tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post6664640012750988675..comments2024-01-09T02:22:47.782-08:00Comments on Sometimes I'm Actually Coherent: On the McGuffey ReadersTimothy Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06081922327870257027noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-89380254812351176372018-09-12T04:40:25.159-07:002018-09-12T04:40:25.159-07:00Wow! I really enjoyed this post and all the commen...Wow! I really enjoyed this post and all the comments. Thank you all for sharing. I have been using the revised Mcguffey readers to teach my children to read. So far all of my kids are a good 2-3 grade levels above their peers. I love how the readers introduce real life problems for these are cherished, productive conversations between my children and I. I passionately agree that children are to be seen as adults in training. My children have gained great confidence in their reading abilities withe these tried and true readers. <br />Nerdymommyof4.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15318017350293681612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-64700145685316344542017-10-17T12:04:06.081-07:002017-10-17T12:04:06.081-07:00Hi and thank you for your post! I am a little con...Hi and thank you for your post! I am a little confused on whether the 1982 reprint of the 1836 version is the same or were alterations made when it was reprinted over and over since 1836? to the original set which stopped at book 4? Thank you for your time and help here! <br /><br />It's confusing the new version sets vs. the reprint sets, clearly the new versions are altered, but it seems that the reprints may be altered also.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02834110276363551501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-8401126488260561452017-06-09T12:41:46.344-07:002017-06-09T12:41:46.344-07:00There was one other point that I thought you might...There was one other point that I thought you might want to consider. The McGuffy readers, were the set of readers used in the one room school houses of the mid-west (I know my mother used them in Frontier County Nebraska). These classrooms would/could contain students from 5 to 14/15. In the early years of the 20th century, many of the young people were only able to attend school in the late fall/winter months when there was no field work to be done. Among my grandparents born in 1889 and 1896 one only got to go as far at the 4th grade, 3 went through the 8th grade and one took the teacher exam at 16. The readers taught history, patriotism, exposure to poetry and English literature all leaning toward the beauty and emotive nature of literature. Why write a persuasive piece on the impact of war when you can write a poem and drive home those same sentiments through bringing about the understanding of personal loss that war can cause? The concepts were practice and not watered down, people married young and responsibilities fell to the young quite early when the life expectancy was much lower and the loss of parents and siblings far earlier in a child's life than they are today. Historically children were raised as little adults and trained early on to think and behave like them. I working with children in the public school system today, think that perhaps we need to reintroduce adult thinking to our students far earlier in their education that we do now. This might help to reduce the number of high school and college aged graduates who are either unwilling or unable to embrace the responsibilities of being an adult. Cindy Mlekushnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-4744756351608802942015-08-19T12:07:53.677-07:002015-08-19T12:07:53.677-07:00I read your post about the McGuffey Fourth Reader....I read your post about the McGuffey Fourth Reader. I believe the late 1830's version of the series stopped at the 4th reader, and they later moved some of that material to the higher levels when they added them (and dropped many selections). To me it's clear that they reading material got watered down significantly by the 1920's version, which is still a higher caliber than what American schools served up as the decades went by. I don't check gmail often - feel free to email me at Kearsey@Comcast.net if you reply.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462607625184866581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-723409087687274092013-11-14T08:18:16.623-08:002013-11-14T08:18:16.623-08:00I support Common Core as a teacher just because of...I support Common Core as a teacher just because of what has been said of the dumbing down of education. Common Core seeks to rebuild that error and strengthen reading to learn. nomibirdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13350216484215889223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-59815842346041497292009-01-16T14:54:00.000-08:002009-01-16T14:54:00.000-08:00I realize this blog entry is more than a year old ...I realize this blog entry is more than a year old but I wanted to clarify the level confusion. <BR/><BR/>McGuffey readers were never meant to be associated with a particular grade. In the time period they were introduced, most boys and girls did not attend school regularly due to family duties particularly during planting /harvesting seasons - the students progressed at their own pace. I have read references stating that most students never made it beyond the 3rd reader (they were considered literate at that point) and that the 4th reader was equivalent to finishing elementary education, which would have been around 8th grade in those days. I agree with this comparison as my twins (age 8) are currently in the middle of the 4th reader and are functioning at a high 6th to 7th grade reading level. My 5.5 yr old son is just finishing up the first reader and is at high 2nd grade level. I don't think that the P-2 McGuffey readers are out of sync with today's levels, if you go by the original expectations <BR/>primer: K-1 <BR/>first: 1-2 <BR/>second: 3-4 <BR/>third: 5-6 <BR/>fourth: 7-8<BR/>The 5th and 6th were written after and were meant for those continuing beyond elementary. So they were meant for 9-college level. <BR/><BR/>The P-3 readers certainly are in line with the above grade levels but I must say that the 4-6 readers are definitely more intense and I could not see *typical* 5-12 graders (who have gone through new-age readers in school) understanding the passages without significant teacher assistance. I think this is where the watering down of our education system shows the most. The schools do an OK job of teaching the mechanics of learning to read in K-3 but do not focus enough on "reading to learn" and the higher level processing needed to understand literature such as those found in the McGuffeys. This should take place in the 4-6 grades. Advanced students (college bound, gifted track) would be able to handle it, but not the typical "c" to "b" student.<BR/><BR/>As for levels recommended by that one curriculum, I have not seen the material for that curriculum but I must say that my children would have been bored going through the readers at such a slow pace, especially the first 3 readers. it sounds like it might be about 1 lesson per week used all week? I found the stories to be too simplistic to challenge the mind. I would not want to hold back my children from the richer literature found in the later levels. I guess it depends upon the child and whether he/she is able to make the early connections without explicit instruction. My twins have come to a point where content of the stories and poems have caught up with their mental ability so we have slowed the pace in the 4th reader and are beginning to work on some of the higher level literary elements. This allows for more in depth reflection as well as more time for vocabulary development.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-75145254685327268652007-09-20T23:02:00.000-07:002007-09-20T23:02:00.000-07:00I love this post! :-) You're right about the "dumb...I love this post! :-) You're right about the "dumbing down" in our public schools. <BR/><BR/>One comparison chart I read said that finishing the 6th reader was equivalent to reading at the college levels. So that sounds about right. <BR/><BR/>Blessings, Angela <><Angelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15297232271957727727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-68627666103647006832007-09-19T22:10:00.000-07:002007-09-19T22:10:00.000-07:00anonymous,Ok, I did a little looking around, and I...anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Ok, I did a little looking around, and I understand a little better what happened. Mott Media has republished the original 1836 edition; you're using it with the teachers' guide written by Ruth Beechick in 1985 for use with Mott Media's edition. This version has the four original readers plus the primer; a pictorial primer; and the Progressive Speller written by Willaim McGuffey's brother, Alexander.<BR/><BR/>The books went through numerous editions. In the 1840's Alexander McGuffey created a fifth and sixth reader to add to the set. With each successive edition more and more of the original content was removed--including most of the Biblical passages.<BR/><BR/>However, looking through our set--which was of the last edition, the 1879 edition--there are still plenty of references to the sovereignty, power, and goodness of the Lord; plenty of literary passages that stress good moral development; and plenty of passages that deal with heavy topics, such as love, death, guilt, sadness--enough so that they'd never get used in a modern public schoolroom. And the passages are still of extremely high literary quality--again, I suspect higher than most of what gets read in the schools these days, particularly in the younger grades. After all, I think the passages I quoted in my post speak to this point very well.<BR/><BR/>So I do understand a little more now about why the catalog only listed four Eclectic Readers, and why the fourth one is listed as being appropriate for high schoolers. The books I'm looking at aren't the ones that are listed in the catalog. But I'm quite happy with them; they're entirely sufficient for the way we're educating our daughter.Timothy Powerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06081922327870257027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4048186698864359724.post-64376958913757650752007-09-19T06:15:00.000-07:002007-09-19T06:15:00.000-07:00Your confusion comes from the two different series...Your confusion comes from the two different series. The ones that you apparently own are the newer revised ones -- I think they have a maroon-colored spine. The ones in the catalog are the Original Eclectic Readers from Mott Media. There are more books in the former set, and just four in the latter. The numbers between the two sets cannot be compared as they are at competely different levels. <BR/><BR/>I think you've missed the point of these readers as I did too when I first bought them. (I own the originals, BTW.) Though my 10yo daughter can read the content in the 4th reader, I have her at the end of the 2nd reader. Why? Because after reading the accompanying Parent-Teacher Guide, I understood the intended use of these books.<BR/><BR/>My daughter reads the passages aloud focusing on inflection, articulation, expression, etc. We discuss vocabulary. We discuss poetry meter. We discuss themes. We make connections between the short passage and another piece of literature. One of her recent passages was a fable. The question posed in the Parent Guide was whether this fable had a correct ending, and then asked the student to identify several Bible verses that would support their view. <BR/><BR/>So it is much more than "My child has the ability to read X." The idea is helping them to build skills with shorter, more manageable pieces of literature. The emphasis is on quality, not quantity. Process, not product. This is so against the grain of our culture but perhaps this is why we, on the whole, are not as well-educated as former generations.<BR/><BR/>I hope this is helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com