Grade 12 · Christian · NGSS/CCSS-aligned
This is senior-year English built around one question: when someone has to justify a choice, what are they actually appealing to, fate, the law, reason, God, other people's opinion of them, or just themselves? Over the year your kid reads a Greek tragedy, Shakespeare, a satire, foundational American political writing, an existentialist novel, and a pile of speeches and op-eds, and they write about all of it, not just "what happened" essays but essays that take a real position and have to survive someone disagreeing with them. By spring they run their own research project from scratch, and the year ends with a novel-plus-current-events unit that asks them to use everything at once. It's the same amount of reading and writing you'd expect from a serious 12th grade English class, this just makes the connecting thread visible instead of leaving it implicit.
The whole year, in plain English. Tap any unit to see every skill inside, nothing is hidden.
This is the whole year's foundation, built on one play: Oedipus Rex. Your child learns the vocabulary of Greek tragedy, hamartia (the flaw or error that leads to downfall), hubris, the chorus, catharsis, dramatic irony, and the shape of the plot itself (setup, complication, the turn, the disaster). The big idea: how Sophocles arranges what the audience knows versus what Oedipus knows is itself an argument about how much of the disaster is really his fault.
Given a definition and two contrasting scenarios, distinguish hamartia from a simple accidental mistake and from deliberate villainy.
Explain how the chorus's odes function structurally to control audience emotional distance from Oedipus, rather than merely commenting on the action.
Classify specific moments in Oedipus Rex as dramatic irony, verbal irony, or no irony, based on the gap between audience and character knowledge.
Infer, from the play's sequencing of revelations, why Sophocles places the shepherd's testimony where he does rather than earlier or later.
Compare two rival claims about the purpose of catharsis (relief/purgation versus moral instruction) and evaluate which better accounts for a specific scene in the play.
Generate a specific, defensible thesis allocating responsibility for the catastrophe between Oedipus's choices and forces outside his control, using structural features as evidence.
Apply the concept of hamartia to a character in a text never discussed in class (e.g., a short story or news profile of a real downfall) to determine whether hamartia is a defensible lens for that case.
Critique a peer's or a provided sample thesis for whether it treats plot events (what happened) as if they were structural evidence (how the text is built), and justify the judgment.
Generalize, beyond Oedipus Rex, a working definition of 'tragic structure as argument' that could predict what claim a DIFFERENT unread tragic structure is likely making about fault, based on where it places knowledge-gaps and reversals.
This unit turns 'name the rhetorical appeal' from a worksheet exercise into something closer to real persuasion: why does the same appeal work on one audience and flop on another? Students read 4-6 real speeches and essays and learn to state a claim, its evidence, and the unstated assumption connecting them (the warrant), then build a counterargument-and-rebuttal paragraph where the opposing view has to be stated at full strength before it gets answered.
Given a short excerpt and its stated audience, identify which appeal (ethos, logos, or pathos) is doing the primary work and cite the textual feature that signals it.
Explain why the same rhetorical appeal (e.g., an appeal to shared religious values) would succeed with one named historical audience and fail or backfire with a different named audience, citing specific features of each audience's values or knowledge.
Deconstruct a written argument into its claim, evidence, and warrant, and state the warrant explicitly when the text leaves it unstated.
Construct a two-paragraph counterargument-and-rebuttal sequence for a claim of the student's own, in which the counterargument is stated in its strongest form (not a weakened version) before the rebuttal engages it.
Given a paragraph containing a straw man, false dilemma, or ad hominem move, name the fallacy and explain specifically how it misrepresents or substitutes for the opposing position rather than engaging it.
Critique a classmate's draft counterargument paragraph by identifying whether it represents the objection in its strongest form and pointing to the specific phrase that weakens it, if any.
Analyze an unfamiliar contested claim and its opposing position (neither discussed in class) to determine which appeal each side is primarily relying on and evaluate which side's counterargument-handling is more rhetorically complete.
Generalize the claim-evidence-warrant-counterargument schema to evaluate a piece of persuasive writing from a domain not covered in this unit (e.g., an advertisement, a scientific op-ed, a legal brief excerpt) and justify why the schema does or does not transfer cleanly to that domain.
Recall the definitions of ethos, logos, and pathos and the terms claim, evidence, warrant, counterargument, and rebuttal with sufficient precision to use them correctly in analytic writing.
Satire says one thing and means another, and the reader has to close the gap. This unit teaches that gap directly, literal claim versus real claim, how harsh the tone is (Juvenalian) versus how gentle (Horatian), the 'follow the premise to its absurd conclusion' move (reductio ad absurdum), and how to figure out the argument a satire never states outright. It also asks a separate question the humor can distract from: who is this joke actually aimed at, and who pays for it?
Given a soliloquy and the chorus's function from Antigone, state how each performs the structural job of revealing information the other characters do not have access to.
Identify hamartia, dramatic irony, and catastrophe within a act of Hamlet using the definitions built in Unit 1.
Explain how Hamlet's hamartia is reframed as a psychological trait (indecision, overthinking, corrosive doubt) rather than a single circumstantial error, using at least two soliloquies as evidence.
Classify moments of dramatic irony in a persuasive scene by whether the audience's superior knowledge is about a fact, a motive, or an outcome.
Analyze Antony's funeral oration to identify how ethos, logos, and pathos are sequenced to reverse a hostile crowd's position, citing specific lines for each appeal.
Evaluate whether the audience is meant to admire or distrust Antony's rhetoric, using textual evidence for both readings before committing to a position.
Given an unfamiliar Shakespearean soliloquy not covered in class, determine whether it functions primarily to reveal hamartia, advance dramatic irony, or foreshadow catastrophe, and justify the choice with structural evidence.
Given a persuasive speech from a play not studied in this unit (e.g., a monologue from Othello or Richard III), construct an argument for how its appeals are sequenced for its specific in-play audience, without teacher-provided appeal labels.
Compose a comparative essay arguing how the contrast between one soliloquy and one persuasive speech in the same play makes a claim about the gap between what a character knows and what they perform, anticipating and answering the strongest counter-reading.
The same ethos/counterargument tools from Unit 2 now get applied to serious, high-stakes, non-ironic writing: the Declaration of Independence, Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience,' and King's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail.' The question underneath: when a writer appeals to 'natural rights' or 'conscience,' is that an argument, or is it a premise being smuggled in as if it needs no defense? And is going to jail for breaking a law part of the argument itself, not just a consequence of it?
Given a short satirical excerpt not previously seen in class, state the literal claim and the actual (ironic) claim in separate sentences and name the specific textual signal that marks the gap between them.
Following the teacher's complete worked example, identify the literal claim, actual claim, and textual signal in a short satirical excerpt using the same three-part structure just demonstrated.
Sort a set of six paired satirical excerpts along a Juvenalian-Horatian spectrum and justify each placement using tone-toward-target and severity-of-target's-real-world-harm as criteria, not the mere presence of exaggeration.
Trace a reductio ad absurdum move in a satirical text by identifying the opponent's premise the text adopts, the logical step(s) it exaggerates, and the absurd conclusion it arrives at.
Given an unfamiliar satirical text and no prior discussion of it, reconstruct the implicit counterargument the text is building against its target's real-world defenders, before being shown the formal 'counterargument in satire' framework.
Given a satirical text's target choice, identify who holds power relative to that target and evaluate whether the satire's real object of attack is the powerful or the vulnerable, using textual evidence rather than personal reaction.
Analyze a satirical text unrelated to any text studied in this unit (a genuinely new author, era, and target) and explain how its irony and exaggeration build an implicit counterargument, applying the unit's analytic routine with no cue as to which concept applies.
Write a rhetorical analysis essay that identifies a satirical text's literal claim versus actual claim, classifies its position on the Juvenalian-Horatian spectrum, traces its reductio move, and explains how it builds an implicit counterargument against its target's real-world defenders, integrating textual evidence throughout.
Explain how a satirical text's use of exaggeration could plausibly reduce a real audience's willingness to take the underlying real-world problem seriously, as a counter-consideration to the unit's claim that satire builds effective implicit argument.
One novel, usually Camus's The Stranger, becomes the meeting point for three questions the year has been building: fate versus choice (Unit 1), being real versus performing for others (Unit 3), and what you owe to something other than society (Unit 5). Before touching the novel, your child spends about a week learning four abstract terms (existence precedes essence, the absurd, bad faith, authenticity) using made-up, non-book examples first, this is deliberate; abstract philosophy lands better when it's explained plainly before it's applied to a hard text.
Given a passage from the Declaration of Independence, identify which sentences function as premise (natural rights claims), which function as evidence (the list of grievances), and which function as the conclusion (the right and duty to alter or abolish government).
Explain how the Declaration of Independence builds ethos in its opening paragraphs by appealing to self-evident truths and the 'opinions of mankind' rather than to the authors' personal authority.
Compare Thoreau's appeal to individual conscience with King's appeal to a moral 'higher law' that supersedes unjust human law, identifying what work each concept is doing that the other is not.
Reconstruct the strongest real historical objection to King's argument that was actually raised against him (by the white clergymen he addresses, or by contemporaries advocating patience/gradualism) rather than a manufactured strawman.
Evaluate whether King's rebuttal to the 'wait/be patient' objection actually answers the objection on its own terms or reframes/evades it, citing specific textual evidence for the judgment.
Given an unfamiliar short op-ed arguing for a specific act of civil disobedience or resistance not covered in class, identify the writer's central premise about rights or conscience, locate the strongest counterargument the writer addresses, and judge whether the rebuttal succeeds.
Generate an original argument for or against a specific, real, contemporary instance of civil disobedience, building ethos appropriate to the audience and constructing a rebuttal to that audience's most likely real objection.
Compare how the Declaration of Independence and King's Letter each handle the objection that the disobedient party should instead work within existing legal/political channels, explaining what each writer's choice of rebuttal reveals about their differing theories of when law loses legitimacy.
Plan and draft a comparative essay establishing which of two textual comparisons (Declaration/Thoreau, Declaration/King, or Thoreau/King) best supports a defensible claim about how ethos and counterargument-handling differ, before committing to a thesis.
For the first time this year, your child runs the whole research process solo: pick a real contested issue, write a working research question, find at least five sources they chose (not handed to them) covering different views, judge those sources' credibility themselves, and be willing to change their thesis when a real counter-source pushes back on it. It ends with a research paper, a log of the objections they went looking for, and an oral defense where they have to say, out loud, where their own argument is weakest.
Given the tragic concept of hamartia and the existentialist concept of bad faith applied to the same event, state what each position claims is responsible for a character's downfall.
Define 'existence precedes essence,' 'the absurd,' 'bad faith,' and 'authenticity' using the course's own worked examples (not the novel) and distinguish 'the absurd' from nihilism.
Classify a character's action in a given passage of the novel as an instance of authenticity or bad faith, citing the specific textual signal for the choice.
Track how the protagonist's stance toward one specific authority (society, reason, religion, or the self) changes across three or more points in the novel, explaining what event or realization produces each change.
Given an unfamiliar short absurdist text not read in class, identify whether it treats meaninglessness as nihilism or as absurdism-in-Camus's-sense and justify the identification from the text's own language.
Argue whether the novel's ending resolves or refuses to resolve the individual-vs-authority tension, using evidence from at least two points in the novel and addressing the strongest counterreading.
Given a new absurdist or existentialist narrative excerpt outside the course text set, predict which of the four core terms an analyst would most likely apply to a described character action and explain the reasoning.
Explain how the course's individual-vs-authority question, first raised by the chorus in Unit 1 and reframed by civil disobedience in Unit 5, is answered differently by existentialism.
The last unit teaches nothing new. A full contemporary novel is read alongside real-world speeches, op-eds, and at least one video or image-based argument, all on the novel's central real issue. The whole demand is deciding, on the fly and without being told, whether a given passage calls for structural analysis, rhetorical analysis, or counterargument-testing, and often more than one at once, then writing an essay that keeps all three straight and defending it out loud.
Given a self-selected contested issue, generate a working research question and explain what evidence would count as an answer, distinguishing a researchable question from a yes/no opinion prompt.
Given a source whose author, publishing body, and publication date are clearly and explicitly stated on the page (a scaffolded case matching the classroom worked examples), apply the four-part credibility checklist step by step to arrive at a strong / usable-with-caveats / unusable classification.
Apply a credibility-evaluation checklist (authorship, evidence base, funding/affiliation, currency) to a self-found source and classify it as strong, usable-with-caveats, or unusable for the paper.
Explain why a source that agrees with the student's initial claim can still be a weak source, and why a source that disagrees can still be a strong one, using two contrasting examples from their own search.
Given their own working thesis, plan and execute a targeted search whose explicit goal is to find the strongest available objection to that thesis, not a source that supports it.
Distinguish synthesis, an account of how multiple disagreeing sources bear on one another and on the thesis, from summary-by-accumulation, in a paragraph that must use at least two sources that conflict.
Revise a working thesis in response to a specific piece of counter-evidence and produce a written rationale explaining what changed and why the change is a strengthening rather than an abandonment of the argument.
Correctly execute in-text citation and a Works Cited/References entry for at least five source types (book, periodical article, website, government/organization report, and one additional type) in a consistent citation style.
Given a novel contested claim never discussed in class (e.g., a local policy issue specific to the school or town), plan a five-source research strategy specifying what kind of source would be needed to establish credibility, find agreement, and find the strongest objection, without executing the search.
During an oral defense, respond to a question about the paper's weakest point by identifying it accurately and explaining what additional evidence would change the argument, rather than defending the paper as already complete.
Given an unmarked passage from the course novel, identify whether the primary interpretive demand is structural (form-as-argument), rhetorical (appeal-based), or thematic (individual-vs-authority), and justify the choice.
Explain how the novel's structural choice (e.g., unreliable narration, nonlinear timeline, frame narrative) advances a specific claim about who or what is responsible for the central conflict, using textual evidence.
Classify the dominant rhetorical appeal(s) in a public-argument text on the novel's central issue, cite the textual feature that signals it, and judge whether the appeal actually succeeds or undermines itself.
Compare how the novel and a public-argument text each frame responsibility for the same real-world issue, identifying where their claims agree, conflict, or talk past each other.
Construct a counterargument-and-rebuttal paragraph that anticipates the strongest objection to a synthesis claim about the novel's ambiguity, using evidence from both the novel and a public-argument source.
Evaluate whether the novel's refusal to resolve its central ambiguity strengthens or weakens its contribution to the public conversation on the issue, defending the judgment against a posed counterargument in real time.
Given a novel and public-argument pairing on an issue never discussed in class, apply the same three-lens routine (structural, rhetorical, thematic) independently to produce a defensible claim.
Recall and correctly define at least 12 course-vocabulary terms (spanning tragedy, rhetoric, satire, existentialism) when cued by a mixed, non-blocked list.
Organize evidence from the novel and multiple public-argument sources into a single essay structure that keeps literary analysis, rhetorical analysis, and counterargument distinct yet mutually supporting.
From the parent guide
This is senior-year English built around one question: when someone has to justify a choice, what are they actually appealing to, fate, the law, reason, God, other people's opinion of them, or just themselves? Over the year your kid reads a Greek tragedy, Shakespeare, a satire, foundational American political writing, an existentialist novel, and a pile of speeches and op-eds, and they write about all of it, not just "what happened" essays but essays that take a real position and have to survive someone disagreeing with them. By spring they run their own research project from scratch, and the year ends with a novel-plus-current-events unit that asks them to use everything at once. It's the same amount of reading and writing you'd expect from a serious 12th grade English class, this just makes the connecting thread visible instead of leaving it implicit.
Unit 1 · what to expect
This is the whole year's foundation, built on one play: Oedipus Rex. Your child learns the vocabulary of Greek tragedy, hamartia (the flaw or error that leads to downfall), hubris, the chorus, catharsis, dramatic irony, and the shape of the plot itself (setup, complication, the turn, the disaster). The big idea: how Sophocles arranges what the audience knows versus what Oedipus knows is itself an argument about how much of the disaster is really his fault.
The full guide covers all 7 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