Anyone not like...

[scrapbookbuzz]

...First Language Lessons (FLL)? NO FLAMES, PLEASE!

 

I'm trying to decide if I want to continue it with my 5 1/2 y.o. (who's mostly doing K work, but math and LA is 1st grade level). I find it ridiculously repetitive, but maybe I haven't given it enough of a chance?

 

Any thoughts (along with your experiences) are greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks!

[rowan25]

...First Language Lessons (FLL)? NO FLAMES, PLEASE!

 

I'm trying to decide if I want to continue it with my 5 1/2 y.o. (who's mostly doing K work, but math and LA is 1st grade level). I find it ridiculously repetitive, but maybe I haven't given it enough of a chance?

 

Any thoughts (along with your experiences) are greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks!

NOPE!!! Hate it over here. It's too slow for us, even with speeding it along. Too repetitive, even with cutting out a good deal of the repetition. Plus dd (also 5.5) doesn't like the recitations or the narrations, so it's like pulling teeth.

 

On the other hand, I think it will be very helpful for my son (2.5) when he's older. He doesn't strike me as being as advanced in this area as dd, so this may be a big help by then.

 

Anyway, you are not alone!

[Harriet Vane]

I liked it pretty well, but I have also always felt free to skip that which I felt was unnecessary. Sometimes my ds needed the repetition, but other times we have skipped some of it.

[melmichigan]

We don't hate it but we skip a lot and use the VE workbook to add in a little more of what I consider more appropriate information for the age I am working with. I will start my next child earlier to better match the content. :) I will have to look closely at the other levels.

Edited January 9, 2010 by melmichigan

[Mommy22alyns]

I liked FLL 1/2 better than I like FLL 3. I condensed a LOT and tried to add a little creative fun with FLL 1/2, but we're getting bogged down with long, repetitive lessons in 3, and Becca does NOT need to be walked through every diagram. I am constantly waffling between thinking, "This is good practice even if it is mind-numbing" and "Maybe we should switch over to MCT." But even after all the talk about MCT, it's still a big leap and a big change and $$$.

 

*sigh*

[Jen in PA]

FLL did not work for us at all. It was too scripted for me and too repetitive for dd. She much preferred doing Flashkids workbooks and lately we have been covering grammar through Latin. We'll be starting MCT once I get all of the loose strings tied up with what I have around here already, and I'm crossing my fingers that it will be a better fit for us. I think I would have really enjoyed using FLL in a classroom setting, oddly enough.

[KristenS]

It's working here ... but we skip up some of the repetition. It also helps that I am doing it with a 2nd grader and a pre-K'er, so it's doing double duty. Plus I got it at a good deal. :)

 

They like the narrations and memory work, though, which make it worthwhile, since it was something I'd been wanting to add to our day but never got around to.

 

Haven't seen 3, so can't say about that one. But with tweaking, FLL 1 has been a good fit for us this year. Grammar was sure not something I'd thought I could group them together on! LOL. (Pre-K'er ended up being a tagalong because she likes the poetry. My plan was to reuse it with her down the road, but something tells me that's not gonna be the result...)

[2cents]

I used this when it first came out. We didn't like it because it was so redundant and I was disappointed to find that some of the memory literature was not accurate to the original. Mostly, it just moved very slowly so we changed to Easy Grammar then to HAKE Grammar.

[patchfire]

FLL worked for dd as a K/1st text just fine... with my more word-oriented boy we will probably start it even before K, if we use it. I think there are a wide, wide range of ages that it works for in the general population... for more accelerated kids, it's going to be near the bottom of the range, most likely.

[EKS]

I reviewed FLL extensively and decided not to use it. I knew it would drive everyone involved crazy. We used GWG 3 in 1st and are now using MCT-Island level materials in 2nd.

[Spy Car]

So are there alternatives to FLL?

 

I've been wanting to start something with my about to turn 5.5 year old son, even if it's light informal exposure just to get the wheels turning. I do plan on using MCT eventually, but wonder if there is a pre-MCT program worth considering?

 

The only idea I've come up with is pre-digesting FFL and "informalizing" the lessons. Any thoughts?

 

Bill

Edited January 10, 2010 by Spy Car

[KristenS]

I think that works.

 

I will say, I found the hardback of FLL 1/2 for $15 ... two years of lessons times two kids, for $15, was a deal not to be passed by lightly. So that probably skews my view. :)

 

I too was disappointed to find a few of the poems changed ... but then I've spotted some of the same revisions in other books recently, so that made me think more kindly of it. I'll probably still Google to check anything unfamiliar to me in future, but except for Monday's Child, so far it's not too bad (we're about half way through level 1). My daughter loves the Caterpillar one, an adapted Christina Rossetti, and that's one I spotted in another book too.

[abbeyej]

I *loved* FLL1/2 when my kids were 4-5yo -- BUT I was extremely willing to skip unnecessary repetition, to combine lessons, to telescope large sections down and do them more quickly. My ds did all of FLL1/2 in about 6 months when he was 4. My dd used it a little later, 'cause she was a little older than he when her reading took off, so I wasn't in a hurry to start.

 

I wasn't really drawn to FLL3/4 -- perhaps because it looked more challenging to adapt -- but since FLL1/2 was just something that *I* looked at and then presented to the kids, it was so very easy for me to adapt to what they needed. And all sitting there snuggled up on the couch.

 

I found it provided an incredibly useful foundation as we moved forward in early writing and beginning Latin studies as well.

 

Perhaps you just need permission to make it work for you? Rather than feeling you have to use it as scripted?

[abbeyej]

The only idea I've come up with is pre-digesting FFL and "informalizing" the lessons. Any thoughts?

Yep. Worked well for me. And I found that most of the time it didn't take much preparation. We could snuggle up and I could flip open the book and see pretty quickly what I wanted to cover. There were times when I'd skim the next few (several) lessons ahead of time -- but that wasn't always necessary.

[Spy Car]

Yep. Worked well for me. And I found that most of the time it didn't take much preparation. We could snuggle up and I could flip open the book and see pretty quickly what I wanted to cover. There were times when I'd skim the next few (several) lessons ahead of time -- but that wasn't always necessary.

 

Thank you Abbey!

 

A little snuggling (and un-scripting) sounds like a plan :001_smile:

 

Bill

[Colleen in SEVA]

Overall I like FLL, I think it is the right amount of grammar coverage for 1st-2nd grade. I do not think the presentation works well for many gifted kids in the targeted age range (but as with any blanket statement, of course there are exceptions!).

 

I do plan on using MCT eventually, but wonder if there is a pre-MCT program worth considering?

 

Not really. My oldest used the Aesop's Fables books from RFWP linked below, but if your son is doing any language arts in school it will probably be unnecessary to do anything before Grammar Town.

 

http://rainbowresource.com/prodlist.php?sid=1263090275-1772508&subject=4&category=727

[Matryoshka]

I tried English for the Thoughtful Child (which I think is similar in some ways to FLL, but less scripted??) and couldn't get through it. I also bought Primary and Intermediate Langauge Lessons and they also sat on the shelf. I ended up just having them watch Grammar Rock, do Mad Libs, and talked to them about grammar as it came up naturally through both English and foreign language learning. That seems to have been plenty.

 

They started Editor in Chief in third grade, but I think the questions here are about earlier than that? I would've started MCT then as well if I'd realized how great it was at the time... :D

[abbeyej]

I tried English for the Thoughtful Child (which I think is similar in some ways to FLL, but less scripted??)

 

No, not really at all. I didn't care for EfTTC either.

[shehmeth]

We don't hate it...

 

My daughter loves the Poems recitation... and she loves to do narrations.. but she's not much into repetition if she knows something well... so we condense lessons and do multiple together or skip as needed...

 

Kate

[nmoira]

My daughter loves the Poems recitation...

FYI, a number of the poems are abridged or adapted from the original, even "Caterpillar." To be fair, the version of Caterpillar in FLL appears to date from the Treadwell primers from the early 1900's. While I wish the authors hadn't "adapted" some of the nursery rhymes, I find it unacceptable to adapt Coleridge's "The Year." Why not either find another poem or include a poem written specifically to meet their needs?

 

===================================

 

Caterpillar

Christina Rossetti

 

Brown and furry

Caterpillar in a hurry,

Take your walk

To the shady leaf, or stalk,

Or what not,

Which may be the chosen spot.

No toad spy you,

Hovering bird of prey pass by you;

Spin and die,

To live again a butterfly.

 

===================================

 

Missing Stanza from Mr. Nobody:

(2nd to last stanza; frequently omitted, not just in FLL)

 

He puts damp wood upon the fire,

That kettles cannot boil;

His are the feet that bring in mud,

And all the carpets soil.

The papers always are mislaid,

Who had them last but he?

There's no one tosses them about

But Mr. Nobody.

 

===================================

 

ONE THING AT A TIME.

M. A. Stodart.

 

Work while you work, play while you play,

That is the way to be cheerful and gay;

All that you do, do with your might,

Things done by halves are never done right;

Work while you work, play while you play,

That is the way to be cheerful and gay.

 

One thing each time, and that done well,

Is a very good rule as many can tell;

Moments are useless, trifled away,

So work while you work, play while you play,

Work while you work, etc.

 

===================================

 

The Months

Sara Coleridge

 

January brings the snow,

makes our feet and fingers glow.

 

February brings the rain,

Thaws the frozen lake again.

 

March brings breezes loud and shrill,

stirs the dancing daffodil.

 

April brings the primrose sweet,

Scatters daises at our feet.

 

May brings flocks of pretty lambs,

Skipping by their fleecy ****s.

 

June brings tulips, lilies, roses,

Fills the children's hand with posies.

 

Hot July brings cooling showers,

Apricots and gillyflowers.

 

August brings the sheaves of corn,

Then the harvest home is borne.

 

Warm September brings the fruit,

Sportsmen then begin to shoot.

 

Fresh October brings the pheasents,

Then to gather nuts is pleasant.

 

Dull November brings the blast,

Then the leaves are whirling fast.

 

Chill December brings the sleet,

Blazing fire, and Christmas treat.

[Truscifi]

We don't hate FLL, though we started early (ds was 4.5) and skipped a lot of the repetition. I didn't realize how much some of the poems had been adapted, though. One more reason to switch to MCT next year instead of FLL3.

[rowan25]

Why the objection to using modified poetry? Just curious.

[nmoira]

 

Why the objection to using modified poetry?

It's not the poet's work. To have a child learn a poem called "Caterpillar" and attribute it to Christina Rossetti but use someone's adaptation of Rossetti's work seems disingenuous at best. Likewise with the "Anonymous" adaptation of the Stodart poem, and Buffington's adaptation of Coleridge. Even if proper attribution were made, why would I want my children to spend time memorizing anything other than original works? Last I checked, neither Sara Buffington nor Treadwell are on any lists of notable children's poets.

[rowan25]

It's not the poet's work. To have a child learn a poem called "Caterpillar" and attribute it to Christina Rossetti but use someone's adaptation of Rossetti's work seems disingenuous at best. Likewise with the "Anonymous" adaptation of the Stodart poem, and Buffington's adaptation of Coleridge. Even if proper attribution were made, why would I want my children to spend time memorizing anything other than original works? Last I checked, neither Sara Buffington nor Treadwell are on any lists of notable children's poets.

:lol:

 

Yep, those are my reasons as well. I just was curious if there were any others floating about. :D

[skaterbabs]

we decided against it because Dot greatly prefers a workbook approach. We tried OPG and she HATED it because it was so oral. We're half done with CLE's 100 -level Language Arts and she's doing really well.

[Crimson Wife]

I *loved* FLL1/2 when my kids were 4-5yo -- BUT I was extremely willing to skip unnecessary repetition, to combine lessons, to telescope large sections down and do them more quickly. My ds did all of FLL1/2 in about 6 months when he was 4.

 

:iagree:

I did use the original versions of poems rather than the adaptations. We also gave up on the copywork about a month into it because my DD's motor skills were not up to it. I did WWE1 the following year & that was much better.

[Desert Rat]

We like it here for my accelerated 9yo and my on track 6yo. We've adapted however. Some poems we don't memorize. Some poems I change back to their original (Monday's child is fair of face...). I skip some of the scripted text. I'm good at reading ahead and adapting quickly though. It might be harder if that's difficult.

I thought it wouldn't work when I first started out but like the comprehensive nature of the lessons. I've noticed that the repetitive lessons really work at cementing those definitions.

HTH in your decision making.

[Aurelia]

We're using it and it's okay. Ariel loves the narrations, especially of the pictures and enjoys memorizing the poems. I very much dislike that so many of them are altered. I actually eliminated the "Monday's Child" poem, even though I memorized the traditional version as a child, partially because the FLL version is awful and because I was afraid Ariel would ask what day of the week she was born on and I really don't need more woe in this house! :tongue_smilie: She's very dramatic like that. I subbed Robert Louis Stevenson's "Rain" instead.

 

Right now we have kind of dropped FLL, maybe doing one lesson a week and I may drop it entirely in favor of poetry memorization. It's not like she'll be hampered for life if she doesn't learn the definition of a preposition at age 5 or 6. Right now we're working on Frost's "Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening" and she's taken it upon herself to learn "Windy Nights" by Stevenson. It's much more enjoyable than saying "Let's say the definition of a noun three times together..."

[cara]

We are slowly working our way through it, skipped the 1st half of the book, second half we are plugging through, seems to be less repetition. I don't like the scripted approach at all. I'm looking for something else next year.

[siloam]

...First Language Lessons (FLL)? NO FLAMES, PLEASE!

 

I'm trying to decide if I want to continue it with my 5 1/2 y.o. (who's mostly doing K work, but math and LA is 1st grade level). I find it ridiculously repetitive, but maybe I haven't given it enough of a chance?

 

Any thoughts (along with your experiences) are greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks!

 

I love FLL, but I don't follow the script. For example, I will cover the definitions of common and proper nouns, have my dd point out to me one common and one proper noun and then we move on. :D

 

Heather