Grade 11 · Christian · NGSS/CCSS-aligned
This is a semester of writing workshop for 11th grade, minus the workshop full of other kids. Your child will write real poems, a real short story, a real personal essay, and then go back and revise all three into a final portfolio. Instead of grading by gut feeling ("this sounds nice"), they learn to name a specific problem in their own draft, point to the exact line causing it, and decide a fix, the same three-step move, reused across every genre. Your job is mostly to read their drafts and ask a short list of specific questions, not to judge whether the writing is "good."
The whole year, in plain English. Tap any unit to see every skill inside, nothing is hidden.
This is where your child learns the two tools the whole course runs on: telling a concrete image apart from a vague abstract statement, and a three-step way to critique their own draft (name the problem, quote the exact line, decide the fix). They read short poems, imitate them, then write and revise three original poems.
Given a line containing an abstract emotion word (e.g., 'sad,' 'beautiful'), the student rewrites it as a concrete image that implies the same emotion without naming it.
The student identifies where a line break in a given unfamiliar short poem creates a moment of double meaning (the line reads one way at the break, differently once the next line completes it) and explains what each reading contributes.
The student applies the self-critique protocol (name criterion, cite evidence from own draft, decide fix) to their own poem draft for the criterion of image specificity, producing a written statement that names the criterion, quotes the exact line, and states a specific revision.
Given two drafts of the same poem where only the line breaks differ (identical words), the student explains how the change in line breaks changes the poem's emphasis and pacing without changing its paraphrasable content.
The student revises their own poem in response to two specific parent-reader questions ('Where did you get confused?' and 'Where did you want more?'), producing a second draft and a brief written rationale connecting each change to the reader's specific comment.
Given a poem never discussed in class and with no accompanying paraphrase or theme statement, the student writes an interpretive claim about what the poem means that is NOT reducible to the poem's literal paraphrase, and supports it by citing one specific image and one specific line-break choice.
The student takes a deliberate formal risk in an original poem (an unconventional line break, an unresolved image, a break from established stanza pattern) and, in the self-critique, argues for why the risk serves the poem's meaning rather than defends it as decoration.
The student classifies a set of eight lines pulled from student and published poems as either 'abstract statement,' 'concrete image,' or 'concrete image doing double duty as statement,' and justifies the two hardest calls.
Same three-step critique method as Unit 1, now pointed at a whole short story instead of a line. Your child learns to tell scene (moment-by-moment, staged) from summary (compressed, time-skipping), to catch the difference between showing an emotion through detail and just stating it, and to see that the order information is revealed to a reader is a choice, not a report of what happened first.
Given a short mentor-text passage, students correctly label each sentence or paragraph as scene or summary and state the textual feature (moment-by-moment action/dialogue vs. compressed time-covering statement) that justifies the label.
Given a passage that names an emotion or judgment directly, students revise it into a passage that conveys the same emotion or judgment using only concrete, sensory detail, with no sentence stating the feeling.
Given two versions of the same short scene that differ only in the order information is revealed, students explain how each order changes what the reader knows, expects, or infers at a specific point in the text, citing the exact sentence where the difference in reader experience occurs.
Students apply the self-critique protocol (name criterion, cite evidence, decide fix) to their own in-progress draft using the show/tell and scene/summary criteria, producing at least three protocol-structured statements that each name a specific line as evidence.
Given their complete draft, students produce a structural diagram showing the order in which key information is revealed to the reader (as distinct from chronological event order) and identify at least one point where the two orders diverge.
Given an unfamiliar short story never discussed in class, students identify where the writer withholds information from the reader and infer why the writer likely made that choice, given no explicit prompt naming the technique.
Given a completed short story of their own, students generate an alternative version of the same plot content with a substantially different scene/summary allocation and reveal order, and explain in writing what emotional or interpretive effect changes as a result, using no criteria or template provided in class for this specific transformation.
Students recall the definition of scene and summary and state the self-critique protocol's three steps from memory, without reference to notes.
Same critique method, same detail and structure vocabulary from Units 1 and 2, now applied to true stories about their own life. This adds something genuinely new: honesty. Your child has to think about whether memory can be trusted, where self-reflection turns into self-justification, and what they owe the real people who show up in their essay.
Given a personal narrative draft, identify which passages are rendered as scene and which are rendered as summary, using the Unit 2 definitions.
Recall the definition of concrete detail established in Unit 1 and state it without reference to notes.
Given a sentence pair already sorted as reflection and justification during Day 8 direct instruction, apply the taught one-sentence test (does it explain new understanding, or does it defend the past action) to correctly re-label each sentence in the same pair without the label showing, using only the definition given in class.
Explain why a specific memory rendered as a scene creates a different reader experience than the same event rendered as summary, citing the mechanism (selection and pacing, not just 'more detail').
Differentiate sentences in a personal essay draft that function as self-reflection from sentences that function as self-justification, applying a definition given in direct instruction.
Given two accounts of the same shared event from different people, infer at least two specific ways personal memory can diverge from a neutral record and state the implication for using memory as writing material.
Apply the self-critique protocol (name the criterion, cite evidence in own draft, decide the fix) from Units 1-2 to a personal essay draft using this unit's criteria (scene vs. summary, concrete detail, reflection vs. justification).
Given a decision framework (purpose, less-harmful alternative, would-you-show-them test), evaluate whether a specific passage in the student's own draft about a real person meets a defensible ethical standard, and justify the judgment with the framework's criteria.
Given a true event never discussed in class, plan two structurally different ways to order the material (e.g., chronological vs. in medias res with flashback) and generate a brief account of what each ordering would make a reader infer, without teacher-provided cues as to which structure fits.
Revise a full draft personal essay by executing at least three specific changes identified through self-critique and parent-reader notes (converting summary to scene, replacing vague statement with concrete detail, resolving a justification passage into reflection).
Given an unfamiliar published personal essay excerpt (not used in class), assess whether the writer appears to be reflecting or justifying at a specific moment, and cite textual evidence for the judgment.
The wrap-up. No new evaluation method gets taught here, your child pulls out one piece each from Units 1, 2, and 3, cold, and has to diagnose and revise them under a real constraint: only three priority fixes total across all three pieces. Then they write an essay defending those three choices in specific, criterion-based terms, not 'I liked this better.'
Given one piece each from Units 1-3, re-read cold and generate a written diagnostic statement naming, for each piece, which of its genre-specific criteria (image/concrete detail, show-vs-tell, structure) the piece currently meets and which it does not, citing specific text as evidence.
Recall the three-step self-critique protocol (name the criterion, cite the evidence, decide the fix) without a reference sheet, and state which step differs when applied to a nonfiction piece versus a fiction piece.
Given three revised-or-revisable pieces and a constraint of only three total priority revisions across all of them, produce a written priority plan that ranks which piece needs which revision most urgently and states the criterion-based reason for the ranking.
Recognize the difference between a defense sentence that names a criterion and cites textual evidence and one that merely states a preference, when given paired examples of each.
Compose a reflective essay defending three specific revision choices, each naming a criterion from Units 1-3, citing evidence from the draft, and explaining the effect of the change on a reader.
Given a genre the course did not teach (e.g., short dialogue or drama), infer which of the three existing parent-reader question sets would need a new question added, and generate that question with a stated reason.
Given an unfamiliar peer's draft outside the three studied genres' typical form, apply the self-critique protocol's diagnostic logic (name what criterion would apply, cite evidence, propose a fix) without being told which criteria set fits.
Execute the mechanics of assembling the final portfolio (labeled pieces, diagnostic log, parent-reader notes, essay) according to the specified format.
From the parent guide
This is a semester of writing workshop for 11th grade, minus the workshop full of other kids. Your child will write real poems, a real short story, a real personal essay, and then go back and revise all three into a final portfolio. Instead of grading by gut feeling ("this sounds nice"), they learn to name a specific problem in their own draft, point to the exact line causing it, and decide a fix, the same three-step move, reused across every genre. Your job is mostly to read their drafts and ask a short list of specific questions, not to judge whether the writing is "good."
Unit 1 · what to expect
This is where your child learns the two tools the whole course runs on: telling a concrete image apart from a vague abstract statement, and a three-step way to critique their own draft (name the problem, quote the exact line, decide the fix). They read short poems, imitate them, then write and revise three original poems.
The full guide covers all 4 units: where kids get stuck, what to say, and how to tell it's working. Included with the course.
Ready when you are
Free for 30 days · then $29/mo or $290/yr for the whole family · Cancel anytime, no questions asked.
Start your family's account