Cambridge Latin Course

[Star555]

When students in the UK first learn Latin using the Cambridge Latin Course, don't they already know about Ancient Rome and Roman Britain from primary school history lessons? So these topics don't strike them as totally new and unfamiliar when they read about them in their Latin books, right?

I've been looking at the school curriculum for our school in the US, and it seems that students who choose to study Latin (beginning in 7th/8th grade) are exposed to those history topics for the first time then as well (in Latin class, not history class). So they must not only digest new Latin grammar but also simultaneously new history topics that they were never taught before! (Only American history is taught in primary school.)

Loved the Cambridge Latin course.

Ancilla est in atrium. Always.

We also learnt Ancient Greek in my Latin lessons. Our teacher was ace, if not prone to going on term long tangents.

When they study Latin they tend to do it in the context of classical studies, so they will have a mixture of history and language lessons. I don't think that specific prior knowledge of Latin would be necessary, but historically (I know this is changing) the sort of children in the UK who learn Latin tend to be the more privileged, affluent children at private schools/ grammar schools/ top sets so they may have a greater awareness of history/ classics than a typical average school child. They do though cover it in their lessons as I imagine the world of slaves, gladiators, doormice and volcanoes is as alien to a British school child as it would be to an American one.

So what would be the problem with school children in the US learning about Roman history alongside the language? What is the purpose of the lessons and will that be hindered by spending some time giving the cultural context?

By the end of primary children in the UK tend to have an awareness of some European, American and North African history, but Asian/ Oceania history seems to be rarely touched on. It seems to be more focused on the cultural aspects (e.g. Mayan culture) rather than dates and battles, that tends to come more in secondary from my observation of my children's learning. They will probably only have covered Romans over about 6-8 weeks alongside other lessons on maths/ English/ PE etc. Nowhere near the level discussed in Latin lessons.

Why does it put them at a disadvantage? They're not being compared internationally to anyone. And it's hardly something that they really have to "get to grips with " - it's a few easy chapters on Roman life amidst the grammar. We used that series when I learned Latin, and I'd done no Roman history in school or elsewhere, though I'd probably come across it through general knowledge to a small extent - I was about 15 when I started (not the UK). Primary school history is often called "topic", and it's not really an in-depth look at it - I doubt many remember very much about it by age 12, and it wouldn't take a 12-year old long to cover much the same material in a more organised and detailed way.

I used the CLC at secondary school (we are going a while back now!) and definitely hadn't done anything about the Romans or ancient history at primary school. I went on to study both Latin and Greek to A level and took my degree in Classics so I don't think not knowing much about Roman life when I started Latin in year 7 did me much harm.

@BovrilonToast Looks like someone didn't love CLC enough! (I'm teasing )

"Ancilla est in atrium. Always." -- NEVER! You need the ablative case here: Ancilla est in atrio.

@star555

30 years will do that!

Thanks everyone for your comments. Of course, it's great to learn Roman history alongside Latin. That in itself is never a problem or disadvantage! Latin should certainly be taught hand-in-hand with Roman history and culture. I just think that it would be much nicer for kids to already know some of the topics from an earlier age, even if very briefly. Then they can draw connections and feel even more comfortable learning a new language in an already-familiar historical context that they now get to delve even deeper into--like meeting an old acquaintance and re-kindling a deeper friendship. Having "familiar faces" in the history topics (e.g. Caesar, Boudicca, etc) would make learning more fun, I should think, and decrease the "foreign-ness" of Latin lessons and make them less challenging/overwhelming.

(Of course, much depends on the student. If they are bright and motivated to learn Latin, it probably won't make a big difference. But for a less-enthusiastic student who might be daunted by Latin grammar, a familiar cushion of history might be a big help in making the lessons more appealing.)

@Star555 In the UK, the CLC is used in a wide range of ways. Some teachers more or less ignore the Roman life sections, and only focus on the language. Others do teach both but plenty of students don't remember or have never learned about the Romans before. (For context, I have been asked more than once by KS3 and KS4 students whether the Romans or Dinosaurs came first).

The thinking behind the CLC is to use a "reading" approach where the grammar is encountered naturally through reading engaging stories, and then explained after it's already been understood in context. The engaging stories have Roman life as their topic, and when seen as an entertaining means to learning Latin itself, whilst getting to know about the Romans as a happy side effect, it's no disadvantage. I don't think the Roman life side takes up "headspace" so to speak. I've had students inspired by the civilisation side and come to have interest in the language through that.

That said, there are plenty of courses that focus only on the language in a more traditional, grammatical way. They tend to be more successful with higher academic sets and when there are more hours per week available to teach Latin as the grammar is frontloaded and more time is needed to comprehend and then learn it – they are therefore predominantly used in private schools over here. They suit some students and setups better, but overall I would say that the Cambridge Latin Course is the most universally accessible Latin course I have come across.

Latin should certainly be taught hand-in-hand with Roman history and culture. I just think that it would be much nicer for kids to already know some of the topics from an earlier age, even if very briefly. Then they can draw connections and feel even more comfortable learning a new language in an already-familiar historical context...

I don't disagree with this. But I think the background knowledge that pupils have here, when they start Latin, goes further than some primary school topic work on the Romans. In much of Europe, including Britain, children learn about the Romans from living in part of the former Roman Empire. EG, they'll have visited Roman sites; news reports on Roman artefacts found on a local archaeological dig,

In my town you can’t dig a hole without finding an amphitheatre or a circus.
We used to learn from Ecce Romani, if I have spelt that correctly. Sextus was forever falling into ponds, Flavia was usually found under a tree, and carts couldn’t drive 50m without tipping into a ditch.