Replies

My wife and I have been reading the “Little House” books to our 7yr old, and he really likes them. There are some incredible examples of elementary school children diagramming sentences and correctly labeling all parts of speech, reciting speeches, poetry, and dramatic soliloquy from memory, and reciting the history of the United States beginning with the landings in Jamestown. This was in the 1880’s and children as young as 16 were teaching school without the benefit of a college degree. It is a real eye opener.

What struck me, too, was that Laura got a teaching certificate at age 15-1/2, (an exception was made for her...normally one had to wait till the ripe old age of 16 to be a teacher.) Some of the questions she had to answer to get her certificate are included in the book. It's amazing how much more kids learned back in those days...in one-room schoolhouses, with no computers or audio-visual aids, often with no schoolbooks other than a Bible or almanack brought from home, taught by teachers who were teenagers themselves.

My 7yr old asked me the other night how old he had to be before he could get a teaching certificate, and I told him that he had to go to college first and pass all kinds of test and boards. The he asked me if there was really that much more that he had to learn now that they did back then, and I had to confess, other than another 120yrs of history I can't see that much more.

We are homeschooling him, and he is progressing quite quickly, mostly at his own pace. He is a good three to four grade levels above his peers in public schools in almost every subject.

As an example of how far we've gone down, consider the reading level that modern teachers would assign to the book containing the following passage:

He lay at his ease in a rough chariot drawn and propelled by his men, and instead of a right hand he had the iron hook with which ever and anon he encouraged them to increase their pace. As dogs this terrible man treated and addressed them, and as dogs they obeyed him. In person he was cadaverous and blackavized, and his hair was dressed in long curls, which at a little distance looked like black candles, and gave a singularly threatening expression to his handsome countenance. His eyes were of the blue of the forget-me-not, and of a profound melancholy, save when he was plunging his hook into you, at which time two red spots appeared in them and lit them up horribly. In manner, something of the grand seigneur still clung to him, so that he even ripped you up with an air, and I have been told that he was a raconteur of repute. He was never more sinister than when he was most polite, which is probably the truest test of breeding; and the elegance of his diction, even when he was swearing, no less than the distinction of his demeanour, showed him one of a different cast from his crew. A man of indomitable courage, it was said that the only thing he shied at was the sight of his own blood, which was thick and of an unusual colour. In dress he somewhat aped the attire associated with the name of Charles II, having heard it said in some earlier period of his career that he bore a strange resemblance to the ill-fated Stuarts; and in his mouth he had a holder of his own contrivance which enabled him to smoke two cigars at once. But undoubtedly the grimmest part of him was his iron claw.

What college-level literary work is this challenging passage from? It is from the original edition of Peter Pan