Via Facilis

"You don't think that hearing and listening are the same?"
"Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not."
"When aren't they?"
"You can hear someone speak, yes? Does that mean you have to be listening to him precisely?"
"No, sometimes it's just sound."
"Right. If you hear a word spoken, but are not listening, that's all it is. A sound. But if you are listening, you hear words as words, as segments of thought."
"I see. Alright, you have a point. But which strand should be central, then, if not listening?"
"A good question. Any thoughts?"
"Here we go again, Socrates. Alright, how about Creating and Shaping Texts?"
"What does that require kids to know before they get to that level?"
"Hmmm. They need to know how to write."
"And what does that mean?"
"What do you mean what does that mean?"
"What do you think of as writing?"
"Oh, well, let's see. They have to know the alphabet."
"And?"
"And how to form the letters of the alphabet."
"And?"
"And how those letters fit together."
"And?"
"And how those letters sound separately and together. But..."
"But what?"
"But which comes first?"
"Which what?"
"Learning how to read and say the letters, and then the words, or how to write the letters?"
"All three."
"All three what?"
"Reading is a type of understanding. Writing is a type of understanding. Listening is a type of understanding."
"But can't you read without understanding what you're reading? Or write letters even if you don't know what they are? Or listen without... no, we already discussed that last one."
"True. You can read, write, even speak letters without immediately, or ever, understanding them."
"Isn't that four then?"
"How so?"
"Well, Understanding seems to be the common thread there."
"Good point. It is indeed. It's probably the key."
"Is that the center strand then?"
"Well, if you look at the strands, there is no Understanding by itself."
"What's the closest thing then?"
"How about Engaging with and Responding to Texts?"
"That's higher level based on listening, reading, writing."
"I agree."
"That goes for all the others, too: Drama, Understanding and Interpreting Texts, Engaging with and Responding to Texts, Text Structure and Organization, and Presentation."
"You've left out three."
"Right. There's Sentence Structure and Punctuation, but that's still higher level, if not on the same plain."
"Two to go."
"Word Recognition and Word Structure and Spelling, Strands 5 and 6. Those can't be the centerpiece strands, can they?"
"Why not?"
"Well, because they're so basic."
"Exactly."
"Ahhhh."

"So let's see if I have this straight. There are twelve strands in the UK's National Literacy Curriculum:
1. Speaking
2. Listening and Understanding
3. Discussion and Interaction
4. Drama
5. Word Recognition
6. Word Structure and Spelling
7. Understanding and Interpreting Texts
8. Engaging with and Responding to Texts
9. Creating and Shaping Texts
10. Text Structure and Organization
11. Sentence Structure and Punctuation
12. Presentation"

"That's correct."
"And of these twelve, strands 1 and 2 get the students "booted up", so to speak, and #3 is one application of #s 1 and 2. Yes?"
"I'd say so."
"Alright. #4, meanwhile, is a variation of #3, yeah?"
"In some cases, not just a variation, but a deepening and fleshing out of expression, as well."
"Strands 7 and 8 address reading and comprehension of various types of writings."
"Yes."
"Strand 9 goes from the purely mental activity of reading to the physical activity of writing - not copying other texts, but writing one's own material."

"Indeed."

"Strands 10, 11, and 12 flesh out the writing aspect: the general organization of the text, the specific structure of the sentences that make up the paragraphs and how they are annotated, and finally, the polished presentation. Yes?"

"Yes."

"And you believe that the centerpiece, the sine qua non, of these strands are #s 5 and 6?"

"Yes. Word Recognition and Word Structure and Spelling are the nexus. Every one of the twelve strands draws power from these two."

"How do you mean?"
"Alright, take strands #1 and 2, Speaking and Listening and Understanding."
"Okay."
"Without word recognition, can these strands hold?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because Speaking, Listening, Understanding all have to do with the spoken word. And if you don't recognize that what is said is a word, it doesn't matter if you hear it or not, because you won't understand it."

"Then what about Word Structure and Spelling? How does that fit in?"

"Well, there are many words that sound the same but mean different things."
"Such as?"
"How about 'there', 'they're', 'their'? If you don't know that those are three different words, there's going to be a problem. Spelling really helps you nail down those differences."
"So would you call Word Structure and Spelling a refinement of Word Recognition?"
"I would do."
"As would I. Let's talk more about this tomorrow."
"But...."
"Don't worry. I won't leave you stranded."

"So where've you been? And what's wrong with your face?"
"Sporting, isn't it? Only the best education consultants are wearing it."
"No, but seriously. Where have you been?
"In hospital. Getting my left nostril's septum undeviated."
"That would explain the chic gauze moustache. For a second I thought you were the physical manifestation of Drama, strand four."
"I appreciate your imagination. But no. Just got my nose fixed."
"If only fixing the UK curriculum were so easy."
"It's not broken. It's just a matter of understanding how the pieces work together, and which are the central strands. And then how to make those strands powerful."
"Right. I've been thinking about that since you were away, brief though it was."
"Wait. Wasn't this the long Easter week-end?"
"Yes."
"I thought all thinking was generally suspended until after it ended."
"Well, I was bored."
"To tears, apparently. So what did you come up with?"
"To be honest, I think I got myself even more muddled than I was before."
"Well, let's see if we can't remedy that. What does 'Word Recognition' entail? Is it simply a matter of recognizing a word as what it stands for?"
"Could you explain that more?"
"Sure. What does 'cow' mean to you?"
"It's an animal we get drinking milk from."
"Anything else?"
"Beef, too."
"No, I mean, is that all 'cow' means to you?"
"Well, they wear bells, sometimes."
"Okay, wait. Let me rephrase. At its most basic level, what is 'cow'?"
"A mammal?"
"Hold on. This isn't working. Let's take a different approach."
"Please."

"How about this:

'cow, picture, ship, chair, book, grass, foot.'

What do you make of that?'

"They're a bunch of nouns."
"That it?"
"Yes. Just random nouns."
"Nothing else?"
"Well, there are seven of them."

"Fine. Now what about these?
'cows, picture, ships, chair, books, grass, foot.' "

"The same seven random nouns again."
"Random, huh?"
"Oh yes, they seem so to me. But they're the same."
"No changes?"
"Let's see. Actually, now three of them are plural."

"Right. So what about this?
'cows grass.' "

"Still nouns - from that same set. But now only two."
"Do they still seem random?"
"Well...what do you mean?"
"I mean, Do those two nouns placed right next to each other like that have any meaning for you?"
"They seem to."
"Meaning what?"
"Cows and grass seem to go together. But not as you have them, 'Cows grass.'
"What would you do so that they could go together?"
"You'd have to add another word."
"Okay, how about 'cows hills grass.' "
"No, that doesn't help."
"Why not? You said to add another word. 'hills' is another word."
"Yes. But it's the same sort as 'cows' and 'hills'.
"How so?"
"It's another thing."
"So?"
"So you still have to figure out how the first two, 'cows' and 'grass', fit together. If you add only another noun, you've have three things to explain, not just two."

"So what word would you add?"
"Well, first I'd have to ask myself about what 'cows' and 'grass' have to do with one another."
"And what's the answer?"
"Several, actually."
"Do tell."
"Let's see. Cows stand on grass. And they eat it. Yes. That's easiest. I'd add 'eat'."
"Okay, 'cows grass eat'. Right?"
"No. That doesn't look right."
"How about, 'eat cows grass'?"
"That just doesn't make any sense."
"So what would?"
" 'Cows eat grass.' "

"So 'cows' and 'grass' are 'things', and 'eat' isn't?"
"Right."
"What is the technical term for 'things'?
"Uhhh, I think it starts with an 'n'..."
"and ends with an 'n', too."
"I'm not sure..."
"And has '-ou-' in the middle."
"A NOUN!"
"Exactly. So 'cows' and 'grass' are nouns, and 'eat' isn't, right?"
"Right."
"But if 'eat' isn't a noun, what is it?"
"It's the action word."
"What is the action word called? Does it have a specific name?"
"This one I remember. You don't have to spell this one out for me. It's called a verb."
"Excellent."
"You're too kind."
"I'll take your word for it. Now, let's consider your creation:
'Cows eat grass.' "

"Okay."
"Is this a complete thought?"
"What do you mean?"
"Does 'Cows eat grass' convey a complete thought or idea?"
"Does it?"
"What would happen if I put the word 'If' right before 'cows'? Then you'd have 'If cows eat grass'. Does that sound complete?"
"Well, if you added something like, 'then they get fat' it would."
"But by itself?"
"No."
"How about if there's no 'If'? Just plain old 'Cows eat grass'?"
"Yes. That's a complete thought."
"What do we call that? Technically?"
"Hmmmm."
"I'll give you a hint. When a person is convicted of a crime, the judge in the case pronounces....?"
"Sentence! Right, it's a sentence. A sentence is a complete thought. Of course."
"Tremendous. Now, in that sentence, 'Cows eat grass', how is 'Cows' functioning?
"They're doing the eating."
"They're performing the action of the verb?"
"Yes."
"And when a noun is performing the action of a verb, it is functioning in a particular way. It is acting...?"
"on impulse?"
"Inventive, but no. Think technically, again."
"I'm lost."
"Okay. Someone gives a talk on a particular what?"
"Field? Area?"
"Close. Maybe a little narrower?"
"Expertise?"
"No. How about this? All UK nationals are the Queen's..."
"Subjects! Oh, right. Subject."
"Right. The Subject is the noun that does the action of the verb."
"And the verb is the action word that the Subject is doing."
"Also right. So in the sentence 'Cows eat grass'..."
" 'Cows' is the Subject."
"And 'eat'..."
"is what the 'Cows', the Subject, are doing, and is, therefore, the verb!"
"Excellent. Only one word left to account for. How is 'grass' acting in our favorite sentence, 'Cows eat grass'?"
"It's what the Cows eat."
"It's receiving the action of the verb?"
"Yes, I suppose it is."
"What term do we give nouns when, like 'grass', they receive the action of the verb?"
"It's on the tip of my tongue...."
"Okay. Hint: 'Not the Subject of my attention but the...."
"Object!"
"Yes. But because it is directly receiving the action of the verb, we can go one step further and call it the ___________ object."
"Direct! The direct object!"
"Precisely. So, to review:
1. Nouns are things (or persons or places)
2. Nouns can act as subjects, i.e., doers of the action of the verb
3. Nouns can act as Direct Objects (i.e., direct receivers of the
action of the verb)
4. Verbs are action words, i.e., words that denote action performed
by Nouns acting as subjects on nouns acting as direct objects.

Make sense?"

"Yes. But how do we know when a noun is acting as a subject or a direct object?"

"Excellent question. And psychic, too. You have anticipated our next lesson: The Primacy of Word Order. So see you tomorrow."

"Brilliant."

"Good evening."
"To you, as well. Did we shave?"
"What? Oh, you mean the gauze. Or lack of it. Well, no, but my nose has healed considerably. Nice to breathe again through that left nostril. Haven't used it for forty-two years."
"That must be a strange sensation."
"It's quite liberating, actually."
"I'll bet."
"You'd win, so I'm not laying odds. Anyway, when we last were having our discussion, you asked a critical question."
"I did?"
"That wasn't it."
"Oh, right. I remember now."
"Will you reask it?"
"Surely. I asked, 'How do we know when a noun is acting as a subject or a direct object?' "
"Have you thought about it since then?"
"No, that wasn't the question I asked. I remember clearly."
"No, I mean, have you thought about an answer to your question which you just right now brought our attention back to."
"Oh. Well, yes."
"And you have an answer?"
"I said I thought about an answer. I didn't say I had one."
"Shall we conjure up that sentence which gave rise to your question?"
"Good idea."
"Our sentence was, 'Cows eat...'"
"'grass'!"
"Right. Did we decide anything about the function of 'Cows' in the sentence?"
"Yes, that it was a noun acting as the subject, i.e., the doer of the action."
"Right. Did we decide anything else?"
"We determined that 'eat' was the verb, i.e., the action that the subject, 'Cows', was performing."
"Okay. And?"
"And that 'grass' was the direct object of the verb 'eat' because it was what the 'cow', the subject, was eating."

"Let me ask you if you would agree to the following as a summing up of what we discussed last time:
1. Nouns are things (or persons or places)
2. Nouns can act as subjects, i.e., doers of the action of the verb
3. Nouns can act as Direct Objects (i.e., direct receivers of the
action of the verb)
4. Verbs are action words, i.e., words that denote action performed
by Nouns acting as subjects on nouns acting as direct objects.

Anything else?"
"No, that's about it."
"Okay. So your question then was, in a nutshell: How To Decide?"
"How to decide what?"
"Well, if a noun can act either as a subject of a verb, or a direct object of a verb, how do you know when you see a noun how it's acting?"
"I need some help here."
"Okay, let's bring back our sentence."
"Let's."
" 'Cows eat grass.' "
"So much is clear."
"How many nouns?"
"Two."
"Subject?"
" 'Cows'."
"Direct Object?"
" 'grass'."
"Verb?"
" 'eat' ."
"Where is the subject placed?"
"At the beginning of the sentence?"
"Yes, but let's be even more specific."
"Okay. Directly in front of the verb."
"Correct. How about the direct object?"
"That's directly after the verb."
"Correct. Do you know the answer to your question yet?"
"Sort of...."
"Take our sentence again."
" 'Cows eat grass.' "
"Switch 'Cows' and 'grass'."
" 'Grass eats Cows.' "
"Do those two sentences mean the same thing?"
"Don't they?"

"Look at them closely:
'Cows eat grass'
'Grass eats Cows'
Are they the same?"

"Well, no."
"What did I change?"
"The placement of 'grass' and 'cows'."
"What happened?"
" 'grass' became the subject; 'cows' became the direct object."
"What happened to the placement of the verb?"
"Nothing. It stayed the same."
"So what are we saying about where words appear in a sentence?"
"That it means a lot."
"It actually means everything. Where a word falls in a sentence determines its function in the sentence, and therefore, the force of that sentence."
"Could you summarize?"
"Absolutely. Word order tells you word function. An English sentence is completely dependent upon its word order to establish meaning."
"Are you sure?"
"Let me rephrase. 'Cows grass eat.' "
"What does that mean?"
"Exactly."

Let's revisit that post of April 7.

'Cows grass eat.'

The meaning of this sentence couldn't be less clear.
The import of that meaninglessness couldn't be more obvious.

In English, very simply,
Word Order Rules.

Let's take a look at the blog entry I wrote over a year ago.
It bears directly upon word order and the critical role it plays in English syntax.

"A New Word Order?

"'Done what you've looked,' angrily shouted one of the salesman. He meant to say 'Look what you've done,' but the words had gotten so hopelessly mixed up that no one could make any sense at all. 'Do going to what we are!'"
- The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster

So begins a chapter from Norton Juster's fabulous book about a boy with nothing to do and his travels in the Lands Beyond.

The greatest difficulty that confronts the English speaker in the learning of Latin is the manner in which the two languages establish meaning. In the English sentence (as Juster's words demonstrate so poignantly), word order plays the crucial role, with endings of words filling in any informational gaps.

In the drama of the Latin sentence, meanwhile, word ending is the protagonist, with word order playing a secondary, nuanced role. Yes, the verb in Latin prose tends to come at the end of a sentence. But very frequently you will find the verb in first position (we're talking sentence structure here, not ballet).

Ask your typical speaker of English the question:
"How does the English sentence convey meaning?"

A shoulder shrug and "I don't know" will be the response.

Direct said speaker to a book store with words of the following sort:

"And up hurry Phantom the Tollbooth Juster buy Norton by."

They point the get might.'"

"This is all very enlightening about English word order, but so what?"
"What do you mean?"
"I mean, what's the point?"
"Point?"
"Weren't you going to tie this in to Latin?"
"Yes."
"Well, we’re waiting."
"Based on our conversation, can you make a guess?"
"About Latin, you mean?"
"Yes."
"Let's see. I would guess that it can help students with word order."
"And?"
"And that's all."
"But what is the import of word order in English?"
"Meaning?"
"Exactly. Without it, there isn’t any.”
“No, I meant, ‘What do you mean?’”
“I mean, Without word order, there isn't any meaning."
"But how does Latin figure into this?"
"Well, that’s the question. But it isn't just Latin. It’s a specific type of Latin."
"Which is...?"
"CAGSE's Latin."
"Aren't all Latin programs the same?"
"No. Our program is linguistic/language-acquisition-oriented.”
“Isn’t that a little narrow?”

“So it may seem. But our experience is that the power to communicate is critical for all students. The person who has control of language – not just vocabulary, but the manner in which that vocabulary is accessed and applied - is a force to be reckoned with. As such, the question becomes, What is the best vehicle for the acquisition of these skills? These communication skills? These literacy skills? The answer is, unequivocally, a linguistic approach to Latin.”

“How so?”

“Because we focus on the structure of words and their relationship to, and with, one another. With our program, students learn to take account of every component of every word. Each component of a word plays a role in establishing the word’s meaning. In turn, every word plays a role in a sentence. We show how elements fit together to form words, how those words fit together – how they relate to one another - to make sentences."

"Okay, but still, what’s the point?"

"The point is that it is CAGSE’s approach to Latin which particularly helps students develop an exacting awareness of, and facility for, English and how it establishes meaning."

"How?”

“By making the passive learning of language into an exercise of active awareness where every linguistic component is accounted for; by providing students with a scientific lexicon, a vocabulary, which enables them to become active understanders and practioners of language, not mere consumers.”

“'By making the passive learning of language into an exercise of active awareness where every linguistic component is accounted for; by providing students with a scientific lexicon, a vocabulary, which enables them to become active understanders and practioners of language, not mere consumers.'”

That was the last comment from the post immediately previous to this. Let's rejoin our two conversants.

"But how does Latin do this?"
"Not just any Latin program; cagse's."
"Okay. How does cagse's Latin do this?"
"Well, you agree aboutt he power of word order in English?"
"You mean, that it establishes meaning, and that without it, there isn't any?"
"Yes."
"In that case, yes."
"But what does that imply?"
"What does what imply?"
"The power of word order in English?"
"Oh, that. I guess that each word plays a function in the sentence?"
"And so?"
"And so particularly functioning words have a particular place in that word order?"
"Yes."
"Okay, but let's get concrete here."
"Fine. Back to our friend, 'Cows eat grass.'"
"I've missed it so."
"The waiting is over. What is the function of 'cows'?"
"It's a noun acting as the subject."
"And 'grass'?"
"A noun, the direct object of 'eats'."
"And nouns and verbs are what in terms of grammar?"
"Hmm. A hint, please."
"Parts of Screech."
"Surely you mean 'Speech'?"
"Right you are. Parts of Speech."

"So are you saying that parts of speech have their own specific places in word order?"

"Yes. And so are you."

"Just to be clear, what are those parts of speech, anyway? Their official titles?"

"Good question. They are:

nouns
pronouns
verbs
adjectives
adverbs
conjunctions
prepositions
interjections

"Thanks. And each of these has its place in a sentence?"
"Yes. Back to 'Cows eat grass.' What can we say about it?"
"That we're bored of it already?"
"That, too, but don't hurt its feelings."
"Apologies."
"No worries. Sentences don't actually feel anything. If we talk about 'Cows eat grass' in terms of parts of speech, what is the word order?"
"Noun-verb-noun."
"The first noun acts as...?"
"Subject."
"And the last?"
"As object."
"Be more specific?"
"Oh. As direct object."
"So, 'noun-verb-noun' in terms of word function would then be..."
"Subject-verb-direct object."
"You've got it."

"But again, why cagse's Latin?"

"Because everything we do in Latin we do in English first; because we believe kids can and will approach and master grammar with excitement and interest if it is compellingly introduced."

"Why don't you just do English then?"

"Because we're not interested in English alone. We're interested in language and how language establishes meaning. English and Latin, when studied in relation to one another, afford students a close encounter with the inner workings of the mechanics of meaning."

"But why cagse?"

"Because cagse's Latin goes one step further."
"I'm waiting."

"Right. We require our students to engage in a careful, painstaking, in-depth accounting of those linguistic mechanics."

"In English?"
"Yes."
"And in Latin?"
"Yes."
"Both English and Latin?"
"Yes."
"That is different."

"Yes."

Who is Dr. Richard Gilder III?
Why did he found CAGSE?

If you want to know, read on.
If you don't, plug in a new destination and keep on surfin'.

I am on what is currently a twenty-four year journey to deepen my understanding, knowledge, and flexibility of thinking in several meaningful areas. These areas include, but are not limited to, an on-going investigation into the power and eloquence, the brashness and boldness, the mechanics and intricacies, the beauty and the absurdity, the good sense and the nonsense, of the essence of Latin, Greek, English, language in general, lacrosse, learning, teaching, coaching, advising, and guiding students and teachers on the beginning, middle, or end of the road upon which they find themselves at a particular moment in time.

CAGSE is the expression, the physical manifestation, of that quest.

I have taught and coached students of every age level from 4th grade through graduate school. I know where they began, where they are, where they're going. I understand their motivations, their hopes, their fears, their disappointments (sometimes borne of bitter unexpected failure, sometimes accepted with lukewarm acknowledgement), their successes (garnered with anything from a modest shrug to a wild whoop of exultation). When it comes to students, I have seen the means, the extremes, and everything in between. I am a student of the mind inchoate belonging to that age group undergoing the angst and grind of growing up. Students sense this intuitively. They know when they come to me that I will tell them what they need to hear. Each student is different. One needs compassion, another compulsion, a third someone who will simply lend an ear. One student would do well to stop kidding himself, another to give herself a break. And there's always the student who is desperately seeking the answer to the lonliest of all questions, "Is there anybody out there?" I encourage students, and teachers, to undertake more and greater challenges, to opt for the more difficult path, or the one less obvious. Yet whether in the classroom, in my office, or on the athletic field, I'm ultimately in the business of putting myself out of business. There will come a time when students walk out of my classroom, out of school, and on to the next phase of their lives. I prepare students not against that day, but for it.

As a colleague, I'm open and frank; I speak my mind; I don't break if you speak yours. I work extremely hard, am self-motivated, but not self-absorbed.

If you want to work for me, I expect nothing less from you.

I have a clear vision about the whos, whats, whens, whys, wheres of Latin and language, of lacrosse, of teaching, of coaching, of mentoring. I am direct. I've written two Latin text books, used in the UK in CAGSE's state schools in the London area. And I attend conferences such as that held by the Classical Association of Atlantic States, by the American Classical League, and by JACT.

drg

I had a correspondence a while ago from a representative of childs services in one of our schools.
He wanted this one school to meet its budget without using discretionary funds.
That's fine and good.
But it fails to help this school much.
The kids at this school suffer because of this.
Did he out and out reject our program?
No.
Did he say the cost of our program was extravagant?
Actually, he said it was reasonable.
He did say that he had to cut funding for other teachers. To identify and eliminate redundancies.
But we are talking about kids here.
And what they need. And he is acting as if the education system is some sort of company. Which it is isn't.

He also said he was somewhat hesitant about the fact that our people do not have "the proper credentials."
I'm not sure what those credentials are.
A teaching degree?
Many people have such degrees, and have no idea how to teach.
We expect more from our teachers, not less.
We are not satisfied with what they might be able to do or what the state expects them to do.
The head teacher of this one school did not have a problem with our teacher. She raved about how good he was. OFSTED visited and was similarly impressed. I don't like it when people, despite their apparatus approving of what we do, reject us out of hand.
They're thrilled we are doing we are doing, but are even more thrilled to not pay for it.

Well, fortunately, not everyone is so myopic.
Literacy is not a matter of redundancies.
It is a matter of excellent education, and tapping into the students and, more critically, getting them to tap into themselves.

We will be turning to companies in the business community to do the right thing. To take the long view, not the short. Because they are longsighted, not short sighted. They have to be.

Ultimately, the problem highlighted by the assistant head of child services' refusal to give this one particular school money for a superior program is one of Efficiency triumphing over Effectiveness.
He failed to see that efficiency is good only insofar as it is creates the environment wherein Effectiveness can flourish.

This is not what is happening in this particular borough.

There, it is Penny Wise and Pound Foolish.

drg

I was going to continue responding to that New York Times article on the resurgence of Latin from last week. Then an old student of mine read the blog post right before this one. His/her assessment (all tongue in cheek/sarcastic) was so right on, so funny, so much better than anything I could say - this is a student, you see, someone in the system, as opposed to yours truly, who writes, shall we say, against the system - that I reproduce it here verbatim.

And no, none of this is mine.

Except the quotation marks, the bold, and one bracketed pointer.

The rest is hers/his.

And here it is:

"Ha. In a Latin LANGUAGE class, culture and history are the only things that matter, not to mention the spells in Harry Potter. Who are these people actually teaching Latin grammar and vocabulary? Someone should give them a good talking to....

And to use that lovely metaphor of yours [see the post just before this one], window dressing is okay, but without the window of language to put it on, it is oh so much more enticing."

Back to that New York Times article on resurgence of Latin in schools.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm thrilled that they're actually giving Latin its due long over due (sort of).
It's just that there needs to be some readjustment in the paint-job.
And Latin has to be careful about being damned with faint praise.

The article said, among other things,
"Latin has quietly flourished in many high-performing suburbs, like New Rochelle..." [my emphases]

Of course it has. Any school that's "high-performing" would and will do well with any subject at all, regardless of its "dead" nature (I might add here that history is likewise "dead" but people never seem to question the relevance of it - and well they should not; also that students of biology often dissect "dead" things, and again, nobody questions why - and, again, they should not).

The point to make about Latin is that if it is taught right, it's not simply the "high-performing suburbs" that will benefit - it's all schools, particularly and especially and explicitly the ones performing less well. Or rather, that the ones performing less well will, by virtue of their having a real robust Latin program, become "high-performing". Give students the opportunity to work with Latin, syntax, grammar, etc., and the problems they have in English will disappear. Why? Because to really understand Latin, you must understand the grammatical and syntactical underpinnings. Which means you have to do the same in English.

Which means you are forced to grapple with, and make sense of, the nuts and bolts of language.

This is what is so critical about studying Latin.
This is what Latin, unlike any other language, native, foreign, living, dead
has to offer.

Now the trick is to choose the right program.

Because All Latin Program Are NOT Created Equal.

drg

A number of different folks from completely different walks of life have said to me in the last three weeks that I need to bring what we do with CAGSE to the US.

This is a move I always planned to do.
I just hadn't intended on doing it so soon.
Especially in this fabulous economy of ours.

But maybe just because of this economy of ours, CAGSE's work is more pertinent than ever.

What happened there?
People did not do their due diligence.
People assumed that things were happening.
And they weren't.

So here we are.
But how does CAGSE's Latin program help?
Well, what we do is we require our students to master language.
To understand precisely what is going on.
To fathom the underpinnings of language, you must explore, observe, and understand everything you see.

CAGSE's Literacy and Latin program leaves nothing to doubt or speculation.
We ask our students to leave no stone unturned.
We ask our students to take responsibility for their own work.
We show them how to do that, but for them to truly succeed in this program,
they have to invest themselves.
To the hilt.
With all their mind.
Can you imagine such a financial crisis occurring if folks around the globe had, from the beginning, left no stone unturned?
Had understood precisely what was going on?
Had not left it to others to do their work for them?
Had done the analysis required from the very beginning?

This is what we do.

We're the next wave in education.

We're dynamite.
We ain't no gimmick.

We are the real deal.

And so, CAGSE is coming to America.

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

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

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.

I was having dinner at this restaurant down the street last night.
Having a drink at the bar.
A saturday night sort of deal.
I started speaking to these people about...Latin.
What a surprise.
I know, I thought that, too.

The guy says to me, "Why Latin?"

And I say to him, well, ever see that comic strip "Cathy"?
One time she's saying hello to her dog.
And her dog thinks to itself, "I love you anyway, even if you have a one dimensional nose."

That's what someone who studies Latin CAGSE's way gets for themselves.
A dog's nose?
Something that.
It is the linguistic equivalent.
When you take Latin and truly study it inside out, outside in, you are developing your linguistic sensibility, sensitivity.
You can sense things in English that before were just, well, words on a page.
Suddenly, instead of looking at just a two dimensional piece of paper on which are written two dimensional letters making up words, the words begin to speak in a way you never heard them before.
They leap off the page.
Each word has a story to tell.
Meaning to establish.
Do you get this just from studying English?
No. Most folks who study and teach English are enamored of ideas, plots, themes, symbols.

They miss the fundamental lesson that Latin offers:
you want to understand those ideas, plots, themes, symbols, you had best understand the bare bones, the nuts and bolts, the manner in which meaning is established.
Then, and only then, will the ideas, plots, themes, symbols have real meaning.

Until then, it's just a breath of hot air.
Or two.

An Open Later to Parents re: After School Latin at All Saints Academy, Newport, RI

Over the last twenty-four years, I have been teaching Latin and Greek to students of every level from fourth grade through graduate school. Three years ago, I founded CAGSE, a company which has been getting Latin into schools, and teaching it, in the UK. Five schools in the London area use our program to help their students meet government standard literacy requirements. To get a better idea of what CAGSE does, I encourage you to explore our website at www.cagse.com. Most recently, I decided to bring this program to schools in the United States, with Newport, RI and the surrounding area as the focal point.

I’ve written my own text books, and developed my own pedagogical tools whereby students of any age and perceived capability can readily learn Latin. When students work with CAGSE’s Latin, they are asked to grapple with the building blocks of Indo-European. In doing this, they begin constructing a door through which they can readily access English as well. Learning Latin also puts students in a good position to pick up any European language: the Romance languages as well as the rest, which, like Latin, are inflected: word endings play a significant role in establishing the syntax, and therefore the meaning, of a sentence. Working with the basics, in turn, helps students develop their language skill to the point where any language they look at, whether or not it is Indo-European, is accessible.

I would like to meet with you regarding the offer of my Latin course to your children in an after-school program. Not because six out of every ten words in the English language are Latinate, or that your students’ SSAT scores will go up. We go deeper than that. CAGSE’s Latin program has students working with every part of every word to determine what role each has in the formation of linguistic meaning. The fact of the matter is that your students’ linguistic competence, not merely their dictionary knowledge, will both deepen and broaden as they work with the nuts and bolts of a language which is integral in the development of their own.

I look forward to meeting with you.

Very Sincerely Yours,

Dr. Richard Gilder III
CAGSE
(845) 309 5808 (cell)

Six Week Program
$180 per student

Each class as a group is unique. What we cover will vary. We go as fast as the class goes. There is no constraint upon the students one way or the other.

A Sample Syllabus
Week 1 – Learn Latin Greetings and numbers I-X
Who were the Romans?
When were the Romans?
What would have happened if Remus had prevailed?

Week 2 – Revisit Week 1
New Material
Build Up English Parts of Speech – Focus on Noun
Noun in English vs. Noun in Latin
English Building Blocks manipulatives
Latin Building Blocks

Week 3 – Revisit Weeks 1-2
Build Up English Parts of Speech
Work with the Verb in Latin and in English
English Building Blocks
Latin Building Blocks

Week 4 – Revisit Weeks 1-3
Build Up English Parts of Speech
Noun and Verb together in Latin and English
How does the English sentence establish meaning?
How does Latin establish meaning?

Week 5 - Revisit Weeks 1-4
Build Up English Parts of Speech
Prepositions in English
Prepositions in Latin

Week 6 – Revisit Weeks 1-5