The Latin Zone

I'm currently at Austin College at the Richardson Summer Language Institute.  This is an extraordinary opportunity for Texans (the grant is local) to go study free.  We are reading books 10 and 12 of Vergil, and I am enjoying the readings and discussions tremendously.

I have made some observations, though, which some people will find too critical.  I am NOT trying to be critical, only to observe and ponder what I know about teaching and reading Latin.  We all, most assuredly, go through periods of doubt regarding our own skills, whether we have bitten off more then we can chew, etc etc.  At least I know I do.  I know I have always been a worrier, or at least I was as a child.  I remember my mom calling me that frequently, though I have no idea what I worried about. I must ask her.  ANYWAY, now I turn it to a more productive aspect in contemplating what I do, whether it works or not, how to tweak it, etc.

I have long since gotten out of the habit of writing translations.  I was taught in college NEVER to write out translations, even though that was the main way we did assignments my last year of high school.  In college we were taught to keep running lists of problem vocabulary, etc etc.  I would also, for instance, draw arches over words and phrases that belonged together, and maybe write words in the margins.  

Now after being a strong supporter of reading methodologies, using Dexter Hoyos' book/beliefs combined with metaphrasing and such, I find that I work totally differently than other teachers.  Mind you, all of us here have not read Vergil in a long time.  It has been 20 years for me, easily, and similar for others.  Some came to teach Latin after teaching other things; some have a strong background in Greek, others know French.  So we all have our weaknesses.  

I was invited to join in a group of three others to work on "translating" our assignment that was due today. I had already missed the first part but was happy to join in.  I probably made a nuisance of myself by just jumping in and reading out loud.  In fact, before I had gone back to get my book (I had stuck my head in their room because I heard loud laughter), I had asked whether they were reading out loud.  The reply was, "No, we'll do that tomorrow."  

But this is VERGIL.   It should be read out loud, and not everyone taking a line but whole long bits at a go!!!  This has perhaps been the one most frustrating thing for me here, because I think we should be teaching better reading skills--not only to the other teachers but in turn to our students.  (I am a junior presenter here.)  But I'm jumping ahead.

So I joined this happy lot of translators.  I wanted to read the equivalent to a paragraph at a time in Latin to get a brief preview of what's happening--skimming, in a sense, to pick up a few things here and there, whether it's vocabulary or the order of words/cases and such.   Someone freaked and said let's just do 3 lines or so at a time.  So ok, I didn't want to upset anyone.  Our discussions were fairly good and I was by no means right every time about stuff, but was frustrated because they were not reading in word order.  

This is so important.  This is just SO VERY IMPORTANT.  Word pictures are created this way, the story unfolds this way on purpose.  Translating into English should be the last THE VERY VERY LAST thing you do.  Understanding comes first, understanding the Latin, in order, is first.  And things usually unfold more easily this way.

Phrases also jump out this way, as well as if you read more than just a line or two at a time.  Things just don't work that way.  THIS IS LITERATURE.

And for Vergil's sake READ OUTLOUD!  

And when you have figured out what a section is, REREAD it.  REREAD IT OFTEN, adding more lines from before and after in order to fix the bigger picture in your head.

OF COURSE students balk at studying for the Vergil AP exam--especially if they read through it once to DECIPHER, write down that translation, correct the translation NEVER looking at the Latin, and then moving on to the next lines, NEVER rereading.

OF COURSE.

<sigh>

One person here has extraordinary listening skills, being fluent in Spanish and French.  Another clearly works her students hard with translations and essays, most likely buidling really solid skills.  I can't tell you what I do yet.  I know that perhaps the way I have structured Latin 3 for the last couple of years hasn't been ideal, using Ecce Romani and doing it split level. I'm not criticizing Ecce, only that I use CLC with the other classes and Ecce was on its way out so I wasn't totally invested.  I was also teaching English and trying to keep up with research papers, essays and whatnot.  I have my excuses, such as they are, which I fall back on uncomfortably.

BUT I constantly modeled reading whole sections of Latin so that it sounded like A LANGUAGE.  I was picky about pronunciation (at least as I modeled it).  I constantly did metaphrasing to reinforce READING Latin as it comes.

And I did something I'm going to call spiraling.  Maybe that's the right thing to call it, I dunno.  I'm sure you can find the first time I did this with real Latin if you look in the archives back to spring of 07.  We were reading some Catullus--cenabis bene, I think it started.  I read the whole poem to the class first, and asked what they got of it.  Very little, and that was ok.  Then we translated the first line.  After that was understood by everyone, WE ALL READ THAT LINE TOGETHER IN THE LATIN.  Then we translated line 2. After that was understood by everyone, WE ALL READ LINES 1 AND 2 TOGETHER IN THE LATIN.  Then we translated line 3, then read ALL THREE LINES TOGETHER IN THE LATIN.  

And so on until the last line.  I think the poem was around 15 lines or so.  Therefore we only dealt with the English once per line, but we dealt with the Latin  MULTIPLE TIMES PER LINE, depending upon the line.

By the end, I made them read the whole thing WITH FEELING.  Then again with MORE FEELING.

WE FOCUSED ON THE LATIN not the damned English.  We fixed the vocabulary in our minds that way, in the context of the poem and not in some dumb list to be memorized.

We are sitting here at this workshop--which has many other things to be praised on offer--but we're doing old school read a line and translate going around the room.  There is no FEEL for the Latin, no dramatizing, no playing Vergil at a recitation.

Jupiter, no wonder there are kids out there in AP Latin who end up hating Vergil.  What drudgery if this is what "reading" Latin means to them.

Last night I did lead a little section on reading theory.  I gave out my reading bookmarkers based in Dexter's rules for reading Latin.  Bob Cape talked a bit about reading with expectation, Glen Knudsvig style.  I then followed up with a handout on different types of metaphrasing I do as warm-ups.  Finally we handed out and went over the different rules for disambiguation from an article Dan McCaffrey wrote for TCA back when I was editor.

I'm not in enough of a leadership role to really help these teachers make the transition to reading in word order.  I made up reading cards, as I agreed to do last night, this morning even though I overslept.  I could have been rereading my Latin for class.  I had them ready to go, handed them over to one of the profs, but then they were never used with this morning's readings, even though I suggested we use them after the break with the beginning of our readings in book 12.  That's ok.  We can bring these things up later.

Sometimes some of us on Latinteach are accused of being too, I dunno, evangelical about our views.  But I am cruising through Vergil, not without stops and starts in places, but in comparison to what doing 50+ lines was like for me in college, I am cruising through with time to spare for reading and rereading.  I am making myself read out loud, which some may find odd, but it makes SUCH A BIG DIFFERENCE.  

This gives me a dimension of fluency in reading and I'm better at reading elisions (most of the time) and even sight reading!  This morning, as I said, I woke up late, 2 hours later than planned.  No rollerblading around campus for me like yesterday.  No breakfast even, but then I have fresh peaches in my room.  I made the reading cards and looked over the book 10 readings.  I had failed to remember that we were supposed to read in book 12!!!  I discovered that while we were sitting in the lounge where we meet, slowly pouring over the lines.  When I noticed on the agenda that there was book 12 lines to read, I quickly noted what passage we were currently on and remembered that I felt solid on reading that section.  So I skipped to the 20 or so lines that I hadn't read, and read through them two or three lines, getting only stuck in one place that was difficult.  I didn't sweat it; I knew we'd go over it.  And if I ended up reading those lines, so be it if I wasn't perfect.

If nothign else this was a demonstration that these techniques which I have been teaching and working on using myself do make me a better reader, less panicked at sight.  In fact, all of this is sight reading, really, except I can look up words if I need to.

So, I suppose I'm rambling.  And it's time to go to the computer lab.  

Maybe one day I can team up with some profs to do a workship similar to this, but one that also includes up front better ways to teach and approach reading that actively makes the "students" practice these techniques even if they feel comfortable with their more painstaking decode and translate on paper method.

I finished my AP Syllabus.  It was a lot of work and a lot of *thought* with not much to show for it.  Just a piece of paper.  Well, you know what I mean.  I probably wasted a lot of time just CONTEMPLATING what I was going to do.  I'm still thinking I should have put much more into a review up front, but will figure that out later.  There just wasn't the time in the schedule.

I know I act like I know so much all the time, but I know I don't.  I have distinct ideas about what was wrong in my Latin education, and what I want my students to be able to do, but I'm still just striving to get there.    I think there are some things I do well, really well, but others that I do not do well--like timing/pacing.  So, with the whole AP year planned out, maybe I'll be better at pacing.

I have one week before I go off to Austin College, like I did two years ago.  Last time it was Cicero.  This year it will be Vergil.  So, it's time to break from Vergil and work on Latin 3 stuff.

One thing I did last summer that helped tremendously in teaching out of CLC Unit 3 for the first time was going through and finding all the vocabulary in the stories.  I then made a table in word which had all the sentences next to the vocab item.  I also indicated which story the sentence came from (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, in the chapter).  When I found I needed to quicken my pace last year, I was able to pick which stories to do/focus on based on which ones had the majoirity of the vocabulary.  

So, I'm definitely doing this with Unit 4.  I've already done stages 35 and 36.  I definitely want to do through 40, and then contemplate where to go after that.   The main problem is that Latin 3 will be with Latin 4/AP, so with a split-level class I know we won't make the kind of progress I'd like.  It's also a squirrelly sort of group.  Oh, who knows.  Maybe if I found a way to keep up with grading this year I could make them more accountable and assign more for homework.  

But here's the thing (take note, if you are a new teacher):  if you are busy spending all your free time making the quizzes and tests and reading comp sheets or WHATEVER, it's hard to GRADE!  Something has to give, or at least you need to be aware that that's the trap you are setting for yourself.

Last year I was so busy creating stuff for Latin 2 and revising things for Latin 1, that I hardly got any grading of homework done.  I blamed English a lot (and it did have to come first a lot of the time), but next year I'll only have myself to blame.

I was giving myself a hard time earlier because I just don't have the same kind of time to do the more fun, creative things that I used to do when I taught middle school.  Part of me would just LOVE to teach middle school again.  I was GOOD at it, the kids really learned the Latin.  And I had time to do more for classics in general.  BUT...I need to learn how to do the whole thing, from beginning to end, from eggs to apples.   You will never understand where you weaknesses from one year until you have those same students the NEXT year.   

ANYWAY...So I've been working on my vocab lists.  I swear, I think my in-context vocab quizzes and quias (if used right!), really do help with the detalis.  That and metaphrasing.  Those are the two best tools I have, I think.  OH, and reading outloud.  Reading LOTS outloud.

If only I could get the students to do that more.  But that's something else to ponder.

OH, if anyone wants to look at my syllabus, it's at http://www.txclassics.org/APVergilSyllabus2008.pdf.  

With luck, it will get it's mark of approval and we will change Latin 4 to AP Latin.

Any new teachers out there?

I sometimes feel like I am a perpetually new teacher.  When I came back to teaching 8 years ago, I was a new teacher again (I had taught a year right out of college and then ran away screaming back in the late 80s and did other things for about a dozen years).  For 6 years I taught the same three courses: Latin 1a, Latin 1b, and exploratory.  Frankly, there's a LOT to be said for teaching middle school first, if for no other reason than you can usually keep your preps limited to three.  I had time to develop and modify materials, figure out what worked and what didn't, and get "good" at it, or at least really comfortable.

Then I switched to Dripping Springs HS where I had a Latin 1 class (CLC), a Latin 2 class (Ecce) split with Latin 3 (Ecce), plus four sophomore English classes.  So I had materials for the Latin 1 class, but it was like I was a newbie all over again for Latin 2/3 and English.  I made tons of quia stuff for Ecce (that I probably will not use ever again!) and survived teaching English.  Last year I had 3 Latin 1 classes, and Latin 2/3 split, but this time Latin 2 was CLC--once again, I needed to make my style of quizzes and tests, and quia stuff.  Plus I had two English classes.  So I still had new things, plus I decided to change up part of my tests--for all Latin levels--so I was revising stuff a lot.

Now....  now here I am again.  Still feeling like a newbie.  I will have Latin 3 this year with CLC, and need to make up quia stuff and my style of quizzes, etc etc.  And I agreed to do Latin 4 with 2 girls--so 3/4 will be my split-level.  Latin 4 will be Vergil and I told the girls that if they really wanted to, I could get them ready for the AP Latin and they could challenge it.

THEN I discovered on the College Board website that June 1 was the recommended due date, but they would accept them after (with no promise of acceptance!).  So, now I'm trying to write a real AP syllabus.  I had thought I could get it done in a week, 2-3 weeks ago.  I wasn't counting on how much time I can't sit and focus on it because I try to wear my Mom hat in the summer as much as possible.

Even still, I've poured a lot of time into this.

I've studied the four sample syllabi.  I've read all the pertinent materials.  I've made up school calendars with our holidays and test days and anything else I could think of.  I pondered what would be the best split-level schedule for the Latin 4's, when I would require what, etc.  I've looked at materials.

I'm going to use my pal Rick LaFleur's _Song of War_ and Bolchazy-Carducci's _A Vergil Workbook_.  In my mind's eye, Monday's will be a quia.com day (for review for vocab quizzes and grammar and whatnot), Tuesday's will be for quizzes and reading, Wednesdays I'll read with them, Thursdays for independent reading again, Friday I'll read with them.  (Therefore, I'll be working with Latin 3 on Tues/Thurs and maybe Mondays as well....)  I'll assign parts of a Lesson from the workbook over the weekends and work on developing reading skills during the week.  At least twice a grading period students will have to phone in an oral recitation of a passage of my choosing, and twice during the grading period students will have major tests.  That's as much as I've worked out.

Not sure about wiggle room for discussions, essay writing (though some of that is in the workbook material), etc.  

And frankly, it's been 20 years since I've read Vergil (with the exception, of course, of the sea serpent scene!), so I don't have any great ideas for clever projects so it's not just toiling through the lines.  But I have to think of something.

Frankly, just working out WHAT lines for WHICH WEEK and how to get through it all fast enough is really tricky!  I ended up making a table in Word that had the Lessons from the Vergil Workbook with the lines it covered aligned with the subtitles and line breaks in Song of War.  Mostly it lines up, but some places it doesn't.

OF COURSE, if I planned my other courses with this kind of detail, I might finish the texts....then again... well, I dunno.  I think if you push to fast through beginning stuff you lose too many people, but maybe the reality is that I'm too soft a touch.

All I know is that I really want this to work.  I want these two girls to have a good shot at a 4 or a 5 on the AP exam, ya know?  At least a 3, maybe, to say that I'm on the right track.  

<sigh>

I have these crazy ideas of how I want them to work and take notes that I'm not sure are practical... maybe I need to try them out for myself.  Not a bad idea....

Well, there are things I can be doing regarding the syllabus and stuff for next year.  I better get going.  Man, June is almost done and what the hell have I got to show for it?  Only a lot of thinking, it seems. 

This was in a reply to a note of dismay on Latinteach when a teacher found out that her Latin 3 class of 11 students wasn't going to make:

***
I confess that I am almost surprised by the number of people who think this is almost conspiracy level, who think the principal hired a coach, or is indifferent to 3rd year of a foreign language, or just thinks very little of Latin.
 
It's about numbers and costs!
 
In fact, I'm surprised that you didn't see this coming, no offense, truly.  This is not an uncommon problem--not having the numbers.  And it's not just Latin.  The French AP class didn't make for next year at my school, because she didn't have the numbers--and she has no interest in doing split level.  (Apparently I'm the only foreign language teacher crazy enough to do that.)
 
With only 11 students signed up, and no guarantee that all 11 will stay, the class can't make.  So teach it split level.  Show your principal YOU ARE DEDICATED to the students and to their needing 3 years or more of a foreign language.  I've taught split level for 2 years now and will be doing it at least 1 more year if not 2.  It's doable if you are prepared and have routines that you have taught the students so that they can be more independent.  It's not ideal, but it's doable.  Heck, I took 2 of 3 years of Latin myself independent study. 
 
The next step is to consider what you can do to prevent this happening again.  In my case, I have been busting my butt to build up the program.  The students that are in split level are the ones I inherited when I came to Dripping Springs.  MY GOAL, though, is that this past year's Latin 1 class will be my first group to not need split level anything.  They will be my first level 3 pre-AP class, they will be my first full AP class!  I AM SO PUMPED.
 
And, yes, I have worked myself silly with the split-level classes.  BUt quia.com helps, and having a good conference period, preferably right before that class, helps, and remembering that NOTHING will be ideal.  Just go with the flow and do your best.
 
Just because we teach a foreign language, just because we teach Latin, just because we teach a course that students "need" to graduate, does not guarantee us anything.  (And who said something about tenure?  WHAT'S TENURE?  Sorry, we don't have it down here....) 
 
For the new teachers on the list or future teachers, remember this: healthy numbers don't just happen--you have to make them happen.  And A GREAT PART of that is your teaching style.  It's your willingness to work with students--ANY KIND OF STUDENT.  For me, it's about finding a way to make Latin accessible to all my Latin 1 students, even the strugglers, so that I can get them into Latin 2.  Then with Latin 2 it's about getting as many as possible into Latin 3, not weeding out the strugglers so I can just teach the bright ones (and, no, I am not accusing anyone on this list of doing this, but I have seen it done).  AND LET ME ADD that all through Latin 1, esp this spring, I was saying things like, "when ALL OF YOU are in AP Latin, we'll be reading Vergil and you'll see why we really need to understand ___." 
 
One of the Spanish teachers commented last week that eventually I would be draining off all the smart kids into Latin.  How absurd, I thought, because I don't teach that way.  If anything, I may drain off the students that are bombing Spanish because the teacher doesn't have time to figure out ANOTHER way to reach that particular student.  I have even heard at CAMWS the GRADUATE student committee advising future PhD's that TEACHING IS IMPORTANT and to learn to be GOOD AT IT.
 
We have a product that we are selling.  We are not gasoline; nobody HAS TO HAVE US.  We need to make people WANT IT, NEED IT, *CRAVE* IT.  Spanish is needed more than we are as a practicality, but we are FAR MORE PRACTICAL than French (no offense, teachers of French)--well, certainly this far south.  (If you live up in Minnesota or something, near French-speaking Canada, I take it all back!) 
 
Yes, we should promote and talk up vocab building test scores, as well as strengthening grammar concepts, etc.  I had an Asian student this year who put on his end of the year evaluation that he learned a lot about English grammar through my class which was very helpful to him (he's new to speaking English).  Case and point.
 
In other words, our product is a good one.  All that's left is how we SELL it and how we DELIVER it.  And these may not be things discussed during teacher training, but they are critical if you want Latin 3 and 4 classes to make.
 
One last thing, if you need some printed material about 3 years or more of a foreign language, the TCA Survey of College Admissions Counselors has good information:
http://www.txclassics.org/surveyresults.pdf

***
Of course, I may have been too rough on the person in question.  But this is like those teachers who have thin numbers and suddenly discover that their program is being cut!  OHMIGOSH!  HELP ME SAVE MY PROGRAM!  And so people start writing letters and whatnot.  But I have learned to stop and ask a few questions:  1) How long have you been at that school?  2) What have you done to grow your program?  3) What kind of relationship have you established with your students and perhaps more importantly with their parents?   If the teacher has been there for a while, has done nothing to promote their program, and has no relationship with parents because he/she chose not to do JCL competitions (outside activities is where you really meet parents), chose not to go to conferences to learn the latest in best practices and pedagogy and thus continue learning--AS ALL TEACHERS IN ALL DISCIPLINES ARE EXPECTED AND REQUIRED TO DO, and chose to coast.... well, then, I'm sorry, but WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?

Is that harsh?  Is that mean?  WHY GET INTO TEACHING IN THE FIRST PLACE IF TEACHING WELL DOESN'T INTEREST YOU?   If you have no interest in the students or their parents?  In the whole aspect as school as a community?

You know what?  All of you new teachers or future teachers of Latin listen up:  teaching is HARD WORK.  If you just show up, do your thing, and go home, you may or may not keep a program.  I know a lot of middle school teachers get caught in this trap: they like the lighter work load of teaching level 1 Latin (hey, I definitely did, but I had family issues of my own to deal with at the time) and they relax and coast.  That's when the programs get closed.    You HAVE TO INVEST YOURSELF in your program.  We are electives.  We aren't core courses and there are no guarantees in life.  BUT, if you do invest yourself in your program and your students and their parents, you can control your destiny far more than if you just coast.  I'd rather have a kayak and be paddling myself than a sailboat because some days the wind just doesn't blow.  If you are the one doing the work, you will at least know that you will get to your goal.

Teaching is a pretty safe profession--we don't have issues that computer programmers have or other tech companies.  But we can never be complacent.  

Right. <sigh> rant over, I guess.

There was a post on the Cambridge list about AP sight reading issues.  The teacher said she thought it was the hardest skill they have to learn...all of which put me into deep thought mode.

I have, through posts here and conversations elsewhere as well as looking through a notebook of AP quizzes and tests I got at last summer's AP workshop, been thinking about the structure of my tests.  Good, bad, I dunno.  In some ways too easy perhaps.  Or, more likely from the scores, too hard.  I think I'm on the right track with the structure but still need to tweak it some more.  But that's another discussion.

What got me thinking about this person's request is that sight reading should be nothing more than we usually do--if we are truly reading Latin in word order, if we are truly trying to develop our reading skills and not just get good at decoding.

I was making myself do a little sight reading last night... it's not uncommon for teachers to be afraid of sight reading too.  AND WHY IS THAT?!  Because most of us were not taught how to read but how to decode, how to parse every single word for the grammar and piece it back together.  Dexter Hoyos's _Latin: How to Read it Fluently_ that CANE sells (which I should probably reread) has changed how I view what we should be about.  

WHY should sight reading be so hard?  Let's face it, the passages picked are most likely not ones of the most difficult vocabulary.  The test designers are more interested in whether you can READ the Latin.  BUT ARE WE TEACHING THIS SKILL???

We should be.  We should be building up to it with all that we do--with warm-ups, with exercises, with quizzing and testing.  If we teach our students how to be readers of Latin, then reading the 1800 lines or so of the Aeneid should be doable.  But if all we are doing is teaching them how to (according to one respected source, one I respect as well, I might add) copy out every line skipping five lines, writing the meaning over the words in one line, the syntax in the next, and a running translation in the third, leaving the fourth for corrections, all we are teaching is that IT TAKES FOREVER TO READ VERGIL.  That it is SLOW, TEDIOUS, and EXHAUSTING, with little reward.  There's no time to ENJOY what you read, to DELIGHT in what you read, or even feel like you could read ahead.

Do we ever teach students to reread?  To spiral?  I'm trying to, but it's easier said than done, but it must be done.  It MUST be done....  

What about performance?  I was looking at the projects that were included in my AP notebook, and was surprised that there was nothing regarding the PERFORMANCE of Vergil.  Maybe I missed something.  But, sheesh, should it all be about golden lines and synchesis and chaismus?  It's not like during a recitation Vergil that he paused and said--"notice the nice use of synchesis I have here"!  

And it's a STORY.  Damnit, it's a GREAT STORY told well.  Can we treat it like that without constantly resorting to the English???  

Anyway.  I'm sure I could say more but my son has interrupted me about 12 times so far so I've lost my passion and direction on this. ha.  I guess I just think that if students are struggling to sight read that we aren't teaching them the skills to READ, and that's where the problem really lies....

(Someone posted a question on another thread but my reply was too long to leave there, so I had to make a new post of it.  Here's the question:)

>>>My question is about your Latin 2 curriculum. How much do you cover - not chapters, but grammatically speaking. I could cover more chapters, but not do justice to the grammar. For the past few years I've been teaching Latin 2 (13 years total, but this is more an issue of the past 5 years, I think). In 2 separate districts I've found that I'm squeezed in this strange position of cranking through a ton of grammar to get the students "ready" for Latin 3. (Full disclosure: I haven't taught Latin 3 since my second year teaching.) At the same time that I'm trying to "cover" nearly all of Latin grammar, I have a group of students gamely trying to fulfill a foreign language requirement who have nearly no hope of moving on. In your experience, what do you think Latin 2 should be about?


Oh, hell, don't ask me.

I will freely admit that I don't have the answer to a lot of things, but I feel I have the big picture, one that none of my teachers seemed to have.

So, Latin 2 curriculum.  I have taught for 9 years.  I have taught Latin 2 for 3 years, each year with a different text.  NLE is not geared towards Latin 2 with CLC, so it's hard to judge things by NLE--but, with that said, I wasn't as far along as I suppose I should have been with CLC.

I have also taught 2 of those three years in split-level classes.  I have absolutely no feel whatsoever for what it should be like.  God knows that after next year I should: I will have two Latin 2 classes that will NOT be split level.  I'm already panicking on whether I can keep up with grading.

With all of that said, what should our goal be?  The old-fashioned traditional goal was learning all noun forms, all indicative verbs active and passive the first year.  I know--I still have my 3X5 card we were allowed to have on the final exam in 1981.  I can only imagine that I exempted my Latin exam the following two years because I remember nothing whatsoever about it.

But we don't cover that much grammar now in Latin 1, but we read a significantly larger amount.  And even with that said, I think I'm going to have to face the fact that I have to move through CLC faster than I'm doing.  I only got through stage 18 yet again, not all 20.  And that bothers me.  It bothers me because I'm also skipping vocab quizzes to do that.  That is, I'm not hitting all the vocab to be mastered, because I don't think you should ask students to master something they haven't seen and if you aren't reading all the stories, you aren't seeing that vocab item the three plus times that you are supposed to be seeing it.

Follow?

When I found my pacing in the Latin 2 class this year, it was with the knowledge that we would only be having one vocab quiz per stage, and it wouldn't really cover all vocab.  And there's something not right about *that*.  But here's the thing: you can always look up a word!  The grammar is far more important.  So when I'm hitting a chapter/stage, my focus is on mastery of the new grammar topic, hitting the stories that best cover it or are most important for the general storyline, etc.

And maybe my problem is that I don't assign stories for homework.  I suppose that's my own fault.  I think REREADING should be homework.  At least in the first 2 years of Latin, when it's required courses for all.  I think by the time you're into Latin 3, if you can't read/translate assignments on your own at home, then you have a problem.  This coming year my Latin 3 & 4 class will be split level/together once again, but the following year Latin 3 will be pre-AP.

And in fact, I'm going to treat my 2 Latin 4's as if it is AP.  They both say they want to challenge the AP test, so I'm working right now on figuring out their syllabus.

And I've drifted from the topic, which is, how much grammar to cover.

Well, I can tell you that the Latin 3's who are now Latin 4's never got conditional clauses.  I'm trying to decide how I feel about that.  I always had to look them up myself in an AMSCO 3/4 or I just read them and didn't worry about it.  For something like the NLE, they would have to know, of course.  For Cicero, they'd have to know.  But are there a lot of conditional clauses in Vergil?

We didn't exactly hit supines either.

In Latin 2, we covered subjunctives, though I'm not sure they ever got present subjunctives in CLC.  They had cum clauses and indirect questions.  They had purpose, result, and indirect commands.  Passive periphrastics snuck in but seemed trivialized.  Perhaps they should be.  Qui clauses of purpose appeared at the end, but we really didn't focus on them and I will start there when I get back into it.

My Latin 3's were using Ecce (previous teacher) so they had some things that the 2's had--that is, the grammar in Ecce is in a different order.  My frustration with Ecce was that there wasn't enough practice IN THE READINGS. 

See, the question about what to teach in Latin 2 depends entirely on what you teach in Latin 3.  I like how Cambridge dispels the myth that Latin 3 needs to be real Latin.  I like the grammar slowed down, I like the reading increased.  But then, I've been working on developing true reading skills for a long time, something I never had or I might have gone to grad school.  All I know is that it is a real leap to go from Latin grammar drills and items in isolation to reading real Latin.  It's a big shock that drives LOTS of students away from Latin.  And because many traditional courses do all the grammar and vocab up front in the first two years, you have kids that only take for that long and drop because they "hate translation."  I only had one girl say that she hated translation this year on the evaluation.  1 out of 90.  Heck, *I* remember hating translation when I was in high school, but the stories were stupid.  Real Latin was far more interesting, but only for those who were willing to puzzle it all together because we knew all the grammar cold, backwards and forwards and even upside down.  And there were only 3-4 of us sitting at a table doing it. 

That's not what I want.  That's what I currently have but that's not what I want.  I want to get all the different learning styles into AP Latin.  And it is doable without "watering down" what you do--but just having a different focus.  I personally couldn't care less if my students can do stuff with a word in total isolation.  But in the context of a sentence, they better be able to see that if, for instance, it's an accusative up front, like that line in book 2 towards the end of the sea serpent scene "ipsum auxilio subeuntem" to know to metaphrase that "someone verbed he himself coming up to help/with help"--and frankly, I don't think it's critical to know whether auxilio is dative or ablative, the meaning is the same unless we are splitting hairs, and it only really seems to matter in this case if we are trying to put it into literal English.  I want my students to see THE WHOLE PHRASE and not just word by word, thinking "ipsum is acc, subeuntem is acc, maybe they go together."  ARG.  No parsing to death, not for my students.

I don't want students who are racing against the clock on the AP test to be parsing everything. I want them to READ the Latin.  I want them to feel like they are learning to READ LATIN.  And if by the end of next year they don't feel like they have developed an ability to READ Vergil (as opposed to an ability to parse and put him together), then I'm not doing my job as I define it.

Does that make sense?  Has any of this made sense?

I suppose I too needed to talk about curriculum.  Curriculum and pacing.  Maybe pacing more than anything else.  I suck at pacing.  And helping students to organize what they know.  God knows there's a LOT I don't do well, but there must be plenty that I do do well, because I have a full load of Latin next year.  No English.  Eugepae!

So, did I answer your question?  Probably not.  How much grammar you cover in Latin 2 is depended upon what your Latin 3 course is designed to be.  Frankly I think AP Vergil in Latin 3 is too early, but I know it is done.  I suppose if you are using a traditional textbook and moving through the grammar fast, that would be fine. But won't those students spend more time parsing than reading?

If your real Latin doesn't occur until year 4, then you don't have to cram all your grammar in year 2.  

The real question is what is YOUR overall philosophy, what do you want your students to be able to do when they leave you? 

I'm working on writing the Latin 2 test, thinking about how they've been struggling, thinking about how they've been shortchanged both by the split-level class and my not being as organized with regard to teaching/consolidating grammar as they probably need me to be, and how to improve things for next year.

So I know I'm going to start the year with a big grammar review and begin to organize what will be the "permanent section" of their folders.  And then part of me was thinking about what to use for review material/stories.  Then it occurred to me: why not all the selections I'm putting on their final exam?

My final exams perhaps aren't ideal in some people's eyes.  I don't divide up Latin into sections of vocab, grammar, etc.  It's sort of a test "plus".  That is, I have my usual sight passage (the Latin 1 passage was long but really not too difficult; something I wrote last week), reading comprehension questions that follow it (verum/falsum on the story), then multiple choice grammar questions, followed by multiple choice questions targetting new grammar and such.  The second half of the test are selections from all the stories we've read this semester, followed by reading comp questions mainly in Latin but also in English.  

My Latin semester exams are considered brutal.  But they really aren't; they are just intense.  Here's the thing: they communicate what *I* think is truly important about the study of Latin: READING LATIN.

And if these students get used to reading and rereading Latin now, then won't they be better off for AP in the future?  But I digress.  It occurred to me that I could use these very selections to supplement the serious grammar review at the beginning of the year.  They are short selections, will target the grammar, will review what they've read and where we are in the story line, 

Anyway, I wanted to get this thought down before it flew out the door.  :)

Ponies.  I'm betting the younger generation hasn't heard that term.  Ponies are translations--you ride them to help you read the Latin because you either can't on your own or you want to read faster.  It's a crutch, but I'd be lying if I say I didn't use them from time to time.  I like a good Loeb but mainly to help me find the Latin I want to read, or to double check if I'm not getting the sense of something.  More and more I try not to let myself look at the translation until I've exhausted all the tricks I'm teaching to my students.  And when I apply those tricks I find I usually don't need the help.

But with that said, one of the Latin 2's was whining that it would be SO MUCH EASIER to study for the final exam if they have English translations to look at when they are looking at the Latin.  I know some teachers have their students write out translations for every Cambridge story.  I rarely do.

I do tell the students to reread stories.  They ignore me.  I've been too overwhelmed this year to put anything in place to make them accountable.  I MUST MAKE REREADING SOMEHOW ACCOUNTABLE NEXT YEAR.

Anyway.  I'm starting to write the Latin 2 final and it occurs to me that I bet if one were to google the translation of the first few words of a story someone might have a translation posted.  <snort> A *college* does.  Daft professor/TA.  

The question is, do I help these struggling Latin 2's?  Do I let them know this secret?  I mean, if they had any brains between them, they would have looked online already.  I almost feel they don't deserve to know.  Idiots.  Nice idiots.  Well, except when they refuse to take responsibility for their own Latin.

So I think I'll keep it to myself.  Because, in all likelihood, they would think memorizing the English would help them instead of using it to make sure they got the Latin.  

Which begs the next question, when doing Vergil next year--and the students will be pretty much doing this independent study--should they use ponies?  Would it be worthwhile to teach them how best to use a pony?  The right and the wrong way--how to NOT use it as a crutch, as a short-cut to understanding and learning, but as that helper that keeps you moving forward when you are seriously stuck??

After all, I *know* I never translated Latin in college without a translation nearby.  I also had an AMSCO 3/4 for simple grammar explanations, Allen and Greenough for more detailed explanations, my Traupman dictionary, Lewis & Short, and, as I said, a translation.

And if I relied on the translation more than I should have (I really don't remember), it was because no one taught me how to really read Latin, how to metaphrase when I got stuck, how to see the big picture, the importance of rereading what came before, of reading the whole passage of what I'm about to tackle, etc.

Maybe that's what I need to make this summer:  a list or poster of the right way to approach a passage.  And a way to keep them rereading the Latin, constantly, so that they begin to really absorb the Latin.

Dreamer.  Get back to writing your tests.

I really want to write more about this later but just have to get this down while it is fresh in my head.

As I was walking to my classroom this Saturday morning to grade the last portfolios I hope to ever have to grade BECAUSE I NO LONGER WILL TEACH ENGLISH!, I was thinking it would be nice to instead be grading some Latin stuff.  I have been horrible at grading homework this year, and it makes me think about the amount of feedback students in Latin have NOT gotten from me.  Then as I approached my classroom door, having noticed no one else was around, I remembered that some of the other English teachers only just glance through the portfolios to see that the students have everything.

I don't.  I read them.  I look at the reflections for each item: Most Important, Most Satisfying, Least Satisfying, Biography of a Work, Negotiated Pick, Free Pick.    

So right now, I'm reading a reflection from a relatively good English student, a young man, who has written that what was important on this project was the amount of feedback the teacher gave for every little thing, not the grade.  It said that no other teacher had ever given him feedback like that, and it was important to him, showing him how to truly improve for the next time.  

To my surprise, it was of an essay he had written for me.  *I* was the one who had given all of the feedback.  

But what gets me is HOW can I be the only one who has ever done this?  What have his previous English teachers done, the ones who are better trained to teach English, who have more experience, whose jobs ALWAYS hang in the balance because of standardized test scores???

No matter.  I've got to get back to grading because I don't want to be here all day.  I have Latin tests to write.  God knows I have A LOT to do for Latin.  

I just wanted to say that if you have ever wondered whether it was a waste of time to write comments on papers, it's not.  There WILL BE that ONE student who will say, THANKS for taking the time.    There will be that one student who will make you feel like perhaps you haven't done such a bad job....

I'm reading a letter that was posted at the forum at eclassics.ning.com.  (http://eclassics.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=727885%3ATopic%3A19077&page=41)

"The goals of the AP World Languages & Literature Course & Exam Review are: 1) to ensure that the suite of AP courses and exams align with the National Standards; and 2) to have assessments that are as parallel as is appropriate."

Ahhhhhhhhh.  This says a lot and backs up something I said in another comment elsewhere earlier today, which is, I think, AP is trying to bring all of its language courses into alignment with each other, but now we see even more so with National Standards.  VERY INTERESTING.  So, what will this mean for Latin?  WILL WE FINALLY GET SOME ORAL LATIN ON THE EXAM?!  IN WHAT FORM?!!!!!

What an interesting thought.  I have got to get myself on this upcoming committee.

This was something I just posted on the Cambridge List.  FYI.

****

> DD: Statistical Validity is a measurement of how well the test

> instrument is measuring whatever it is supposed to be measuring.

> Rarely done. Requires two sets of data on the same subjects and the

> correlation between them. Basically first the test, then a prediction,

> then a test of the prediction's results, then a correlation. Consider

> a test for suitability for the ability to be a military pilot. The

> test and then the follow up of how many of the first test actually got

> the wings.

> Validity is seldom tested. I have seen some scientific studies that

> did it, but rarely.

<snip>

> DD: They are trying to confuse the folk in "fly-over-land."

OK, but are they really? I was just as upset as anyone when this first happened, and the first to forward word of this to several people etc.

My husband has an ABD in Ed admin. (ABD=all but dissertation) We have discussed both in the past and currently issues relating to quality test writing, and how most teachers don't know how to write a test that could meet standards of validity and statistical repetition (or whatever--I'm out of my league with such terminology). And I don't think that's a matter of being hypercritical and saying teachers are dumb. That's not it at all. Just inexperienced

But we are well aware, if we are honest with ourselves, that we have probably all used at some point in our own personal history as teachers some test or quiz that really didn't measure what we wanted it to or certainly didn't get the results we predicted.

If we are good teachers we consider the results and try to determine what changes need to be made, whether it is in teaching or test design or both. I've been changing up my tests this year to include a small portion to translate from stories we've read as well as reading comp questions in Latin and English over a sight story (and this year they have been written by yours truly), followed by multiple choice on aspects of grammar and new forms, etc. Do I think my test is statistically sound? Would it stand up to scrutiny? I have no idea. Maybe some parts of it. Maybe more of it than I think. Maybe less.

BUT I DO NOT KNOW STATISTICS. As a liberal arts major I steered clear of stats--foolishly.

What I understand is this. When a test, like AP Vergil or Latin Lit reaches a certain critical mass--large enough numbers to make reliable data--then certain statistical characteristics fall into play. Since the Latin Lit test has choices among the authors, it may have reached critical mass but the data is unreliable because the choices vary.

That's my take on it anyway.

Look, I was talking (privately) a week ago about whether we should get lawyers and force a meeting with AP, if that was even feasible. That is, I was pretty wound up about it. I was frustrated. I was feeling like this is more interference from some national source that's interfering with what we do.

But let's be fair. Let's take off our Latin hat for a moment and consider how a teacher of Greek (ancient? modern?) might feel because they can't get enough bodies to stay in Greek because there is no AP test and the students all want that for their transcripts. Or--even if I think some of the Asian languages are going to be a fad, like Russian back in the 80s--if I were a teacher of Japanese, having captured the interest of a large number of students, only to have them desert me after a couple of years because there is no AP.

Please, we are part of the language community at large and we should not think ourselves better than other languages. Do I think Latin may be more valuable in relationship to our culture? To our language? To certain aspects of our history? Law? Medicine? I would be lying if I said otherwise. But am I going to tell the French teacher that I think Latin is more important to French? No, because she can go to Canada or France and actually communicate in the language. Jobs can be gotten purely for being bilingual in French. I am not fluent in Latin. I can read it but I'm not fluent and I know it. And when my numbers shot up for next year at school, one of the first things I did is check with my department chair to make sure my numbers didn't cut into French and cause her to have to teach something other than French. (Only overloaded Spanish had a dip in numbers, which they were glad off.) Because frankly, I'm exhausted from teaching English as well as Latin and don't wish that on anyone.

I feel like I'm part of a community with the foreign language teachers. It's like we're all serving ice cream but the students like different flavors. Does that mean that one flavor is better than the rest? Surely not.

I think Spanish is justified to have 2 tests because their numbers are HUGE *and* let's face it, our country is bilingual English/Spanish, whether we want it to be or not. (I personally don't mind, and like to read the signs in Spanish to see if I can figure out what they mean.) But no other language comes near--check out the data in the annual report.

So am I still fighting to keep the Latin Lit test? Frankly, I think it's time to accept that it's going. And I think that truly, as Trevor Packer said, they are the experts on test writing and psychometrics. And even if there is obfuscation there--even if only a little--that still leaves us with how do we justify having two exams? I'm certainly not going to tell French that our tests are more important than their tests....

The question is then why do WE want two tests so badly. 1) We like different authors too--more flavors of ice cream; 2) because of playing the number game in order to "make" classes, we need to combine classes and to do that we need to alternate test topics every other year.

In answer to the first, perhaps in a few years the Vergil test will also include other authors (not as choices), and thus we will get variety. In answer to the second, I'm going to say something that may upset people, so I'll apologize in advance. But...is there something different we can do in our teaching to make the language more accessible to a wider audience so that we can have the larger numbers and make an AP class without it needing to be a combined Latin 4/5 or even 3/4? In talking to my strugglers today (after handing back a test that many struggled with), I told them not to give up hope. I would work on the things they found difficult and together we would all keep going to the next level. It's not just a matter of "you must study more." Many don't have a clue what to do differently on their own. But TOGETHER, I think I can get them to the next level.

Our AP classes should not just be the kids that were the straight A students in Latin 1 from the beginning. They should also somehow include students that didn't think they were language learners at first, but who--with help and guidance--persevered to become readers of Latin.

And perhaps I'm just rambling.

And, as others have said, if you need an alternate class/a Latin V class, why not make it an SAT II prep class of sorts, reading whatever authors you like while fine-tuning grammatical concepts?

Yes, many of us if not most of us will need to rethink how we view the structure of our programs. But if we want to be included, we need to be part of the change.

Someone asked whether anyone else had gotten as thorough a response as I got to my letter. As far as I know, the answer is no. Why? Probably because I took the time to consider what AP thinks is important, what their big picture is, and where we might fit into that picture. I still think convincing them to invest in foreign languages in middle school may not only boost our numbers but also create the change in closing the achievement gap that they are after.

Of course, we have to do our part in producing more teachers. How many of you did something for National Latin Teacher Recruitment Week this past March? Are we going to be able to replace the retiring teachers? Can we fill the positions opening up at middle schools???

I don't know what the multimillion dollar investment into the Vergil test is all about, but I want to know more and be a part of it. I want to learn more about psychometrics now. Instead of this being a word that we come to hate (this is how National Board Certification for Latin was shut down for us as well), I want to learn how to use it to our advantage.

The cheese has been moved. We can go after it, or we can stay where we are wondering why it's no longer here. And if we do that, we'll starve.

I know many of you will disagree with all of this, but we can make it work if we view it in a different light. We just have to figure out what angle the sun's shining in at and get ourselves in that light.

ginnyL, using really weird imagery today...(I blame lack of sleep)

So I'm finishing up grading the test that the students said was so hard.  There are definitely some A's and B's, and then there are the other grades.

I've noticed it takes me longer to grade tests than it once did, in part because I added a translation section this year, plus I go through the test to see what notes they made--things in the margins, circling, or underlining, etc--that they made to help them do better.  I give extra credit for this, because I'm teaching them a test-taking skill as well as skills to help them focus on the morphology.  But the bonus for me is that depending on how the notes are made, I can see where a student's thinking goes wrong.

For instance, on a section on relative clauses (picking the needed relative pronoun), I could tell from a student's notes that they were getting confused about gender.  Instead of just noticing what gender the word is in Latin, they were thinking about the logical gender for the word in English.  On another paper, gender wasn't the problem, but understanding what case was needed to complete the clause.  

Feedback.  I wish I could give more feedback, find more time to grade homework assignments, etc.  It just doesn't happen, or I can't find time to enter the grades (perhaps because I'm messing around here? but, hey, I need a break too sometimes!).  

Anyway.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that my tests must be improving because I can tell more and more where their weaknesses are.  Or perhaps what MY weaknesses are.

I am determined to find a way to get more people to AP than what has generally done in the past at typical schools: just the A students.  Why can't the B and C students be taught the skills to rise above?  Why can't they be shown that doing this and that thing differently in the way they approach Latin or studying can make them a more secure student?  Isn't there a way to get a larger number to AP, because if we are going to only have AP Latin: Vergil as our pinnacle test with no way to alternate years, don't we really and truly NEED to get larger numbers there in Latin 4?

I don't want to be the kind of teacher that forces level 3 kids into level 4/AP because you need the bodies for the class to make.  I know it's done.  And I'm not trying to be critical of the teachers who have to do it in order to have their program survive.  I understand that necessity.

All I'm saying is that the girl who got a 72 (and that with a few points of extra credit) whose translation was not too bad nor the reading comp answers and whose only real problem was relative clauses,  I'm saying that there's got to be a way to get her over the hump of making C's to making B's or A's.  There's got to be a way to get that person to not think about Latin as something to pass but something to invest in.

I've noticed that since I got back from CAMWS that I've been saying things like, "when you guys are all in AP in a few years"....  Why not?  I mean, why the hell not?

Ok, I'm rambling so back to grading.  I guess what I was trying to say is that grading tests SHOULD be about understanding where students went wrong, and not just the grade.  I could whip through these if I just graded what ws in the answer blanks.  But understanding the thinking processes that went behind the answers is just as important to me.  

I'm sure the kids will say the only thing that counts is the grade, but one day they'll understand what I was doing....

I thought some of you might like to see the reply I got from College Board.  I'm not sure what we classicists should do next.  Right now a book we had to read one year for school (for inservice) comes to mind: _Who Moved My Cheese?_.  This book was about how to accept change, how to adapt, how to survive as opposed to standing around waiting for things to revert back to the way they were, which they will never, ever do.

Maybe we need to rethink our classes and the approach to our profession.  More thoughts on that at another time.  

****

[Received Friday, May 9, 2008] 

[See blog entry "So here's my AP letter..."]

Dear Ms. Lindzey:
 
At their request, I am writing in response to the deeply thoughtful and
valuable letter you sent to our Trustees, including President Gaston
Caperton. I hope your students have a chance to see your letter, as it
exemplifies all the excellence I would expect from an expert in your
discipline. Thank you so very much for taking the time to share these
perspectives.
 
I'll respond first by sharing the very heart of the matter, the reason
why a moratorium on this decision is not possible.
 
Just as the College Board would never ask classicists to knowingly and
deliberately teach erroneous or inaccurate Latin, we know the your
organization and others would never ask the College Board to violate our
commitment to producing valid and reliable exams. The AP Program has
earned its reputation for providing a valid measure for placement and
credit by developing and offering curricula based on exams of the
highest psychometric quality and validity.
 
However, as AP Latin Literature has slowly grown, it has approached the
threshold that, once reached, cannot support the type of exam design AP
Latin Literature uses (a test format that actually allows students to
choose which questions they do and do not answer). Because AP Latin
Literature allows students to choose which questions they answer, the
psychometric validity of the exam results will be subject to increased
risk as the program continues to grow, so the current exam design must
be discontinued following the May 2009 exam.
 
There is no such problem with the AP Latin: Vergil exam, which simply
needs a multi-million dollar investment (which we are making) to upgrade
design specifications and standard setting processes to ensure that as
the volume continues to grow, there is no risk to the quality and
reliability of the assessment. So we will continue to offer the AP
Latin: Vergil Exam in the near term, while working at the same time with
educators to determine whether we should, over time, change AP Latin:
Vergil to incorporate a larger number of authors.
 
We hope, indeed, that many schools will continue to offer a Latin
curriculum focused on Cicero, Catullus, Horace, and Ovid. We as an
organization are committed to the study of Latin, among other
disciplines, and as such, are prepared to invest significantly in
ensuring that an AP Latin Exam remains psychometrically viable as the
program diversifies and grows. But AP Latin Literature is not an exam
design that we can support. AP German has continued to grow steadily,
even since the discontinuation of AP German Literature. We hope that
teachers who value the AP Latin Literature curriculum will continue to
offer a course on such texts and authors. And we will seek input from
colleges and universities nationwide this fall to determine how to
improve the AP Latin: Vergil program, possibly expanding it to include
other authors without replicating the "student choice" format of the
current AP Latin Literature exam.
 
So while AP Latin Literature must be immediately discontinued following
the May 2009 Exam, the next question should be: will the College Board
invest in creating a second AP Exam, beyond AP Latin: Vergil, to replace
AP Latin Literature. The answer to this question can best be gained by
asking teachers and students of Greek, Russian, Korean, Tagalog, Hmong,
Thai, Arabic, Hebrew, and Portuguese whether it is fair to invest in
creating two AP Latin Exams without having first created even one AP
Exam in the language they teach and learn. You can imagine their answer.
 
Here is a summary of the key points made by the World Languages Academic
Advisory Committee (WLAAC, comprised of college and university world
languages faculty and secondary school world languages teachers) in
support of the decision to discontinue AP Latin Literature (note that
some of what follows does not apply to the study of Latin):
 
The WLAAC strongly believes that there should be a single capstone
course in each world language in order to better integrate language,
literature, and culture in all of the World Language AP offerings.
Therefore, the WLAAC brings forth the motion that the AP program take
advantage of the current course and exam review of world languages to
accomplish this integration. Furthermore the WLAAC recommends that AP
Latin follow the same process. In addition, the WLAAC sees this as an
opportune time for the expansion of AP offerings to other major world
languages and cultures.
 
We propose this motion for the following reasons:
 
* A single vision for WL provides the best model for the
profession in curriculum, instruction, and assessment and the
professional development necessary to support these areas.
 
* This model would allow for the integration of the study of
language, literature, and culture, which are inherently linked but
artificially separated in the current offerings.
 
* The Review Commissioners for world languages have already
articulated this integration as part of their Evidence Centered Design
model. Therefore, this proposal would not necessitate a delay in the
launching of the integrated capstone model.
 
* This integrated model would best serve the needs of all
students, including the under-represented student population and
underserved school districts.
 
* A single capstone course would allow for better vertical
articulation.
 
* Colleges are more likely to accept a single capstone language
and culture course and exam for credit or advanced placement than has
been the practice with the current literature exams.
 
* A single capstone course would better prepare a student
linguistically for upper division college level courses.
 
* Offering more than one capstone course in only a limited number
of languages (or one language) creates issues of equity and access.
 
* Expanding the current portfolio of offerings (in the integrated
model) would create powerful incentives for more US students (including
first generation college attendees) to study less-commonly-taught
languages and cultures. This expansion would continue to encourage
greater connection and respect for heritage populations and their
important role in the community as well as prepare a new generation of
Americans to engage major world areas and cultures.
 
You make wonderful points about the value of studying Latin, despite the
small numbers of students. We agree with those points. As a non-profit,
we have been willing to support AP Latin at a financial loss for all 53
years of the program's existence, but none of the values you describe in
AP Latin are dependent on having two, separate AP Latin programs, and
during a time in which we need to make massive investments in the
psychometrics and operational processes of AP Latin, we cannot justify
doing so for two separate AP Latin Exams when so many other languages
have not even one. AP German, AP Chinese, and AP Japanese provide
incentives for a sustained, multi-year course of study while only having
one AP Exam associated with them. If there is a need to ratchet up the
rigor of AP Latin to ensure that it anchors at least 4 years of study,
we are open to considering that option as we hold conversations about
how AP Latin: Vergil might change.
 
We will certainly engage teachers in the conversation, in addition to
holding a College Faculty Colloquium, and by way of this email, I am
asking James Monk, who manages AP Latin, to ensure that you are included
in future conversations or reviews of the possible future directions
that we could take AP Latin.
 
Thanks again for such a thoughtful and important letter. We'll look
forward to working with you to ensure that the one AP Latin Exam that we
offer evolves into the best possible capstone to anchor sustained
studies of this essential discipline.
 
All the best,
 
Trevor Packer
Vice President
Advanced Placement Program

(see note two back on the test being hard....) 

How about a reading log due day of the test for extra credit?  Now, the structure of it so students might actually think it's doable....

This was something I posted on Best Practices a few moments ago and thought it worth tossing out here:

****
You know, one thing I've been doing overtly this year is teaching students how to use the in-context quizzes to figure out principal parts.

I talk a lot about the general patterns of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th (and mention on the side that 3rd io is a crossbreed and continue on).  So for instance:
(caps for long marks):
1st: -O, -Are, -AvI (not mentioning 4th pps at present)
2nd: -eO, -Ere, -uI
3rd: -O, -ere, (weirdos--and that they usually are the S, X, long vowel, reduplication ones)
4th: -iO, -Ire, -IvI

I tell them that the 3rd pp is like 98% -AvI in 1st, and -98% -IvI in 4th, but only about 80% in 2nd.  And I tell them I'm making that up to, for what it's worth.

So then I throw up some verbs for the warm-up to circle tense indicators and endings on (I find this helps them focus on details and do better on tests):

scribit
cantabamus
scripserunt
audIs
debes
audivit
etc.

At the end I ask them to provide PPs, and give the 1st pp:

scribO
cantO
debeO
audiO

So, according to the pattern above, only 2 can have an -O: 1st and 3rd.  Check the verbs in the warm-up for hints: -it (of the fish hook pattern of 3rds) and scripSerunt (S is a weirdo).  Therefore, it's a 3rd.
scribO, scribere, scripsi (dropping erunt and putting back the I).

For canto our only hint is cantAbamus, and that A tells me it's a first:
cantO, cantAre, cantAvI

For debeO, that 1st pp gives it away so it must be a 2nd, so we go with
debeO, debEre, debuI

For audiO, we note the I in -io and think 4th but remember 3rd.  3rds are wimps (weak i's) and 4th's are strong I's so we look for any evidence: audIs,  and then there's the audIVit.
audiO, audIre, audIvI.

This is BY NO MEANS a perfect system, but here's what my goal is:  I want my students to be able to look at a verb in context--one they've never seen before--and to be able to make some logical guesses on what the principal parts might be so they won't have problems locating it in the dictionary.

And I also tell them that sometimes, sometimes you just have to MEMORIZE them.

I don't weight such things heavily; most of my weighting is on reading and when necessary translating.  I just want students to have a better awareness of the families of verbs so when they want to write me a story (or have to write me a story), they have a better idea of how to form the words that they are seeing.

My 3rd Latin 1 class is taking a test right now on stages 15-16.  It's spring and the beasts are restless.  They don't seem to listen when I tell them to reread their stories, especially after we have read one in class and its fresh on the brain.

Some students are staring at my sight passage, which I wrote, which contains vocabulary which I quizzed over.  Their quia reviews also included a section that targetted tenses and vocab that would occur in the sight passage.  I pulled phrases from the stories we read, a couple which were the sentences on the vocab quizzes--which have been handed back.

They are all saying it's the hardest test I've given.  And I revised it to make it easier, or so I thought.

***
I have decided that this was, actually, a good test.  I can tell what's happening with them regarding the small translation portion of a seen passage, as well as where they are suffering with the sight passage.  

The key, clearly, is whether a student is willing to reread a passage.  If not because there's no "accountability" or no immediate accountability, what WOULD give them this accountability?  I'm going to brainstorm on this and post anything brilliant that I come up with.

Ok, so we've got TAKS testing going on right now and because my classes are mixed level, I'm not able to really move ahead in the book.  So today we reviewed noun endings that we have so far (genitives in the next chapter).  Tomorrow we're watching the chariot scene from Ben Hur and I've made a sheet of vocab words so that after or while we are watching they can write sentences in Latin.  I'm going to copy and paste in the vocab here, but in all likelihood the macrons won't transfer and I'll have to redo this later.

But instead of grading, I've been messing with this and thought I would share:

The Race Track & Things Seen in It:

carcer: carcerem (M) – starting gate

Circus Maximus – (held 200,000 spectators)

curriculum (N) – race track; lap (plural = curricula)

delphīnus (M) – dolphin

imperātor: imperātōrem (M) – emperor

mappa (F) – white cloth that was dropped to signal the start of the race

mēta (F) – turning posts

ovum (N) – egg

pompa (F) – parade, procession

signum (N) – signal/sign (to start the race)

spīna (F) – barrier, spine

tuba (F) – straight trumpet

vexillum (N) – flag (plural = vexilla)

Chariots, Charioteers, & their Equipment:

agitātor: agitātōrem (M) – driver

aurīga (M!) – charioteer

equus (M) – horse

factiō: factiōnem (F) – company or faction (there were four:)

• russātī (M pl) – Reds
• albātī (M pl) – Whites
• prasinī (M pl) – Greens
• venetī (M pl) - Blues

flagellum (N) – whip (noun)

habēna (F) – rein

praemium (N) – prize

pūgiō: pūgiōnem (M) – dagger

quadrīga (F) – four-horse chariot

rota (F) – wheel

Action at the Races: