Success using Sonlight LA K-2 for teaching reading?

[Blessed with seven]

I love the OG method, have Alpha PHonics and we use ETC, would really love to use Sonlight LA but not sure..

 

I want...things scheduled for me, readers and ETC. I also want a gentle intro to grammar!

 

Kim

[meet me in paris]

I like SL LA for K-2. My daughter learned to read with the I Can Read It SL books, and they were fine (although a bit contrived, as many phonetic readers are, and that frustrated her). The schedules were great, the book choices excellent, and the grammar instruction is very light and gentle in the early years, which I am a fan of.

[siloam]

I love the OG method, have Alpha PHonics and we use ETC, would really love to use Sonlight LA but not sure..

 

I want...things scheduled for me, readers and ETC. I also want a gentle intro to grammar!

 

Kim

 

Kim,

 

I own the older version of SL LA that had twice the dictation. The phonics portion didn't change. I used it to teach three of my children to read. :D

 

I like the gentle step by step approach, easy to do activities, and the dictation that ties into the readers (and I always did it as dictation, even in LA K).

 

The only reason why I am not using it for DS is he has an auditory processing problem that requires a more kinsthetic approach.

 

Heather

[Pata]

I would highly suggest that you read Ruth Beechick's "The Three R's", which SL LA is based on. I didn't understand the why's & how's of their scheduling & assignments until I did (we used LA1 and part of LA2). Although my dd did enjoy the readers, I've found that I prefer a more classical approach to LA. SL's LA just skipped around too much for me. I prefer a more logical, step by step approach to grammar & writing. Hope that helps!

 

ETA: Just saw that you were asking specifically about reading. Dd did enjoy the readers and using ETC, plus she enjoyed playing the games that came with it. SL LA was very easy to use to teach reading.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Pata
woops

[siloam]

I would highly suggest that you read Ruth Beechick's "The Three R's", which SL LA is based on. I didn't understand the why's & how's of their scheduling & assignments until I did (we used LA1 and part of LA2). Although my dd did enjoy the readers, I've found that I prefer a more classical approach to LA. SL's LA just skipped around too much for me. I prefer a more logical, step by step approach to grammar & writing. Hope that helps!

 

ETA: Just saw that you were asking specifically about reading. Dd did enjoy the readers and using ETC, plus she enjoyed playing the games that came with it. SL LA was very easy to use to teach reading.

 

To add to that. :D

 

The phonics is very much a step by step process.

 

The grammar is spiral, meaning they introduce all topics early in the year then randomly review them building mastery over time. Works for some kids and not others. My oldest can learn in any order and put each piece in its place in her mind. She did great with SL LA. My next two are more sequential learners. My 2nd dd did eventually gain mastery, but it took a lot longer than with my oldest. My 3rd dd never did. 3 years of covering synonyms and she still couldn't tell you what one was. Once I reminder her she had no problem finding them, so the time wasn't totally wasted. She needed to cover it till mastery before moving on, which is a more classical approach.

 

The grammar is also light on purpose. Ruth Beechick (RB) promotes covering grammar once in Jr and once in Sr. High and not covering it more than that. The goal being to read good writing, and naturally synthesize it and become a good writer because that is all you read. The thinking continues that grammar can be taught any time but someone with a good ear for writing won't need it, they will naturally sense if it is off and change it. Again IMO this is geared to abstract learners who would have that intuit ability, and not sequential concrete learners who only gain this level of mastery by mastering the whole of the language first.

 

The writing is all creative writing, once again geared towards the abstract learner. Though my oldest didn't do well with it either. I had to pull the answers out of her. I quickly dropped it and with my middle two used WWE with SL LA. I find WWE more developmentally appropriate.

 

Really it depends on your goals. I am not that worried about grammar in the early years, or even writing. The phonics is solid and worked, once more it was really cheap to reuse. Those fit my goals. Later I turn to a mastery system for grammar and writing.

 

Heather

 

[Pata]

:iagree: Heather you always take the time to say it so much better :)

[meet me in paris]

Really it depends on your goals. I am not that worried about grammar in the early years, or even writing. The phonics is solid and worked, once more it was really cheap to reuse. Those fit my goals. Later I turn to a mastery system for grammar and writing.

 

Heather

 

:iagree:

I liked it for 1st and 2nd, but I prefer a more gentle approach to learning all around at that age. We found the phonics to be thorough without being overkill.