Who uses JAG/AG and how does it compare to R&S?

[abrightmom]

I am looking at grammar options and overwhelmed by the many programs.

 

I am NOT grammar intuitive and grammar program scope/sequences do nothing for me. It's like reading a foreign language.:D

 

Can someone point me to a relevant thread or do a comparison of the two approaches? I look at Rod & Staff because of it's reputation for excellence. I know nothing about how "clueless teacher" friendly it is.

 

If there is a thread comparing multiple grammar programs I'd LOVE to see it.

[min]

I'd love to see a comparison also!

 

I think I've settled on Cozy Grammar, as we'll be doing it mostly in the car. Not sure if you've seen that one: http://www.splashesfromtheriver.com/

 

Min

[jeri]

I have used both JAG and R&S (as well as MCT) and for most children I would prefer R&S. The pros for it are that it is very incremental, adding on each year a little bit. So, they cover the same material, up to about level 7, over and over, a little deeper every time. I like this for most of my children because (1) they aren't very motivated to do English grammar, and (2) they really need that review and continuance every 12 mths or so. I would just use a higher level if I had a child who was more "advanced." The cons are the tedium. A lot of people get around that by doing much of it out loud. My oldest is using R&S 8 as kind of a capstone in grammar (she used CW Homer/Diogenes for her grammar) and she gets very bored with the Bible sentences, and emphasis on going to church, baking bread and singing (but they are Mennonite after all). I too, wish that they used some very rich, classic-type sentences in their books. For the lower levels, it's not quite as dogmatic--more sentence topic variety.

 

I used JAG for one child, hoping to catch her up to public school the next year. It didn't work. Even though it has review built in, it moved too fast for her (since you finish it in 12 or so weeks) and she couldn't retain it. She went to ps the following year and even though all the grammar was review, she didn't exactly excel there.

 

I think JAG/AG would work for a child who is motivated to learn adn at a high level of English already. It is also very expensive since the SM needs to be bought for each child. For R&S, I just buy the SM for $15 or so, and until I got to level 7, I can correct the lessons myself so I save by not buying the TM. The questions could be answered without the TM as long as you read the (very clear) directions yourself.

 

HTH

 

Jeri

[5LittleMonkeys]

I know nothing about how "clueless teacher" friendly it is.

 

 

 

I haven't used JAG\AG but I do want to tell you how user friendly the R&S TM is. It is scripted so there is no question as to what you need to be teaching. Have you looked at the samples? If not, check them out. The TM starts out giving you an objective for the lesson then goes on to give you oral review questions covering past concepts. We do these everyday and they really help with retention. Then it gives you instructions for teaching the lesson. The oral review of the lesson concept is included with the answers, as are the written exercises.

 

We started out with me teaching the lesson word for word from the TM but my girls quickly decided that they didn't need me anymore. The student book is so thorough in its explanations that for me to teach the lesson and have them read the instruction in their book was redundant. They don't get into doing the lesson on the white board...they just want to get done. I still go over the oral quiz and some of the oral review with them after they have read the lesson but then they do the written by themselves. I am available for questions and I check their papers. I do get more involved during the review lessons. I have read many posts of people complaining about how tedious it is, and I am one of the mean moms who make their dc do most of the written exercises, but honestly this is one of the few subjects my dc don't complain about. The act of writing out all of those well written sentences with correct grammar and punctuation has, in my opinion, helped cement correct usage and has improved their own composition.

 

Hope that gives you a bit more info on which to base your decision.

[siloam]

I am looking at grammar options and overwhelmed by the many programs.

 

I am NOT grammar intuitive and grammar program scope/sequences do nothing for me. It's like reading a foreign language.:D

 

Can someone point me to a relevant thread or do a comparison of the two approaches? I look at Rod & Staff because of it's reputation for excellence. I know nothing about how "clueless teacher" friendly it is.

 

If there is a thread comparing multiple grammar programs I'd LOVE to see it.

 

 

I love JAG and AG. Oh and I used to be like you. I only passed my Senior English class by reading Roots for extra credit. :D

 

They can be a little fast paced. I start JAG in 4th grade, and go at half pace. I find that around Adverbs it is too much and it all starts to get jumbled. I simply go back to the beginning and do it again, and yes still at half pace. This time by the time they hit adverbs they have it nailed. But then by the time they hit compounds (the last unit) they are again sort of falling apart. (This is where my 2nd dd is at right now.) Again I simply go back to the unit after adverbs and do the whole section over again at double pace. My oldest owned it by the end. Even my 2nd dd passing with 70% and above, but I will still have her repeat it.

 

With my oldest she did AG season 1 at half pace, and didn't need to do it twice. With season 2 she did do it twice as she again started to fall apart at the end. Season 3 we are not that far into and my dd has already fallen apart, but that I think has nothing to do with AG. She isn't reading the directions, and she has the attitude of "this is easy stuff" so she isn't focusing and giving it her full attention. Once she gets tired of re-doing worksheets becuase for the third time she missed the items in a series (ITEMS IN A SERIES!-she knew this 5 years ago) she will eventually start taking it seriously and do fine. She is just trying to do it too quickly.

 

Why didn't I use R&S? The independence issue was big here. I only have so much time and a lot of programs that depend on me already. Secondly was the sequence. I always struggled with finding the subject and predicate (main verb). I can if the sentence is: She ran. But once you get to your average sentence I can't pick it out without first eliminating other parts of speech. I was a concrete enough thinker that I never thought to first find the prepositional phrases and eliminate them. That wasn't the order I was given. :D AG uses a non-traditional order that eliminates much of the sentence before you find the subject and predicate. R&S uses a traditional sequence where you have to find those first. I assume my kids are going to be as concrete as I am and need the alternate order.

 

Now that my oldest has grammar pretty much down I still shy away from R&S (probably will just use the reinforcement book from AG, but CW is telling me she should be doing a grammar program, so I am considering it...). The reason is because it is much more detailed. That doesn't mean that AG doesn't cover it, but that AG is content to leave big picture labels on them instead of using the more detailed. For example when you look for pronouns you mark all of them as a pronouns. While they are listed in AG by type (1st-I, 2nd-you, 3rd person-them, etc..) you don't mark it anywhere in the program. With nouns you don't mark the object of the preposition any differently than you do the subject, indirect object or direct object. You demonstrate their differences when you diagram the sentence. This big picture focus is another reason why I think the program worked for me. I am a big picture thinker.

 

Heather

 

p.s. I haven't used R&S, but I have a friend who does and we done a lot of discussing. :D

[abrightmom]

:001_smile: Ladies,

 

Thanks for sharing. I think I need to study grammar on my own for awhile via R&S or AG. Perhaps that would help!!

 

Heather, why 4th grade? Do you shy away from SWB's recs. to study grammar from the outset? If so, why? Does dyslexia play in to that?

 

I'm seriously contending with that question now. Grammar seems so abstract to me and like it fits better in the middle school years. But, what do I know?! :001_smile: Just about nothin' at this point!

[siloam]

Heather, why 4th grade? Do you shy away from SWB's recs. to study grammar from the outset? If so, why? Does dyslexia play in to that?

 

I'm seriously contending with that question now. Grammar seems so abstract to me and like it fits better in the middle school years. But, what do I know?! :001_smile: Just about nothin' at this point!

 

With my oldest it was because I had bought wholesale into Ruth Beechick (RB) philosophy and never heard of SWB or WTM. :blink: RB has a child covering grammar once in middle school and in high school. I still think RB can work, but it is based on the teacher having the knowledge base to take advantage of teachable moments. When you answer, "I don't know" half the time there is break down in the basic philosophy. :D

 

SWB and WTM are mastery based, which is more how I think. It works better for my kids as well, so I stick with that approach even through I now know enough to pull off RB. At the same time, I only have so much time and things have to give now and then.

 

With my middle two they were delayed in reading, so I focused on that, but then in 3rd grade for my 2nd dd and 2nd grade for my 3rdd (in other words at the same time) I started FLL 1/2. It worked fine for my 2nd dd, but my 3rd dd has auditory processing issues and didn't do that well on her required 3rd grade testing. Right now she isn't doing anything because we are still wrapping up reading and I only have so much time. I am choosing to spend more time on reading right now. She will start CW and JAG sometime this year, I am just not sure if I will wait till her reading instruction is done or not. Generally I reevaluate over Christmas, so I suspect I will end up adding JAG in January (daily) and doing CW on her loop schedule (only twice a week).

 

With my ds the focus is learning to read. He also has even more auditory processing problems, doing something orally is pointless. I plan to do GWG or FLL 3 with him starting next year. But that is also problematic given both start with subject and predicate, but the point here is familiarity with topics not mastery.

 

I need to go in and re-read what SWB advices about grammar for middle school. My oldest will be finishing AG and Homer later this year and I haven't been able to decide if she should just do the AG reinforcement or continue with grammar. Given our propensity to forget I am nervous about only doing something twice a week. If any of us would be fine with twice a week it would be my oldest, so I might let go in favor of spending more time on math. She would probably prefer the grammar. :D

 

Heather

[Ellie]

Does dyslexia play in to that?

No.

[siloam]

No.

Actually I would disagree. Though it isn't true in all cases, it depends on the child and their particular issues.

 

My ds is an auditory dyslexic and thus using FLL 1/2 with him is not a good idea. Auditory processing gives him the most problems. He is also a visual dyslexic, but has much less problems with that and prefers workbooks, but he is delayed in reading due to the dyslexia. Thus he wasn't reading CVC words fluently till the beginning of this year. Even now he has recall problems that make no sense. He will go through a stack of phonograms and get every one correct then go to read 2 minuets later and can't make the sound for letter correlation. He is getting better, but it is going to still just take some time.

 

Meanwhile I don't want him guessing, and the only way to control that is to limit his reading work till he is fluent. I suppose I could sit with him while he reads it. I would rather just spend the time on reading instruction and play catch up on grammar later. Maybe it depends on the teacher as well. :D

 

If the child is primarily a visual dyslexic then you can do FLL or another program orally and bypass the dyslexia issues entirely.

 

Heather

[abrightmom]

SWB and WTM are mastery based, which is more how I think.

:001_smile: Lightbulb!

 

Thanks for sharing Heather. :D

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I can't compare them because I haven't used R&S but we did use AG this year. It was a bust for us. My kids found it incredibly boring and hated the diagramming (one of them seriously loathed it). They had a solid background in grammar (Shurley Levels 3 - 7) but had never done any diagramming before, which may account for some (but I don't think all) of the loathing. Diagramming aside, they both thought it was very boring and missed Shurley English. I want them to continue with grammar so we'll be switching them to MCT's The Magic Lens 1 when the next edition is released. I also had an issue with the way AG classifies words (much more basic than Shurley) and her classifying some possessive adjectives as adverbs but that was easy to remedy and didn't play any roll in my decision to leave it. I enjoyed learning the diagramming and will most likely continue it on my own.

[razorbackmama]

We are using JAG/AG after using R&S.

 

Probably the only thing I don't "like" is the pace, but that is easily remedied by simply going slower.

 

I love, love, love the order it teaches the parts of speech in. Prepositions are learned near the beginning of the curriculum, so the student learns how to "leave them out" when finding the subject, verb, pattern of the sentence, etc.

 

I love that it reviews EVERYTHING a child has learned thus far with every lesson. There aren't any reviews in the curriculum, but that's because every lesson is a cumulative review. The child uses everything he has learned PLUS the new material in each lesson.

 

I like how it requires that a child actually think about the word and it's purpose. It doesn't simply rely on memorization (except for pronouns to a certain extent). It requires that the child analyze the word and think about what its job is in the sentence. For example, the word "mail." It can be a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb. The child has to THINK about what the word "mail" is actually doing in a particular sentence.

 

I love that it teaches both parsing AND diagramming.

 

I love that if you go at the normal speed, JAG is done in 11 weeks and that's IT. Depending on what grade you're using AG for, the schedule is similar, except you do add in review and reinforcement workbooks every now and then.

 

I plan to start JAG with my 5th graders. Prior to that we'll use FLL.

[HappyGrace]

I like how it requires that a child actually think about the word and it's purpose. It doesn't simply rely on memorization (except for pronouns to a certain extent). It requires that the child analyze the word and think about what its job is in the sentence.

 

So, Razorbackmama, are you saying that R+S does not require this as much? I'm just starting R+S 5 and never used it before (except a tiny bit of 2 several yrs back). I would like dd to have to do what you mentioned above and I'm wondering if in comparing them, R+S falls short in those respects. (I'm trying to determine if I should stick w/ R+S for the next few yrs or switch to AG.) Thanks!

[razorbackmama]

So, Razorbackmama, are you saying that R+S does not require this as much? I'm just starting R+S 5 and never used it before (except a tiny bit of 2 several yrs back). I would like dd to have to do what you mentioned above and I'm wondering if in comparing them, R+S falls short in those respects. (I'm trying to determine if I should stick w/ R+S for the next few yrs or switch to AG.) Thanks!

 

Not in my experience, at least not to the extent that JAG/AG does. We used R&S 3, 4, and 5. They were taught what the parts of speech were, but it was much fuzzier on how to tell if the same word was a different part of speech in different sentences.

[Angel]

Heather,

 

I am doing JAG with my dd10 this year. She definitely is having trouble with the adverbs, though more with where to place them in a diagram, and pronouns which are adjectives.

 

How exactly do you go about "starting over?" Could you share what you do? We just finished unit 7 and I feel that she just doesn't have the last couple concepts down. Do you just rewrite the sentences from the earlier lessons (she has already written in the book)? Or do you make up new sentences for her to practice on?

 

I really like this idea of going back and reworking to make it solid. She is beginning to get frustrated and this has been her favorite curriculum all year.

 

Thanks

[HappyGrace]

Thanks, Razorbackmama-I will have to look into this more!

[razorbackmama]

Heather,

 

I am doing JAG with my dd10 this year. She definitely is having trouble with the adverbs, though more with where to place them in a diagram, and pronouns which are adjectives.

 

How exactly do you go about "starting over?" Could you share what you do? We just finished unit 7 and I feel that she just doesn't have the last couple concepts down. Do you just rewrite the sentences from the earlier lessons (she has already written in the book)? Or do you make up new sentences for her to practice on?

 

I really like this idea of going back and reworking to make it solid. She is beginning to get frustrated and this has been her favorite curriculum all year.

 

Thanks

 

My JAG student has trouble with where to put them on the diagram as well. I have sometimes made up extra sentences for her, but unless she just totally BOMBS a test, I just have her move on, since she'll continue to practice it in each unit. Also she'll be doing the entire thing again next year when she does AG, so I figure she'll have plenty of time to get it down pat - no need to master it 100% right now.

[siloam]

Heather,

 

I am doing JAG with my dd10 this year. She definitely is having trouble with the adverbs, though more with where to place them in a diagram, and pronouns which are adjectives.

 

How exactly do you go about "starting over?" Could you share what you do? We just finished unit 7 and I feel that she just doesn't have the last couple concepts down. Do you just rewrite the sentences from the earlier lessons (she has already written in the book)? Or do you make up new sentences for her to practice on?

 

I really like this idea of going back and reworking to make it solid. She is beginning to get frustrated and this has been her favorite curriculum all year.

 

Thanks

With almost any consumable workbook I get I put it into page protectors and have them use permanent marks to do their work. It doesn't accidentally erase, and when you want it off I pay one of the kids to do it. You simply go over the permanent marker with a wet erase marker. It will dissolve it and you can wipe it clean. (Though by the time you do a whole book you will go through a couple wet erase markers.)

 

Thus it is easier to have one of them clean the book, then just start over. Otherwise I would probably do the noun/verb substitution idea that Erin has suggested. Use the same exact sentences but just change those parts, so Mike ran to school, can become Mary skipped to church. This way the parsing and diagramming answer key still works.

 

Heather

[Angel]

Thanks, Heather!

 

That makes sense. It's too late to go through with page protector's :D I didn't even think of that since she's my younger one. I need to decide over Christmas break if I want to go back and redo the lessons, or push on through and hit it again later. Thanks, again, for answering my questions.

[silliness7]

I haven't seen anyone mention what I'm thinking so I hope I'm not seeing something that isn't there. But here are my thoughts.

 

I used AG when my oldest was in the 6th and 7th grades exactly as written. So he was scheduled to do the last sequence this year (8th grade) but I switched to Hake Grammar and eventually to R&S. I understand the last AG sequence is where all the punctuation rules are...so we missed that.

 

This is my first foray with R&S. I have a 3rd, 5th, 7th, and an 8th grader using the program but we just started a few weeks ago. However the reason I switched even to Hake grammar was because I wasn't seeing anything in AG other than labeling parts of speech and diagramming. (of course I knew the punctuation was coming but that was all that was left)

 

I was worried about other traditional type grammar instruction that I didn't see included in AG. I didn't see anything regarding subject/verb agreement, pronoun agreement (is that a term?), dangling modifiers. My 3rd grader is working on apostrophes right now...possessives and contractions. That's not in AG. And I did buy into AG's premise initially that AG was ALL the grammar a student would EVER need. So now I"m wondering where students would pick up all those pesky apostrophe rules. Maybe she's hoping the spelling program has that covered.

 

When I did AG I worked through the lessons myself, took the tests myself. It was definitely rigorous. I felt quite accomplished when I got through.

 

Imagine my shock last week when I'm working with my 5th grader (or was it my 7th grader) and R&S introduces a construct that I had not seen in AG. R&S introduced it with the appositives and AG also had appositives. But this was a different construct and I can't remember the name of it and I don't want to go hunt down the book. I'm pretty sure we did not come across this in AG. Now maybe it's not that big of a deal and maybe it's an isolated occurrence. But as I work with my children through R&S I become more and more convinced that I made the right choice for us. Recently I was reading through some of the grammar portion on the SAT (which is why I switched from Hake to R&S.) I'm very confident that AG was not the best route to help my children with that. I don't want to speak for all children but it's something to think about before you make your decision.

[siloam]

CW covers those things so that is not a worry here. It is a good point for those who might not use another program that covers it.

 

There is also the new usage and grammar designed to be used after JAG. I can't wait to get more details on it, though I probably won't ever use it. :D

 

Heather

[razorbackmama]

I haven't seen anyone mention what I'm thinking so I hope I'm not seeing something that isn't there. But here are my thoughts.

 

I used AG when my oldest was in the 6th and 7th grades exactly as written. So he was scheduled to do the last sequence this year (8th grade) but I switched to Hake Grammar and eventually to R&S. I understand the last AG sequence is where all the punctuation rules are...so we missed that.

 

This is my first foray with R&S. I have a 3rd, 5th, 7th, and an 8th grader using the program but we just started a few weeks ago. However the reason I switched even to Hake grammar was because I wasn't seeing anything in AG other than labeling parts of speech and diagramming. (of course I knew the punctuation was coming but that was all that was left)

 

I was worried about other traditional type grammar instruction that I didn't see included in AG. I didn't see anything regarding subject/verb agreement, pronoun agreement (is that a term?), dangling modifiers. My 3rd grader is working on apostrophes right now...possessives and contractions. That's not in AG. And I did buy into AG's premise initially that AG was ALL the grammar a student would EVER need. So now I"m wondering where students would pick up all those pesky apostrophe rules. Maybe she's hoping the spelling program has that covered.

 

When I did AG I worked through the lessons myself, took the tests myself. It was definitely rigorous. I felt quite accomplished when I got through.

 

Imagine my shock last week when I'm working with my 5th grader (or was it my 7th grader) and R&S introduces a construct that I had not seen in AG. R&S introduced it with the appositives and AG also had appositives. But this was a different construct and I can't remember the name of it and I don't want to go hunt down the book. I'm pretty sure we did not come across this in AG. Now maybe it's not that big of a deal and maybe it's an isolated occurrence. But as I work with my children through R&S I become more and more convinced that I made the right choice for us. Recently I was reading through some of the grammar portion on the SAT (which is why I switched from Hake to R&S.) I'm very confident that AG was not the best route to help my children with that. I don't want to speak for all children but it's something to think about before you make your decision.

 

 

Ooooooh, thanks so much for sharing! I would LOVE to hear some more responses on this!

 

I know that R&S in the younger years was a dismal failure for us (we used 3rd, 4th, and 5th), but I wonder if I might need to have my kids go through R&S 7th or 8th after AG, just to be sure to cover anything like this????

 

Heather, what usage and grammar book? Is it something that AG is coming out with?

[siloam]

Ooooooh, thanks so much for sharing! I would LOVE to hear some more responses on this!

 

I know that R&S in the younger years was a dismal failure for us (we used 3rd, 4th, and 5th), but I wonder if I might need to have my kids go through R&S 7th or 8th after AG, just to be sure to cover anything like this????

 

Heather, what usage and grammar book? Is it something that AG is coming out with?

Yes it is in bata testing right now. :D

 

Though I just popped over to Rainbow Resource and they do carry a series that looks to just work on usage and not grammar, so that might be a way to use AG and make sure both are well covered.

 

Heather

[razorbackmama]

OK just looked through AG...agreements (pronoun/antecedent, subject/verb, etc.) are covered in the last few units (in the #30s).

 

Dangling modifiers aren't explicitly covered, but they would be found when the student diagrammed a sentence - they wouldn't be attached to anything as they would be in a correctly constructed sentence. SWB talks about this as the reason behind diagramming in the first place.

 

Still curious as to whether AG covers all the "nitty gritty" as much as R&S, but I did want to share what I found as I looked through the TG.:001_smile: