at the word Educationalyst.

Educationalyst is a hybrid word:
education- this is the stem
-al- - Latin suffix, meaning "that which pertains to" a particular field
-lyst- - Greek suffix, from "lusis", cognate with English "loose" as in "let loose, unleash"
This suffix appears in words such as "catalyst", "analyst", etc.
It is not to be confused with "-ist", someone who does something or has a set of beliefs
causing them to act in a particular way.

So then, an Educationalyst is one who unleashes, lets loose powerful forces in things pertaining to the field of Education, not to further Education as it stands, but to create the environment in which Education goes further in different directions, ones not necessarily in concert with, and often in radical opposition to, the Educational Status Quo.

An Educationalyst, then, is an Agent of Change.
As the Furies unleash the incredibly creative power of their targets,
so do I.
My target is Education as it Stands.
My weapon is my Latin program.

It is not a weapon that harms.
It is a weapon that transforms.
That helps schools and their students unleash in themselves a power and understanding of language that will stand them well for their whole lives.

And so, that is what I am, among many things.

An Educationalyst.

- drg

I have been in something of a funk lately.
Experiencing a type of writer's block.
Blog Block.
When that happens, I like to do something a little different.
Doesn't mean I always do.
But sometimes I manage it.

That's what happened today.

My sister Peggy, whom I've spoken of before, sent me a copy of her documentary about the abusive, IRS-esque behavior of the California Coastal Commission.

Let it be known I have three sisters:
Peggy is the eldest
Ginny is the middle
Britt-Louise is the youngest.

(And then there's yours truly, not a sister, the only brother, and the youngest.)

We get a lot of our grit and pertinacity from our parents.
Recently, we've also been getting it from each other, as well.
Lucky us.
Truly.

We support what we do individually.

So I spend this blog speaking about my sister Peggy.
She and her husband Dan are involved in a gargantuan task.
David and Goliath.
Fighting an extra-governmental agency that regulates as it damn well pleases.
This agency uses the attorney general of the state of California as its personal bully boy.
This agency meets three times a month.
They give no guidelines whatsoever for how people are supposed to comply with their regulations - regulations which they themselves make.
And nobody has the power to gainsay them.
They, on the other hand, can go into anybody's property within five miles of the coast of California and dictate that nothing can be done.
If folks who have been so warned don't comply, they are subject to fines of up to $10,000 a day.

Let me reiterate.

$10,000 a day.
That's $3,650,000 a year.

But don't take my word for it.

Go see the website yourself.

www.sinsofcommission.com

These people make the IRS look tame.

I have one, and only one, question.

In the David vs. Goliath battle, who actually ended up winning?

- drg

"These Very Grim Times Demand It."
That of course is the translation of the Latin you see in the title of this blog entry.

"It" (illam) being cagse's Latin program.

These are, as I said, grim times.
We know that.
People are losing their jobs left and right.
Through no fault of their own.
Through no incompetence of their own.

I am not going to write like some people do when they say, "How could people possibly miss these problems?"

That is absurd.
Hopeless.
Helpless.
Useless.

Instead, I say this:
How will we prepare our young people so that something like this economic debacle never happens again?
Or, since "Never" is the most hubristic of adverbs,
How will we prepare them so that they will be well equipped to handle something like this?
Because it probably will happen again.
What doesn't is the absence of readiness.

Answer:
Give them the opportunity to become highly analytical of all data that comes their way at any given time.

How to do that?

Give them the opportunity to learn as deeply as possible.
To master language.
To understand its pitfalls, its blindspots, its dead-ends.

In a way, this entire crisis has to do with our oversight.
In both senses of "oversight", good and bad.
Challenge our young people to not accept what they see before them.
To not fear that their responses may not be welcome.

To assess information critically and face the ramifications of that understanding.

This is what cagse's Latin program does at a very early level.

We invite our students, require them, to grapple with language.
And language is the key.

What about numbers?
Numbers, too, are but another language.
The analysis is the same.

And so -

Let Them Learn Latin.

cagse's Latin.

Or,

Linguam Latinam Cagsiensem Cognoscant.

- drg

Let's get one thing straight right now.

The idea that a study of Latin would help literacy
has been well established for a very long time,
long before any implementation of any program took place.
No recent program could seriously take credit for that.

Our program is different from anything out there.
Completely.
Let me reiterate, in case people decide not to pay attention to what I just said:
Our program is its own animal.
In other words, Completely Different From The Rest.
We fundamentally focus on grammar.
Everything we do in Latin, we do in English first.

Other programs may speak of students mastering "Subject, Verb, Object".
That's nice, but it isn't enough.
Why?
Because when you say "object", there isn't just one possibility;
there are three.
An object is either direct, indirect, or preceded and "governed" by a preposition.

When you say verb, you need to be able to identify its components: person, number, tense, mood, voice.

When you say subject, you must be able to identify its person and number.

Subject and Verb together require subject/verb agreement discussions.

The type of verb is itself another issue.
If it is transitive, it takes a direct object.
If it is intransitive, it does not.

Can students in years 5 and 6 (fourth and fifth grade) understand those distinctions?
Can they master them?
Apply them?
Absolutely.

If you explain it, they will get it.

So we don't dumb it down.
We make it accessible.

And when it comes to students and learning Latin, we speak of "capability" not "ability".
The use of the term "ability" necessitates a judgement regarding young people that is invariably premature, and always academically damaging.

drg