What LA subjects does CW cover?

[Annabel Lee]

I've looked on the CW site but can't find a concise, definate list of what LA topics each level of CW covers. I know it reviews Harvey's grammar, but does it also include:

 

• root-based vocabulary,
  
• phonics-based spelling w/ rules,
  
• practice in how to spell correctly when changing tenses or adding suffixes/prefixes,
  
• "extra" things like similes, synonyms, homonyms, antonyms,
  
• reading for fluency, speed, & stretching to higher reading levels,
  
• penmanship,
  
• and literature analysis that isn't contrived?
  

Thanks!

[siloam]

I've looked on the CW site but can't find a concise, definate list of what LA topics each level of CW covers. I know it reviews Harvey's grammar, but does it also include:

• root-based vocabulary,
  
• phonics-based spelling w/ rules,
  
• practice in how to spell correctly when changing tenses or adding suffixes/prefixes,
  
• "extra" things like similes, synonyms, homonyms, antonyms,
  
• reading for fluency, speed, & stretching to higher reading levels,
  
• penmanship,
  
• and literature analysis that isn't contrived?
  

Thanks!

 

Let me start by saying I haven't used the Primer level, just Aesop and above.

 

Root-based vocab. It does cover vocab, not sure what you mean by root based. You or the child pick out words they don't know and then the child looks them up in the dictionary and writes out the definition. At that time you could have them also look at the root of the word. They also encourage the use of a mark up system for spelling similar to SWR or WRTR, but you don't have to do that part.

 

Phonics based spelling with words, yes. Like I said above they encourage the use of SWR and WRTR methods, which are some of the strongest phonics programs out there. Though CW assumes the child has already done them and are now ready for more review. It isn't a full spelling program, so if you haven't already done that piece then you will probably want to keep a spelling program.

 

Practice in how to spell correctly when changing tenses or adding suffixes/prefixes. Again it is more review. It will do some work with phonograms and such and it will do lots of work in changing tense but it is not geared towards spelling specifically but to writing. Changing the tense of a sentence type of thing.

 

"Extra" things like similes, synonyms, homonyms, antonyms. Yes and no. It has lots of works looking up synonyms finding synonyms via antonyms. This is part of Aesop and Homer, and the child becomes well versed in the use of a Thesaurus. It really doesn't cover a lot of homonyms that I recall. If you do the Poetry work then you will do lots of work with simile and metaphor.

 

Reading for fluency, speed, & stretching to higher reading levels. Here like with spelling, they assume the child is already reading fluently and can move on to higher level skills. That said they do encourage you to have the child read the model aloud to you, and most of the material is from non-copyright resources online. In other words from older material, so the verbage is older and more verbose.

 

Penmanship. That is up to you. They do encourage copywork and dictation, but they don't include any type of handwriting instruction.

 

Literature analysis that isn't contrived. The Lit analysis is in depth and incredible. No skimping here. Though it probably is different than what you are used to because it is based on old methods.

 

Feel free to ask more questions!

 

Heather

[Annabel Lee]

Thank you, Heather!

 

By "root-based vocab", I meant something like EftRU where it teaches the meanings of word roots.

 

I like that it reviews and builds on phonics-based spelling & practice; many programs just drop that type of practice in 3rd grade. When I said "practice..." I was thinking of things like Abeka Letters & Sounds where it gives the child words and they have to add all the given suffixes to ea. word; it's up to them to remember the rule for how to spell correctly, unless it's a new one, then it's printed at the top of the page; word-work. I agree, this should be done by the time a kid is in 3rd or 4th grade (ideally, but my older ds is tagging along w/ my younger ds for some of this still).

 

When you say "mark-up" spelling program, does that mean one where you mark vowels, silent letters, roots, prefixes/suffixes... that kind of thing?

 

It sounds like the reading, especially with oral practice, could serve the purposes I want it to as well. My boys can read chapter books, but I want them to practice reading aloud so their skills at reading smoothly (vs. choppy) and scanning ahead to see who is saying which quotations, and after mastering those things at current speed, working on increasing reading speed.

 

It looks like it's got more "extras" that I described than anything we're currently doing, but it's going to be a toss-up between the WWE to WTM logic stage writing progression, TOG writing aids and this (CW). I'm worried I'll miss these sorts of things w/ only WTM writing.

 

If it requires the child to write, I can turn part of it into penmanship practice (by the time they'd be using CW mine will have learned all cursive connections & it would just be to refine & review). Copywork sounds like the perfect opportunity!

 

I've haven't done much Lit. Anal. w/ my boys since we've been sticking to WTM methods. I read the 1st part of Deconstructing Penguins and loved it but still haven't purchased it. I'd love to implement something like that in small doses here & there. I don't like mainstream modern Lit. Anal., much of it seems based on feelings and assumptions rather than evidence from the literary work.

 

I'm thinking of starting CW next year for my older guy when he's in 5th gr. He needs to finish up all the WWE and FLL levels before diving into CW; I think. Then again, does he? CW Aesop A and/or B (I'd be starting at the beginning) wouldn't replace levels 3 or 4 of either of those, would it?

[siloam]

Thank you, Heather!

 

By "root-based vocab", I meant something like EftRU where it teaches the meanings of word roots.

 

Nope it doesn't do that. But I think most dictionaries do have it, so you can come up with your own form instead of using theirs and have them look for latin and other language roots, so you might be able to make it do that for you.

 

I like that it reviews and builds on phonics-based spelling & practice; many programs just drop that type of practice in 3rd grade. When I said "practice..." I was thinking of things like Abeka Letters & Sounds where it gives the child words and they have to add all the given suffixes to ea. word; it's up to them to remember the rule for how to spell correctly, unless it's a new one, then it's printed at the top of the page; word-work. I agree, this should be done by the time a kid is in 3rd or 4th grade (ideally, but my older ds is tagging along w/ my younger ds for some of this still).

 

It doesn't do suffix and prefix work that I remember. We do a separate spelling program, so I do skip some of the phonics work. But I remember the work being more finding different words that use the same sounds, some with different spellings of the same sound...that sort of thing. It just didn't appeal to me.

 

When you say "mark-up" spelling program, does that mean one where you mark vowels, silent letters, roots, prefixes/suffixes... that kind of thing?

 

Yes. If you have access to a library The Writing Road to Reading is usually available. It doesn't matter if it is an older edition.

 

Basically if it is a two or more letter phonogram like or, er, igh, oa, ow, au, oy, ect... you under line them to show they are working together to make a single sound. You divide by syllables. If the phonogram can say more than one sound like a says /a/ as in apple, /A/ as in make and /ah/ as in father. If you were marking the word always you would underline the a and write a 3 above it to show it is saying its 3rd sound. You would underline the ay as a two letter phonogram saying a. You would underline the s and put a 2 above it because it is saying its 2nd sound, and you would divide for syllables. They also number spelling rules so if you want the child to refer to a spelling rule they can. My kids have sheets of the rules from when we used SWR, and they will still list R7 2 by a word. That would tell me it was a silent e (rule 7) and the 2 indicates it is there to keep the word from ending in u or v (love, true). With silent e you also double underline the e and if it makes a vowel say its name you draw an arch from the e to the vowel. It probably sounds more complicated than it is.

 

It sounds like the reading, especially with oral practice, could serve the purposes I want it to as well. My boys can read chapter books, but I want them to practice reading aloud so their skills at reading smoothly (vs. choppy) and scanning ahead to see who is saying which quotations, and after mastering those things at current speed, working on increasing reading speed.

Yes it would work that way. You can also have them read their ending stories as well, if you like. :D I did that for a while as well. BTW reading with books on tape (or CD) also builds reading fluency, if you want another easy to use method.

 

It looks like it's got more "extras" that I described than anything we're currently doing, but it's going to be a toss-up between the WWE to WTM logic stage writing progression, TOG writing aids and this (CW). I'm worried I'll miss these sorts of things w/ only WTM writing.

I would guess that if the WTM stuff is out it will be easier to use. CW Aesop isn't that hard, and I am told Diogenes isn't either, but Homer has a bad reputation. It really isn't that hard to do, but there is a lot of work and so much change in the program that it can leave your head spinning once in a while. You end up with that, "Did I really get it all?" feeling. It kinda drives people nuts. It bothered me a lot less than other people from the beginning, so I am more or less guessing by what is uncomfortable but doable for me.

 

I've haven't done much Lit. Anal. w/ my boys since we've been sticking to WTM methods. I read the 1st part of Deconstructing Penguins and loved it but still haven't purchased it. I'd love to implement something like that in small doses here & there. I don't like mainstream modern Lit. Anal., much of it seems based on feelings and assumptions rather than evidence from the literary work.

I haven't read that yet, so I will have to put it on my reading list. :D

 

Homer has the child breaking down the models into Acts, then scenes, then summarizing the scenes. They also learn identify accidental and essential details and to add and remove them. It uses Theon's questions for analysis of content. They also learn to look for creditability problems, and how to solve them (Is the robber covetous? If not you must explain why they steeling.) Writing wise they learn to use quotations and descriptive details in Aesop. In homer they work a variety of skills-changing the focus, summarizing (book report), starting a story in the middle, starting a story at the end, adding detail in factual pieces, ect... Lots of good stuff.

 

I'm thinking of starting CW next year for my older guy when he's in 5th gr. He needs to finish up all the WWE and FLL levels before diving into CW; I think. Then again, does he? CW Aesop A and/or B (I'd be starting at the beginning) wouldn't replace levels 3 or 4 of either of those, would it?

My rule of thumb is they need to be summarizing well and able to put their thoughts on paper well. My oldest was a natural and could do that by grade 2, my 2nd dd it took some work (and WWE) to get what I was talking about, LOL! Hisng is humbling sometimes, more than I want to admit. She started Aesop late 4th grade, and now is only on about week 11 in 5th grade.

 

If your ds is able to do those then you can easily move into CW sooner. I would start before 4th grade because Aesop only has 36 weeks of work between A & B, so I don't see the point in doing A in 3rd grade with only 18 weeks of work. :001_huh: If you don't plan to do the poetry work, then you have even more wiggle room because all the levels plan for some poetry. Homer A is only 20 weeks without the poetry, and Homer B is also only 20 weeks. You can start in 5th do a full year of Aesop, then do Homer A and part of B in 6th and finish Homer B and do Diogenes Maxim (which I think is 22 weeks) in 7th and be caught up with room to spare.

 

Anyway I better for tonight because when I start feeling tired I worry my writing isn't coherent. :blink:

 

Heather

[Annabel Lee]

Thank you again, for taking the time to spell all of that out for me. Long ago (it seems - really only 1.5 to 2 years ago) I ordered the Aesop Core & Aesop B SW & IG from the for sale board. Upon receiving it, I flipped through & didn't understand but liked the student work I saw in the SW. It has been in a rubbermaid bin until this evening. I just finished reading most of the Core, IG, and parts of the SW. Fried brains, anyone? lol

 

This makes me feel sad in a way that I didn't know enough 2 years ago to understand it. I didn't understand all that it includes, reviews, supports, and practices. My mind is blown. My oldest son is in 4th grade and here I am wishing I'd known about SWR and WRTR when he was little. It sounds like it meshes with my phonics-based-everything ideal nicely. Oh well, just keep moving forward from where we are, 'cause that's really the only option.

 

I get the impression that the Core came out before the IG & SW did. If not, then I am lost. The Core gives how-to instructions for planning/creating your own lessons independent of the SW. The IG & SW, however, have Skill levels (SL) picked out for you, it appears (skill level 4 for the days that it specifies a SL). Is that right? Can you still use it as described in the Core, just doing the skill levels applicable to each particular child? Also, are there instructions on teaching the kids to outline the model to write their draft from? I couldn't find that, but did find instructions to have the kids outline. Still feeling tied to WTM, I will be assigning outlining at some point.

 

What do you (general you, all CW users) find is a benefit of using CW as you watch your child's writing develop? This looks like (if used wholly) a complete, integrated LA program with use of their recommended main grammar & spelling on the side. Even the grammar in it looks like a lot of practice after doing a separate grammar lesson, to me. How good is CW when viewed as just a writing program? Has it improved your child's writing much? After all, that's what it's goal is - to be a writing program.

 

I have alot to chew on now. I have no idea if this will result in a decision or not. There's no urgency - there's just a lot of LA work to be done in this house due to some phonics/spelling/usage remediation for my oldest son that I've been piecing together from a number of curriculums. Something hard for me to grasp that I will have to learn before I can teach hasn't been anywhere near my radar, but CW includes so much LA in one stop that I had to revisit it. How did I ever forget about this? Arrrgh.

[siloam]

This makes me feel sad in a way that I didn't know enough 2 years ago to understand it. I didn't understand all that it includes, reviews, supports, and practices. My mind is blown. My oldest son is in 4th grade and here I am wishing I'd known about SWR and WRTR when he was little. It sounds like it meshes with my phonics-based-everything ideal nicely. Oh well, just keep moving forward from where we are, 'cause that's really the only option.

 

We all grow as we go, you can't change it, so you do have to just look forward.

 

I get the impression that the Core came out before the IG & SW did.

 

Yes if you look they have different authors. The SW & IG are written by one of their biggest fans who wanted to make the program easier to use. Originally it was a how to do it on your own program only.

 

The Core gives how-to instructions for planning/creating your own lessons independent of the SW. The IG & SW, however, have Skill levels (SL) picked out for you, it appears (skill level 4 for the days that it specifies a SL). Is that right?

Sounds like you have it. Kathy just chose the pace, and refers you back to the core book to learn the next skill.

 

Can you still use it as described in the Core, just doing the skill levels applicable to each particular child? Also, are there instructions on teaching the kids to outline the model to write their draft from? I couldn't find that, but did find instructions to have the kids outline. Still feeling tied to WTM, I will be assigning outlining at some point.

 

p. 38 has information on teaching outlining. Because it is considered optional it really doesn't address it as well as it will in Homer. I don't use their method.

 

What do you (general you, all CW users) find is a benefit of using CW as you watch your child's writing develop? This looks like (if used wholly) a complete, integrated LA program with use of their recommended main grammar & spelling on the side. Even the grammar in it looks like a lot of practice after doing a separate grammar lesson, to me. How good is CW when viewed as just a writing program? Has it improved your child's writing much? After all, that's what it's goal is - to be a writing program.

 

Well I am biased, but I love it. I think it is helping her, but here is a sample so you can see for yourself. Here is the original. I have attached my oldest dd's rewrite. In this particular model the goal was to start in the middle of the story.

My tale of The Trial of the Bow.pdf

My tale of The Trial of the Bow.pdf

[Annabel Lee]

I really need to learn how to multi-quote. :)

 

We all grow as we go, you can't change it, so you do have to just look forward.

 

After about 4 hrs. of reading about SWR, it's predecessor, WRTR, it's ancestor, PR (sort of), & then about how similar AAS is to them in overall content, it's not worth making a 4th grader learn an entirely new way of doing things. We'll just stick w/ AAS and draw from our Abeka/CLE roots for marking anything up. I will probably get The Alpha List and the other recommended books for ref. (if I end up going w/ CW), but it doesn't seem a productive use of his time to make him learn to number the varying sounds ea. phonogram makes at this point.

 

Re: the outlining - Could a person stick w/ WTM methods for outlining or would that find the kid needing a detailed outline before WTM gets to it? What do you use to teach outlining?

 

At this point I've run into some confusion about how to actually implement CW. I understood the Core manual, but now trying to read through what ea. day would look like in the IG & SW, I'm starting to see why people say this is hard. I really like it, I want to use it (I think!), I just can't figure out how (arrrgh!). I don't want it to be so hard to use. The IG & SW both have those grey boxes referencing page numbers from different books; I keep mixing up which book they're referencing and what I'm supposed to be looking for.

 

I spent much of last evening reading through the IG & SW, referencing back to the Core as needed. I took notes as I came up w/ questions so I wouldn't forget them. Since some are so detailed & specific I wonder if I ought to take them to the CW site or the "contact us" info. in the front of the CW books.

 

I guess my biggest hang-up about it is I didn't realize CW intends to be a grammar program as well. I hadn't thought of giving up FLL 3/4 and/or R&S 3/4, among other non-grammar elements of other things I was planning on.

 

I must say I am WOWED by your dd's writing! Most kids can't wade through such antiquated language to get the story; let alone utilize it in their own writing. Shoot, even many adults I know IRL give that as their reason for not liking the KJV Bible, "The language is too hard to understand". I do have my boys read from the KJV, but I still have to "translate" sometimes. I worry that the models used in CW will sound too foriegn to them. Aesop looks managable in the same way we do the Bible; I could just help them. Did you have similar uneasiness about this when you started? Does the program introduce them gradually & gently to increasingly difficult language, so that it's not suddenly expected that they magically have this knowledge?

 

Anyhoo... that's probably enough for today. I appreciate your help so much.

[siloam]

I really need to learn how to multi-quote. :)

That is easy to teach. These are brackets[]. I will use {} as brackets so that the computer doesn't read them and quote this. You simply write {quote} at the beginning of what you want to quote and {/quote} at the end, but with the right type of brackets. The computer reads the brackets and knows you are talking to it and not someone else, then it reads that it should quote, and at the end a backslash is always read as the end, so you tell the computer to end the quote. Just don't misspell quote or it doesn't work. Ask me how I know. ;)

 

After about 4 hrs. of reading about SWR, it's predecessor, WRTR, it's ancestor, PR (sort of), & then about how similar AAS is to them in overall content, it's not worth making a 4th grader learn an entirely new way of doing things. We'll just stick w/ AAS and draw from our Abeka/CLE roots for marking anything up. I will probably get The Alpha List and the other recommended books for ref. (if I end up going w/ CW), but it doesn't seem a productive use of his time to make him learn to number the varying sounds ea. phonogram makes at this point.

 

Yep don't worry about it. It isn't something to major on. I actually drop most the phonics work on Aesop, except having them mark up words because they already know how to do it. Honey Dew, my 3rd dd, probably won't do mark ups because she does AAS, and hasn't learned them.

 

Re: the outlining - Could a person stick w/ WTM methods for outlining or would that find the kid needing a detailed outline before WTM gets to it? What do you use to teach outlining?

 

Actually with my oldest I didn't do outlines at all at first. The problem I had was her writing ended up as one huge paragraph. :blink: I started having her do outlines to keep track of paragraph breaks, and that is still why I do the outlining with my 2nd dd.

 

I teach them by doing it with them. I use a traditional outline numbering system (I. A. 1. a.) type of thing. Each paragraph starts a new roman numeral, then I read each sentences aloud to them and we decide how to best summarize it so that they will remember what it was about. Often only a word or two, what ever they need to remember by. FF to when we have done I. and A. With the next sentence we discuss if it is containing the first thought, in which case it will be listed as 1. under the A or if it is a new one that will become B under the A. I takes about a year of doing outlines with them for it to stick, and they can do them on their own. (Yep, a whole year.)

 

I uploaded a sample for ya.

 

At this point I've run into some confusion about how to actually implement CW. I understood the Core manual, but now trying to read through what ea. day would look like in the IG & SW, I'm starting to see why people say this is hard. I really like it, I want to use it (I think!), I just can't figure out how (arrrgh!). I don't want it to be so hard to use. The IG & SW both have those grey boxes referencing page numbers from different books; I keep mixing up which book they're referencing and what I'm supposed to be looking for.

 

Part of the confusion, for me is that they reference a core page number every time, even if the skill didn't change that week. If you think that is part of your problem I have a PDF for Aesop A that just lists the core pages when a new skill is added. Just e-mail me and I will send it to you. I haven't done Aesop B yet, but I am sure I will get to it before you need it. :D

 

I spent much of last evening reading through the IG & SW, referencing back to the Core as needed. I took notes as I came up w/ questions so I wouldn't forget them. Since some are so detailed & specific I wonder if I ought to take them to the CW site or the "contact us" info. in the front of the CW books.

 

It couldn't hurt.

 

I guess my biggest hang-up about it is I didn't realize CW intends to be a grammar program as well. I hadn't thought of giving up FLL 3/4 and/or R&S 3/4, among other non-grammar elements of other things I was planning on.

 

I do some of the work, like at first the identifying the capital letters and periods as well as the type of sentence, but as it goes into parts of speech I drop it and just do JAG. But JAG doesn't cover sentence type, and while my girls are good at capitals and periods they have never covered them in editing, so I figure that one doesn't hurt.

 

I must say I am WOWED by your dd's writing! Most kids can't wade through such antiquated language to get the story; let alone utilize it in their own writing. Shoot, even many adults I know IRL give that as their reason for not liking the KJV Bible, "The language is too hard to understand". I do have my boys read from the KJV, but I still have to "translate" sometimes. I worry that the models used in CW will sound too foriegn to them. Aesop looks managable in the same way we do the Bible; I could just help them. Did you have similar uneasiness about this when you started? Does the program introduce them gradually & gently to increasingly difficult language, so that it's not suddenly expected that they magically have this knowledge?

 

Thanks!

 

It does start out more gentle and work its way into those wordy ones. The length also starts out short with each level and becomes longer by the end. Also keep in mind that CW does some clean up and formatting, taking out the number markers, for instance. The CW models is much easier to read, even though it is the same basic content.

 

You can also see why doing vocab through Homer is still necessary. They come up with some interesting terms. Sometimes I have to look them up on dictionary.com and print them out for her because she can't even find them in her Websters.

 

When I started CW though I only had Aesop in hand, and I was coming from an RB style of everything, looking for something more systematic, because I was tired of answering, "I don't know." due to my own gaps in learning.

 

I actually had a friend buy it, but not need it right away, so she had it mailed to me to preview. Then shortly after I received it she decided to go in a totally different direction and told me to just keep it. (If you are reading this thank you once again, Linda!) I actually had no clue what Homer looked like, I just knew Aesop would meet the need and I had it in hand. Money was tight then so it was a huge blessing. I did get a bit scared by Homer at first, but have found the idea of doing it harder than the actually day to day doing it. Though I also tend to use a lot of intensive programs, so that is just my style, complicated. :D

 

That said my oldest hasn't had problems with the verbage, she actually likes it. She chose Guerber as her spine for ancients, because I reminder her some of her models came from it, and she loves those stories. My 2nd dd is the one who may have issues with it, but so far so good in Aesop. I think she is week 11 of Aesop A.

 

Heather