CW vs. R&S as sole LA-curriculum

[sahm99]

I want to streamline our LA-curriculum for next year (5th and 3rd grade) and am hesitating between using either CW (Aesop and Homer) or Rod and Staff (3rd and 5th).

Which of these do you consider more rigorous...which less teacher-intensive (we are going through a rough patch and this might be an issue...).

 

And, last but not least, which program (or both...or none!?) would you consider a stand-alone LA program?

Ideally I want to stick with my choice in the long run...;)

 

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences!

[sahm99]

...anybody...?

Thanks!!!

[siloam]

Bump

 

Heather

[JaneP]

I know you didn't ask about this curriculum .. but your desire to streamline just jumped out to me from your post and I thought I would mention Christian Light Education LA just in case you hadn't considered it.

 

http://www.clp.org/

 

I have only used it briefly for second grade and it is very easy for the student to use independently.

I stopped using it because I like mixing and matching in the area of Language arts but if I ever had to streamline I would be heading back to CLE. We still use CLE reading and it is very good.

 

My only warning is that you do the placement tests for your dc. My dd placed below her official year level and I believe that's not uncommon.

 

Hope it all works out for you,

Jane

ps I use Rod and Staff English and I consider CLE to be less teacher intensive.

Edited March 4, 2010 by JaneP

[siloam]

I want to streamline our LA-curriculum for next year (5th and 3rd grade) and am hesitating between using either CW (Aesop and Homer) or Rod and Staff (3rd and 5th).

Which of these do you consider more rigorous...which less teacher-intensive (we are going through a rough patch and this might be an issue...).

 

And, last but not least, which program (or both...or none!?) would you consider a stand-alone LA program?

Ideally I want to stick with my choice in the long run...;)

 

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences!

I haven't used R&S, so I can't compare. I wonder what type of writing philosophy R&S uses? My guess it is very different from CW philosophy.

 

Also many people will use CW and R&S. Starting with Homer CW uses a separate grammar text. They recommend Harvey's, but if you have an attachment to another program you can use it instead. I personally love AG, so I use that. There are people on this board who love R&S and use that with CW, but I suspect they drop parts of R&S like the writing and just focus on the grammar.

 

My guess is R&S would be less teacher intensive, because a teacher has to learn CW before they can teach it. Though I know R&S isn't totally hands off. My guess is that CW would be more rigorous because it teaches the child to use the grammar they learn in their writing. It also, long term, has a focus on developing content carefully.

 

I wish I could give you more definite answers other than my gut feelings as I could be totally wrong, but given you aren't getting other answers I will put this out there. If nothing else someone will come by and correct me if they think I am wrong. :D

 

Heather

[jg_puppy]

My guess it is very different from CW philosophy.

 

There are people on this board who love R&S and use that with CW, but I suspect they drop parts of R&S like the writing and just focus on the grammar.

 

My guess is R&S would be less teacher intensive, because a teacher has to learn CW before they can teach it. Though I know R&S isn't totally hands off. My guess is that CW would be more rigorous because it teaches the child to use the grammar they learn in their writing. It also, long term, has a focus on developing content carefully.

 

Heather

 

I think Heather is right. They have very different takes on writing. I find R&S easier to use. I have tried so many different grammar programs and R&S is my favorite. I do however also use Writing Tales for writing instruction. In the beginning of the R&S third grade book the kids are writing quite a bit, but there is not much instruction. The writing is more like this - write a sentence with each be verb listed below. Now towards the middle to end of the book there is a lot more writing instructions. I have not used the 5th grade book yet.

 

I think Writing Tales would be a great option for your 3rd grader.

 

Jan

[SilverMoon]

.

Edited September 23, 2023 by SilverMoon

[JudoMom]

I want to streamline our LA-curriculum for next year (5th and 3rd grade) and am hesitating between using either CW (Aesop and Homer) or Rod and Staff (3rd and 5th).

Which of these do you consider more rigorous...which less teacher-intensive (we are going through a rough patch and this might be an issue...).

 

And, last but not least, which program (or both...or none!?) would you consider a stand-alone LA program?

Ideally I want to stick with my choice in the long run...;)

 

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences!

 

I would go with Rod & Staff. I've found it to be way less teacher intensive than CW Aesop (I've used 2, 3, & 4 in Rod & Staff). I also think it's quite a bit more rigorous for grammar, but I haven't looked at the older years of CW so I might be completely wrong. I think CW is definitely more rigorous for writing.

Edited March 4, 2010 by JudoMom

[Gretchen in NJ]

I would go with Rod & Staff. I've found it to be way less teacher intensive than CW Aesop (I've used 2, 3, & 4). I also think it's quite a bit more rigorous for grammar, but I haven't looked at the older years of CW so I might be completely wrong. I think CW is definitely more rigorous for writing.

:iagree: CW has a big learning curve for the teacher. I am currently using R&S for my Grammar and CW for writing. I was suppose to start with Homer:confused:, but I couldn't figure it out until a friend IRL gave me a copy of Aesop. For a writing program, CW is not written very well. :001_huh: You must filp back and forth between three different books.

 

I like WWE for writing. Susan, please write a little faster.:D

[siloam]

For a writing program, CW is not written very well. :001_huh: You must filp back and forth between three different books.

 

I like WWE for writing. Susan, please write a little faster.:D

 

While I understand your point it is in some ways an unfair characterization. The CW authors wrote one book, the core. It was intended to be read and implemented by the teacher, simple. Though not for everyone because of the work involved to implement it.

 

After using the program, one of their fans wrote the student and teacher manuals. Given she doesn't own rights to the core book, she can only reference it, and it is normal to have student and teacher text separate given the teacher text has the answers. You end up with 3 books, which I agree is not ideal, but it really isn't a reflection on the program because there are different authors and copyright issues that keep it from being a single streamlined text. It is not a problem of writing ability.

 

Here it hasn't been too bad to manage. I have a spreadsheet that tells me what I need to read from the core when. The core book I keep on my dd's desk. The TM also resides on her desk, as she is the only one that uses it. She self corrects her scene work and parsing. I correct her SSS without the aid of the TM. I don't need it for core readings because I use my spreadsheet instead. The student book is also hers.

 

BTW I do share my spreadsheet. It isn't fancy. It just lists the week, and what readings need to be done on what days out of the core book. I don't teach these to my dd, but just read the core to her straight off the sheet. If you want to teach it then it takes more work to own it, and be able to explain it. Though then you should be able to put the core book on a shelf.

 

Heather

[Gretchen in NJ]

While I understand your point it is in some ways an unfair characterization. The CW authors wrote one book, the core. It was intended to be read and implemented by the teacher, simple. Though not for everyone because of the work involved to implement it.

 

After using the program, one of their fans wrote the student and teacher manuals. Given she doesn't own rights to the core book, she can only reference it, and it is normal to have student and teacher text separate given the teacher text has the answers. You end up with 3 books, which I agree is not ideal, but it really isn't a reflection on the program because there are different authors and copyright issues that keep it from being a single streamlined text. It is not a problem of writing ability.

 

Here it hasn't been too bad to manage. I have a spreadsheet that tells me what I need to read from the core when. The core book I keep on my dd's desk. The TM also resides on her desk, as she is the only one that uses it. She self corrects her scene work and parsing. I correct her SSS without the aid of the TM. I don't need it for core readings because I use my spreadsheet instead. The student book is also hers.

 

BTW I do share my spreadsheet. It isn't fancy. It just lists the week, and what readings need to be done on what days out of the core book. I don't teach these to my dd, but just read the core to her straight off the sheet. If you want to teach it then it takes more work to own it, and be able to explain it. Though then you should be able to put the core book on a shelf.

 

Heather

 

Yes, but it is not normal for the teacher to have to read the student book to firgure out how to teach the course.:001_huh: Look at FLL 3 and 4. I don't need to reference the Student Workbook to learn how to use the program. It is all in the TM. I could see maybe having to go between the TM and the Core book, but not the Student Workbook too.

 

It is a nice program. I am using it, but it does take a lot of teacher time to figure it out. I agree with what I read from SWB on this program. I wish I could find her comments again.

[siloam]

Yes, but it is not normal for the teacher to have to read the student book to firgure out how to teach the course.:001_huh: Look at FLL 3 and 4. I don't need to reference the Student Workbook to learn how to use the program. It is all in the TM. I could see maybe having to go between the TM and the Core book, but not the Student Workbook too.

 

It is a nice program. I am using it, but it does take a lot of teacher time to figure it out. I agree with what I read from SWB on this program. I wish I could find her comments again.

 

I never used just the TM, so I see what you mean. To be honest, if it didn't have the answers I wouldn't bother buying it because I prefer to work from the student text. Again though that wasn't a call that the creators of the program made, but someone who used the program and decided to publish material to make it easier to use. Hopefully Kathy will revise the TM's to make them better, more useful. But the creators of CW don't even have a say in that happening because they Kathy holds the copyright there.

 

Yes the situation is a little messed up, and could use improvement in itself. :D

 

Heather

 

p.s. I also wish SWB's program was already out. I don't feel like I have an option. Though by the time it is out I probably will be so used to CW I won't care anymore. :glare:

[SilverMoon]

I never used just the TM, so I see what you mean. To be honest, if it didn't have the answers I wouldn't bother buying it because I prefer to work from the student text.

 

This is what we do too. :001_smile: I don't pull the core out very often anymore. The student workbook is primarily what we use, with the IG coming off the shelf to occasionally check answers.