Below is part of SWB's review of R&S which is posted on their website. I'm pretty sure it was written before her book came out. Even so, I found her review helpful in learning that R&S provides sufficient writing instruction in the early grades. I take this to mean levels 2-4 since she encourages switching over to a formal writing program by level 5. HOWEVER, if you research past posts on this board you will find that MANY people would like to offer more writing instruction to their younger children. This is where WWE would be most helpful. It can be used to supplement ANY grammar program and provide a wonderful foundation in writing for the early years. I just read another post that a WWE lesson takes less than 20 minutes to complete. Would it be overkill to supplement R&S? Maybe. Then again, could it hurt? I don't think so. I like SWB comment when she wrote, "no program works for every child..." In the end, you know your children best but you also know yourself and your teaching style. I'm glad I was able to preview both curricula side by side because now I know which one I would be able to use for the long haul. And yes, life does change often. I want my children to be able to "roll with the punches" but I have found that during those moments, they look to me to be strong and confident in my choices. All I'm saying is don't just consider what would work for your child but also what YOU can successfully implement in your school. --Mari Curriculum Review: Institute for Excellence in Writing, Rod & Staff Grammar reviewed by Susan Wise Bauer In The Well-Trained Mind, we suggest that parents cover grammar and writing by combining a good traditional grammar program (such as the A Beka workbooks or the Grammar, Usage, Mechanics series) with the Writing Strands workbook series. No program works for every child, so I'm glad to find that there are other options for parents who can't bear A Beka, or who find that Writing Strands doesn't fit their teaching style. A good traditional grammar text that can easily replace A Beka in the early years is published by Rod & Staff. The Rod & Staff books cover the same information as A Beka (parts of speech, mechanics and usage, diagramming, outlining, etc.) in a systematic, easy-to-understand way with plenty of practice. Unlike A Beka, the Rod & Staff books are hardbacked and nonconsumable; students do all their work on separate sheets of notebook paper. Like A Beka, Rod & Staff is a Christian publisher; the organization is Mennonite, and the books feature Mennonite children in illustrations and refer to Mennonite beliefs in the exercises. Christian home schoolers shouldn't find this offensive, but secular parents will probably find the books difficult to use. The writing exercises in Rod & Staff, unlike those in A Beka, are actually well-designed and can supplement or replace another writing program for the early grades. By fifth grade at the latest, however, I strongly suggest that you switch over to a formal writing program such as Writing Strands (or possibly the Institute for Excellence in Writing program, reviewed below).

Many people on this board do not believe R&S 3 and 4 offer enough writing instruction. The WTM even suggests using a writing program to accompany R&S by at least the 5th grade. WWE could most definitely be used alongside R&S. It would be VERY easy to do. A note about PLL. I'm not sure which version you are currently using but I spoke with Margot Davidson, who edited the newer edition, at a convention this summer. PLL is NOT intended to be a full GRAMMAR course. It introduces some grammar but it's meant mainly to teach language usage (spoken), a skill that should be learned in the early elementary years before a full intensive grammar course. ILL for grades 4-6 and then Lingua Mater would then serve that purpose. A lot of people successfully use PLL to supplement grammar lessons in the younger years. One thing I didn't mention in my previous post was that even though I prefer R&S instruction, I REALLY like the memorization lists and lessons of FLL 3. In the end, I'm keeping FLL 3 to add those lessons only to R&S 3 and I'll most likely do the same next year using the 4th levels. --Mari

The actress who played Winnie Cooper on The Wonder Years is the author of this book. Many don't know that after the series ended she went on to some Ivy League school and eventually earned a Ph.D in math and, I think, physics. Her book is purposely marketed at middle and high school girls who traditionally lose interest in math or are victims of poor teaching instruction. I watched a TV interview when her first book came out and she rattled off some statistic about how girls' mathmatic abilities seriously decline at around the fourth and fifth grades. Sadly, this is the normal time when traditionally schooled girls begin to lose their self-esteem and self-confidence. Her goal has been to re-introduce the joy of learning math to girls who would rather talk about fashion, boys, relationships, etc. I know many are put off by the titles of her books but I would seriously consider that that most of the girls in the intended age range have probably heard or (yikes!) said worse. Please don't be offended by that last statement...I'm really only trying to express that these books really shouldn't be judged by their covers. --Mari

I have both FLL 3 and R&S 3 & 4 in my grubby little hands. Like many of you, I have been torn as to which would be the better choice for my child yet today I'm leaning more towards choosing what would be the better fit FOR ME. I have to say that R&S wins in that respect hands down if you use the teacher's manual. The objectives and teaching lessons are so clear and very easy FOR ME to use. I'm strongly put off by the scripted lessons in FLL 3. The concepts taught are very thorough but I WANT to look into my child's eyes when I'm teaching, not at the book! Somehow the script takes away from the natural interaction I WANT with my child. It would be so easy to snuggle on the couch or work closely together at the table teaching R&S and allowing additional time for your child to work independently as well. I noticed with FLL there's not a whole lot of independent work. It's very teacher intensive. I also like that R&S has worksheets scheduled for various lessons and a test booklet. I think I WILL FEEL more confident in being able to accurately assess my child's understanding of the subject matter. Overall the FLL workbook is nicely done. Someone else mentioned the diagramming lines. Yes, FLL already puts the lines on the workbook pages whereas your dc will get writer's cramp from having to draw his/her own lines. Frankly, this is not a problem FOR ME so right now I'm thinking ds will need to deal with it. :D A bigger problem I have right now with FLL is that there are no plans in the works for FLL 5 or beyond. I actually called PeaceHill Press this morning to ask about this. The current recommendation is to go to R&S 5 after completing FLL 4. So why not just stick with R&S to begin with for the sake of continuity? It just makes more sense to me in the long run. Just my two cents, Mari

We've really only briefly touched on Colonial history. I would like to really offer a more in depth history class this year. --Mari

Hi! I'm appealing to the masses here because my indecision has led me to my current state of panic. School is supposed to be right around the corner over here and I still don't know what to teach DS8 for 3rd grade history. The problem is I'm trying to include DD4 in lessons but I don't want to short change DS in the process. I would like to teach Winterpromise's AS 1 and 2 for this year and the next (3rd and 4th grades) and begin the cycle with ancients for DS 5th and DD 1st grades using SOTW and Kingfisher or WP's Quest for the Ancients. I think it would be easy FOR ME to cover one subject for both kids and I think DD would listen in easier this year with AS 1. This seems like it could work but DS is so ripe for the ancient and middle ages time periods right now...he LOVES anything having to do with knights and ancient egypt. I would love to tie in lessons to his boyhood passions. However, I also want to include Bible History and geography in the mix. I'm feeling like this might be too much to do in a single year. I've considered Sonlight's Cores K, 1, 2 and 1+2 but I keep thinking there might be a way to have all my cake and eat it too. Plus, I really don't know which core to begin with and it seems like Sonlight would leave my daughter out somehow. Have any of you taught both American and World History along with Bible and Geography? Can you help me come up with a plan? Thanks, Mari

Cin, Another thing to consider is what cleansing routine you follow. Finding one specifically for your skin type might help with the shine and color problems you wrote about. I use Clinique's 3 step products for combination to oily skin (level #3 in the colder months, level #4 in the warmer ones) and I find good results along with the Studio Fix. I rarely have to touch up and when I do, I usually just use Clinique's blotting papers (I think MAC has some, too). --Mari

Cin, I have the same type of skin that you described and I live in the Florida Panhandle. It just can't get any hotter or humid IMHO. Anyhow, I discovered MAC's Studio Fix a while ago and LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it! It's a powder foundation which goes on well with a brush and no, you will not look like the Boy George wannabe at the sales counter. Actually, ask George to make you over and tell him how much coverage you really want--Studio Fix can go from sheer to full easily depending on how much you put on the brush. Inch on up there, Girl...don't be shy! I've actually found the best make-up advice from all the MAC counters I've visited. Once you get the right shade (or shades, if you're like me and get darker over the summer) you can purchase online. I've tried Bare Escentuals and after all was said and done, I actually paid more and found it messier to use. All their stuff came in loose powder formulas and no matter how hard I tried to like it, I just didn't get the results I wanted. It's supposed to be derived from natural ingredients but I actually break out EVERY TIME I used it. Also, I'm not sure if it was the eye shadow, foundation, or mineral veil I was using (all Bare Escentuals), but my eyes would STING whenever I wore it. I just found it not worth the money. If you do decide to try it, I highly suggest you buy their trial size kits first. --Mari

My children have been taking piano lessons for years now and we've met quite a few teachers along the way. It has been our experience that the first meeting, the usual meet and greet, has always been free. It's a way to decide if lessons would work for either party. Of course this needs to be discussed up front, but I do believe this is an understanding among professional piano teachers. It seems as if in this case, Jessica realized the possibility of it not being an ideal situation but SHE GAVE THE WOMAN A SECOND CHANCE anyway. Those in dissention need to at least give her credit for that. --Mari

Is it a stand alone program or do you use another curriculum along with it? Is it a complete phonics program by itself if you follow it all the way to the Master Reader level? If not, what do you use to supplement? Thanks, Mari

Thank you so much for all your replies! --Mari :)

I'm exhausted with trying to put together my own eclectic plans and am now seriously considering enrolling with Seton. I just want to be done, done, DONE! However, I don't my children to suffer academically, KWIM? For those of you Catholic homeschoolers who have tried both programs, can you provide info on which you prefer and why? I know Seton provides more Catholic content but I'm interested in how it measures up to Rod & Staff. Just so you know, dc are rising into 3rd grade and kindergarten. Thanks! --Mari

So, to help me understand this article and discussion more, would you say math-u-see is more conceptual based or traditional? Could anyone give me examples of both that we homeschoolers might use? I'm guessing Rod and Staff, Abeka, and MCP might fall under the traditional category. I ask because I'm researching math curricula right now and would opt for a more traditional approach. --Mari

I actually talked with Margot Davidson about her edition of Emma Serl's PLL at one of the conferences. I was also concerned about comparing it with other grammar programs, it's intensity, etc. I was under the impression that it was too "light" to use as a full program, despite that it can be used as a full third grade course. She was very helpful and actually corrected my assumptions. I now understand that it is not intended (nor was Emma Serl's edition) to be a grammar course. It may gently introduce SOME grammar concepts, but rather, it is more intended to help teach children "language usage." In her opinion, this skill should be taught more at the younger years before beginning formal grammar lessons. Grammar is taught in a more rigorous way in her subsequent levels. Check out www.hillsideeducation.com to see the whole series. Comparing PLL with FLL may be like comparing apples to oranges. I have heard that many supplement whatever grammar program they are using with PLL, just to make sure they are covering all the bases. FWIW, Mari

Hi. I'm completely confused now about what I'll be using to teach ds8 beginning this fall. :confused: I was absolutely convinced I would use Rod & Staff 3 for English to cover writing and English. After reading all the posts about Writing With Ease and FLL 3, I feel as if I'm back at square one again, trying to figure out which one to use. Can any of you compare these two programs? Is the writing more intensive in WWE? Which of these two programs would better fit my ds who has had very little writing and formal grammar instruction. Which is easier to use in a homeschool environment? Any other advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Mari

Hi. I need advice on spelling, grammar and reading/phonics placement for ds8 who will be in 3rd grade next fall. Up to now we have focused mainly on reading, writing, math and religion. He has had NO formal lessons in grammar and spelling. I like the idea of using the Bible and Nurture Series for reading AND Bible history and was planning on placing him in the 2nd grade level just to get the benefit of starting in Genesis. He reads very well but I thought he could benefit from extra practice in comprehension and phonics. I was planning on starting him at the 3rd grade level in spelling and grammar. Would this not work well if we are using the 2nd grade reading/phonics program? Should I place him in 2nd grade spelling to align with the 2nd grade phonics? Are these R&S subjects designed to complement each other at grade level only? --Mari

Thank you so much for your replies! --Mari

Hi. I'm trying to decide between these two curricula to teach my soon to be 8 yr. old 3rd grader. He has not had formal spelling lessons and I think either would work fine but I'm trying to figure out if one is better than the other in terms of student retention for his age group and ease of use for me. Also, does one teach the spelling rules better than the other, again keeping in mind his age? Thanks, Mari

Hi! I have recently discovered Rod & Staff grammar and reading curricula and will be using them next year. My problem is that I don't know whether to place my soon to be 3rd grader in the 3rd grade books or back to the 2nd. I like how systematic and thorough R&S appears to be as well as easy for a parent to use Up to this point we have focused primarily on the 4 "Rs" (reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and religion) so we have not covered formal grammar at all. I have read from this site that TWTM recommends R&S 3 but is that only for those who have completed FLL 1+2 or for ones like my son who is just now beginning grammar lessons? I have the same question regarding the reading program. I'm also wondering if it can be used as a Bible History curriculum as well as reading. Is that the idea? I like that I can cover two subjects in one. The 2nd grade readers would be a good place to start since it begins with the creation week. The 3rd grade readers pick up in the Bible where the 2nd grade reader leaves off. He reads very well but after looking at the sample table of contents, I can honestly say we have not covered comprehension, dictionary skills, or vocabulary as thoroughly as R&S seems to. Would I be "holding him back" for all the wrong reasons? Have any of you attempted to complete both levels of grammar and reading in one year? Is this realistic or too much for an 8/9 year old? Any advice thrown my way will be greatly appreciated! --Mari

Hi. I am trying to schedule a plan to teach history for my children who are 3.5 years apart. I'm trying to show my husband how history will be taught for both kids from now all the way through graduation. I really need advice on how to implement SOTW for multiple children. My son will begin 3rd grade and my daughter will begin Kindergarten next fall. I've missed the boat in scheduling DS into the 4 year cycle but there's still time for my daughter when she begins first grade. I think I might still be able to give him the benefit of 4 full years of the cycle rather than rushing through 2 volumes per year. My plan is to teach Sonlight Core K next year (grades 3 & K) emphasizing cultures and geography, then begin SOTW cycle for the next 4 years. Can I simultaneously teach both children the 4 year cycle using the SOTW books? Are these books just for the grammar stage? I'm trying to make it easier on myself by using the same spine but perhaps adding extra resources for my son who in the middle of the cycle will be moving from the grammar to the logic stage. One of my problems is while I enjoy the concept of SOTW, I don't believe there is enough American History thrown in the mix. If I follow the above plan, how would I add in more American History? One idea I had was to stretch out WinterPromise's American Story 1 and 2 over those 4 years and just teach it slowly alongside SOTW as a separate "American Studies " course. Would this work? Would it be too much? Any advice thrown my way would be greatly appreciated! --Mari