Bare minimum would be the TM only...IF you are willing to make your own phonogram cards from scratch and are okay with not using the stuff that's in the workbook. I find that I don't really need the workbook (even though we do use it), but I'm not doing the grammar, and I edit the program a lot to streamline it since we only use it for spelling. I pretty much do just the phonograms, spelling list and dictation (which I also edit because it incorporates a lot of the grammar concepts that I'm not teaching at this point). I made some of my own phonogram cards before I bought the curriculum, but the ones from the company are so far superior that I found them to be worth every penny. If you want to do the program as designed you probably want the workbook. Also, if you are buying new, you can get a discount for buying the TM, phonogram cards and workbook in a bundle. RR has those three items bundled for only $109.25. Totally worth it, imo.

I don't really have much to say about your overall language arts plan (being a HS newbie and still figuring things out myself) but I'll give you my two cents on LOE. LOE Essentials is comprehensive, but if you want to use the whole program, the grammar section would be too advanced for a first grader, imo, and Foundations would be a better fit. I'm sure that's one reason why the company doesn't recommend Essentials for younger than 8. On the other hand, if you use something else for grammar and handwriting and you're just using LOE for spelling (like we are) then your DS would probably be fine in Essentials, especially since he already reads fluently (I started my fluently reading 6yo in Essentials at the beginning of first grade). That said, you'd have to go at a slower pace and tweak some stuff, especially the dictation, which incorporates some of the grammar concepts, and you might not want to do that. I don't mind editing on the fly, especially since I am a linguistics buff and I find language mechanics very easy to understand and teach. YMMV. Be sure to look at the sample lessons on the website to see how it's structured. If you aren't interested in adapting a scripted program, I wouldn't use Essentials. It really is written for an older child. HTH!

We're still finishing up after a hard year (lots of uncertainty, some health issues, a major move and some severe financial stress through the winter). We didn't even come close to getting through everything I had planned and I pretty much stopped everything formal except math about a month ago, but we've done enough at this point, and we're stopping math this Friday and calling it a year. We follow a flexible year-round schedule and have lax state requirements, so I don't have that pressure, thankfully. I am disappointed that we didn't do more with art, music and science, and we stopped 12 chapters short in SOTW1 (which will get tacked on to the beginning of next year), but I'm content with where we are in the 3 R's. DD7 aced the WWE1 year-end assessment even though we didn't do the workbook past mid-year, and my kids read and write and listen to classical music and draw every day just for fun, and there is lots of learning going on in various ways no matter what. We just need to be done with "school" for a while. We're taking off the entire month of July, and I am excited to re-group and get set up for next year, which I hope will run more smoothly. I'm still very new at this, and I learned the hard way that I need to plan more ahead of time. I had a general plan for the year, but I left too much planning and resource-gathering to be done on a weekly basis and it became too burdensome and overwhelming for me with everything else that was going on in our life.

I have a small (lap size) one that I use pretty much every day for math, and for most spelling lessons. Those are the only subjects I use it for, but I'd have a hard time teaching without it.

Another fan of OPGTR here. It is no frills and a bit dry at times, but it really gets the job done, quickly in our case. There are - by necessity and by design - gaps and inconsistencies in the rules system that it uses, but as a pretty thorough, rule-based program it gives the child the tools to sound out most words, and it strikes a nice balance between rules-based reading instruction and efficiency of process. In contrast to some other programs, it doesn't bog down the reading process with rules that are more applicable to spelling. I am using LOE Essentials to teach spelling to my fluent reader (DD7), and I really like LOE for that purpose; however, it would have been a slog to teach my kids to read if they had had to memorize all these explicit spelling rules at the same time, some of which don't even apply to reading. I'm sure that children who learn to read by learning to spell via Spalding/SWR/LOE do very well eventually, and I'm sure that there are children who benefit tremendously from learning that way, but if your goal is to get your child reading fluently in the most efficient manner, I'd avoid using the O-G-based programs that teach spelling at the same time. Reading and spelling are different skills (decoding vs. encoding), and since reading is a lot easier, there is no need to mix it up with spelling instruction, imo. If it bothers your DS when words break the rules, I would highly recommend using OPGTR (or something similar in approach) and getting the book Uncovering the Logic of English to read yourself, because it will give you, the teacher, the tools to explain many things that don't make sense when they come up and are deemed confusing. For example, why is the word "have" spelled with a silent e but has a short vowel? Because English words do not end in I, U, V, or J, and the e is there to keep the word from breaking that rule, not to make the vowel long. There are many different reasons for a final silent e, and it is helpful to know them as you're teaching just in case you need to explain something. That said, I wouldn't explain anything that the child is not confused about at the time, as long as he can sound out what's in front of him without frustration. I think language is fascinating and I like to be thorough and make connections myself, but if I tried to explain a rule to DD7 that she didn't need explained at the time, she would get impatient and frustrated. So, I stopped doing that and just helped her when she needed it. Now, she reads good literature to me and figures out most words on her own. She'll become a lot more fluent with reading higher-level words as we get further into LOE, and things are making more sense to her now that she is learning to spell, but getting her reading was my goal, and OPGTR was an excellent choice for us.

RightStart doesn't sell the small one, as far as I know. I didn't know it existed either until I happened upon it while checking RR's price on the large one.

If you are undecided between Classical and Charlotte Mason approaches (not that those are mutually exclusive - they're not) then you might check out English Lessons through Literature for LA (formerly known as Language Lessons through Literature). It takes aspects of classical and CM and blends them together in an all-inclusive, open-and-go LA program (except explicit spelling and handwriting instruction). It includes whole-work literature read-alouds, fables, narration, copywork, poems, some picture study, and grammar, which starts in Level 2. It really gets the job done efficiently, and so far we are happy with it. I also use the Writing with Ease Instructor Text as a supplement to track with my goals for DD's narration skills, but I use it more as a guide and don't follow it to the letter or anything. There is absolutely no need to use that, though. I just really like the idea of WWE and since I already had it when we started ELTL I figured I'd make use of it across DD's whole curriculum (mainly for history). My plan for 2nd grade is this: Literature/Grammar/Copywork/Poetry: ELTL, lots of independent reading and other read-alouds Spelling: Logic of English Essentials (we use this for spelling only) Handwriting: Pentime Cursive Math: RightStart B/C History: SOTW2, with supplemental reading from the AG Science: BFSU Art: CM Picture Study Portfolios, Usborne Art Treasury, Drawing with Children (art lessons w/DH) Music: piano lessons, still undecided about Music Appreciation

If your only experience with RS is level A (which I'm not sure about from your post) then no wonder you ditched it! The jumping around in A drove me nuts, but B is not like that. Of course it may not have been a good fit for you anyway, but it's too bad that the first level of RS is so poorly organized, because we have found level B to be much better, and we are loving it. DD5 is about to start math, and I'll either just start her in B and go slowly through the beginning, or do my own skipping around in A in order to make it more coherent. And also, this is a minor point, but regarding learning numbers 6-10, I remember DD7 learning to see groups of 5 or less with the various visual methods, and then doing them with the abacus, and then learning to see numbers 6-10 as 5+x, and then the song (we did it as a poem, not a song). In RS, they never learn to "count to 8" - it is always seen as 5+3, and there is NO rote memorization for anything that I recall. The understanding comes first, then the memorization. RS does use A LOT of manipulatives. I'm sure it is overkill for many students, but for some kids (like my DD) it makes math more fun and interesting and seeing the concepts in different ways has really helped her understanding. It is gratifying to see her choosing which specific method to use in solving a problem, since RS gives her choices, and I am surprised at times to see her prefer something I had considered skipping teaching because I thought it was superfluous. That said, OP, I wouldn't ditch a program that is working for you. The RS games may be a good investment if what your DC need is cementing the facts - my DD loves the games.

Just chiming in to say that my DD loves the math balance and I could tell it was helpful for her. Sometimes she asks to use it just for fun. I'm sure we could have done without it, though. We got the mini version, btw, which is only $4.25 at RR, so it was worth it for that price. I definitely wouldn't have gotten the large one - it is HUGE (I saw it in person at a convention) and it would take up a lot of storage space for something that doesn't get used very often.

Same here. But we have loved RS B (we use the first edition).

FWIW, I have found that after a few weeks of doing WWE with the workbook, I could easily make up narration questions on the fly from whatever we were reading. That may not work for everyone, but I was surprised at how easy it became for me. Between stopping the WWE workbook and getting ELTL in the mail, I started reading to DD from Beatrix Potter and would just stop in the middle of the story somewhere appropriate and ask her a few questions about the previous paragraphs, and then continue. At the end of the story I'd just ask her to tell me something about the story in her own words and we'd do copywork from that. I actually bought just the text first, but being a hs newbie I was intimidated by doing things myself and I wanted the hand-holding, so I ordered the workbook as well. I almost returned the text, but now I'm REALLY glad I didn't! Anyway, I just wanted to point out that once you're comfortable with the process, pre-planning lessons from the WWE text may not be necessary as long as you have your literature chosen and you occasionally check the guidelines to track with the skill progression.

This, exactly. The workbook makes it easier to use but I found that neither DD nor I liked using random excerpts (that approach was non-engaging for us). So we abandoned the workbook mid-year and started using LLTL/ELTL, and I use the narration guidelines in the WWE text - somewhat loosely at this point - for both literature and history (SOTW).

Got it - thank you for posting!

DD7 is in first grade. I schedule one chapter per week, with low-key oral narrations for each section, and map work (DD loves getting out the globe, and then we do the AG map worksheet). DD usually wants to do the coloring page also but we rarely do one of the other activities. I'd like to - it's just too much for me with an active toddler underfoot. Occasionally we read the supplemental books if I can get them at the library, and that's a great addition. DD was fascinated with mummies and ancient Egypt and we did do more supplemental stuff for those chapters (though we skipped mummifying the chicken - saving that for the second time around when the younger ones can join in). And since we're a Christian family, we also connect the stories to Biblical history when there's something relevant, even if SWB doesn't mention it in the text or AG. That has been really interesting for DD since she is familiar with so many Bible stories. I schedule history two days per week, and I break up the reading into sections if I feel that the whole chapter is too long for one sitting. I just try to make sure we get through at least the whole chapter and the map work in those two days. We're pretty relaxed about history at this point and it's been a good year so far.

This is what we've done. I just wanted to get my kids reading, so we started OPGTR right after they each turned 4. Before we got to the end of OPGTR I started Logic of English Essentials with DD7, to use only for spelling. I wanted her to know all the phonograms and rules for spelling, and LOE has helped her higher level reading, but I would not have wanted to bog down the learning-to-read process early on with all of the explicit and detailed phonics instruction in the O-G programs. Some kids benefit from that, and some actually need that, but DD didn't need it, and I know it would have frustrated her. Anyway, you'll find a bunch of people on the forum who teach their kids to read first and then use only the spelling component of one of the comprehensive OG-based programs.

:iagree: Have you looked at the samples on the website? There are three sample lessons available for free, among other things: http://www.logicofenglish.com/essentials/samples Very happy with LOE. We only use it for spelling, so we skip the grammar section unless there's something we can use for practicing the spelling words that isn't over DD's head. She's in first grade, so most of the grammar is too advanced for her. Parts 1 and 2 of each lesson are GREAT and very easy to teach with little prep. We have all the extra stuff but have only used the TM, the workbook and the phonogram cards.

Our local public library has been awesome for picture books, but if I were dependent on it for school stuff I'd be up the creek. It has almost nothing listed in either SOTW or BFSU, and I rely heavily on the living book suggestions for BFSU especially. Thankfully, we have access to a college library with 2-day ILL, and that has been great. Not sure what we'll do once DH finishes his degree...probably spend a lot more money on school books!

I'm no expert in these things and maybe you've already tried something like this, but I'm going to suggest the place value cards used in RightStart. Maybe those would help? You create multi-digit numbers by stacking the cards on top of each other. I've heard a zillion times on this forum that RightStart's way of teaching place value is genius, and now I understand why. DD7 is not naturally mathy and struggles at times, but she TOTALLY gets place value. We use the cards as part of the curriculum, but here they are at RR: http://www.rainbowresource.com/product/sku/025803/2a4139445e227f91c65f0aed

Others with more experience will probably chime in, but I'd suggest OPGTR - it's inexpensive and straightforward and will fill in gaps and build his reading skills in a systematic fashion. Just pick a place where you think he'd start and go either back or forward from there - it can definitely be started in the middle. Or just start him in a place where you know would be easy for him and let him practice reading through the lessons at a quick pace until he gets to a place that's challenging, and then slow down. Most of the lessons can easily be shortened if they're too easy. In my opinion, for a child who picks up reading easily, it would be frustrating to bog down the learning-to-read process with all the explicit, detailed spelling rules found in AAS and the other O-G programs. I'd just use OPGTR (or something like it) to get him reading more and more fluently, and deal with spelling as a separate animal when you think he's ready for spelling. I taught DD6 to read via OPGTR and before we got to the end we started spelling with LOE. It has worked really well for her. I want her to know the phonograms and spelling rules, but she didn't need all of that to learn to read fluently.

DD6 is doing RightStart Level B, which is awesome, but we have hit the "wall" (which came at lesson 66 for DD). I realized that she doesn't understand some things as well as she needs to at this point, so we need to go back and review some stuff, and I have also realized that she needs some extra worksheets for practice. She loves worksheets, and they are very helpful to her. I'm not a fan of busywork, but I can tell that she processes the material better if she can see it on paper, work through it at her own pace, and write it down. I'm like that, too. So, I am considering the Worksheets for the AL Abacus as something that might work well for her, not just now but all the way through. If you have these, would you recommend them? Any other input?

I'm going to chime in again to say that even though the workbook wasn't a hit for us, I am not using the WWE instructor text on its own and finding all my own material, etc. That's too much planning for my liking, and if I didn't have an alternative program to use along with it, I'd just keep using the workbook since it's open-and-go and I really want that at this point. I am using LLTL for literature/grammar/copywork now (which is open-and-go), and I just use the WWE text for guidelines on narration and to keep on track with the skill set it develops.

This is a good point. I didn't/don't use LOE to teach reading, but my knowledge of the LOE phonograms and rules is something that has been very helpful as I use OPGTR with DD4. The LOE stuff fills in gaps and make sense of things that would otherwise be confusing, and it's great to have the tools to explain them. I didn't have that when I started DD6 and it would have been very helpful.

We're still on Level 1, but I'll share my experience. The workbook makes it totally open-and-go, which is helpful, but not necessary. I bought the Level 1 workbook and it was very easy to use, but I abandoned it after half a year because I found that doing random excerpts from different works of literature every week was not satisfying for us. After having gotten the hang of how to do WWE-style narration, I decided that I didn't need the hand-holding anymore, so I switched programs mid-year and I am now just following the guidelines in the WWE instructor book with the other stuff we're doing.

Just read the OP again... I should mention, mainly for the OP, that all you need to teach LOE Essentials is the teacher manual and the phonogram cards (the spelling rule cards are nice to have, but not as important). I bought all the materials second-hand from someone else, but I haven't used most of it. We have the workbook and it's handy if you're doing the whole program as written, but for just spelling, I typed up a couple of standard sheets in Word for the phonograms, the spelling list, and dictation, and that works well for what we need. You could even use a plain notebook for that stuff. I should also point out that Essentials was actually written/designed for older children (8+) who need to get their spelling or reading up to speed. I have to modify/slow down Essentials a bit for my 6yo (which is fine - it's easy to do) but the pace, scope and sequence as written would be perfect for a 5th grader. Oh, and there isn't anything that uses the same approach as LOE/Spalding/SWR that is designed for spelling only. If there is, I never found it. If you want this approach, you either have to do the prep work for Spalding or SWR, or pay for LOE. RLTL looks like a good O-G program, but from what I can tell it is primarily a reading program that teaches spelling at the same time - which is not at all what I think you're looking for at this stage. HTH!

I have to disagree with Ellie here. From what I can tell, once you've read WRTR a few times and figured out everything, you can "make" Spalding open-and-go for actually teaching the lessons, but that learning curve is steep, especially if you're not doing the whole program (reading, handwriting, grammar, etc). That's a lot of material to wade through and get your head around just to teach spelling. I actually disagree with the overall approach of teaching reading and spelling at the same time (we did reading via OPGTR first), but I wanted a thorough, phonogram/rules-based program for spelling only, and I considered Spalding and SWR very carefully before settling on LOE. LOE Essentials is truly an open-and-go program from the beginning. The only thing you need to do before getting started is to read and understand the introductory material in the front of the manual. Everything else is totally scripted for you, and very easy to understand and implement as you go along. :iagree: The reason I chose LOE is that I asked someone at the RR convention booth last year about SWR (which they didn't have in stock there) and she showed me the LOE manual and said it's "basically the same approach as SWR but scripted and easy to implement". I was taken aback at the price tag (the TM is $95 retail), but hooked nonetheless. Especially after having looked at a copy of WRTR and just about fainting (I had already heard the advice to read it through at least twice - ack!). Kudos to all of you who had the patience to get through WRTR and figure it all out (and save lots of money in the process - LOL!). I would have done it if I absolutely hadn't been able to afford LOE, but I was willing to pay for having the prep work done for me. Just like I'd pay big bucks for an open-and-go version of BFSU!! But I digress...