Why (if R&S is so great) do people choose GWG as the alternative??

[Johanna]

Just want to know what people dont like about R&S that they do like about GWG? I am on the fence about R&S vs. GWG for 4th grade. THe one thing that makes me hesitate is the lack of a workbook for R&S. My dd is such a complainer, that she would dread writing out all the sentences. Is R&S that much better, that it is worth working through that little disadvantage?

thanks!

[WABeth]

I initially chose GWG over R&S because it is secular. We have since completed GWG 3 and 4 and I just purchased 5 for next year. I am very happy with the explanations, the amount of practice, the diagramming exercises, etc. I have no need to look for another program.

[nmoira]

 

I initially chose GWG over R&S because it is secular.

This is the reason I never even considered R&S.

[Carol in Cal.]

It is definately not for everyone.

 

It is Mennonite Christian. Many of the sentences used for examples and class work are from the King James Bible. DD found this challenging at the 3rd grade level--if the material is difficult for a child anyway, having to apply it to such old fashioned English just makes it that much more difficult.

 

We are Christian, and DD has some familiarity with the KJV, but I have steered people away from RS several times over those issues.

 

It also has a lot of writing, although the student books are inexpensive enough that some use them as if they are workbooks. Others do much of the material orally.

 

GWG has a good reputation, but I have heard some comments about poor retention that make me wonder whether it has enough practice for some children. But it seems like a very solid program.

[Ellie]

My dd is such a complainer, that she would dread writing out all the sentences. Is R&S that much better, that it is worth working through that little disadvantage? thanks!

 

Your dd will not have to write all the sentences, because the lessons don't *require* that the students write all the sentences. Sometimes the instructions are to write just the subject and verb, or just the correct punctuation, or just the incorrect sentences and make corrections. And if she were doing a writing assignment from a workbook-based publisher, she'd still have to be writing several sentences, yes? It's easier to do that on a single piece of paper, IMHO, than it is to do it in a workbook.

[Johanna]

hmmm....that is a good point. I hadnt thought about that. Thanks.

[Jenny in Atl]

I have both, but find GWG just flows better at the younger levels. We are secular too but did not find R&S to be an issue, just dry... very dry. But good. It can be very hard to choose.

[Puma Mom]

THe one thing that makes me hesitate is the lack of a workbook for R&S.

Well, there IS a workbook for R&S. It is meant as extra practice for some of the lessons, so there is not a worksheet for every lesson. Almost all of the lessons that are not writing focused or a review lesson (so, the grammar lessons) do have a worksheet. I have my dd complete the worksheet instead of the lesson exercises when it is available.

[orangearrow]

I haven't seen GWG before, but my dd's don't do a ton of writing with R&S. We do a lot of it orally, sometimes they'll diagram sentences on the whiteboard instead of a piece of paper (for some reason, that's always more fun! LOL). I look over the instructions. If something says they should copy the entire sentence, but I don't think it's neccessary, I just tell dd to just write the answer instead of the whole sentence.

 

My dds just write the full sentences usually when they are making major corrections to a sentence itself, or writing a paragraph about something. Other than that, they just write their answer. :001_smile:

[Sue G in PA]

We use R&S as well as GWG...for different dc (not both for the same child!). My dd11 uses R&S and doesn't mind the text and copying sentences. My ds10 started w/ R&S and after 2 wks of tears and complaining, we swtiched to GWG and he LOVES grammar now. Yesterday he just complained that even GWG was "too much writing", that his poor little hand hurt! Poor thing. :D I think it depends on the child. One size does not fit all...at least in my house! Good thing there are so many great programs out there. I think both GWG and R&S are very thorough and complete programs. Ds10 will be unhappy next year b/c we have R&S5 already and I can't justify spending another $30 for a grammar program when we already have one.

[Ellie]

there will always be people who like something else. There's no one-size-fits-all in hsing:D

[Brindee]

FOr kids who don't like writing a lot, you don't HAVE to write all the sentences! We write summaries and stories, etc. in other classes, and I find that my kids can say Capital A, comma after Mary, exclamation at the end of the sentence, etc. just as well as writing it out! If they pretty much know the stuff, I don't have them write it! In fact, we have a fun time as they're going through correcting punctuation orally! It really gets them to stop and think, so it can work that way as well! :)

 

And, like many others, we do the diagramming on the white board, that's just the way it works best, and is more exciting than writing it on paper! Every now and then I'll take a picture of their diagrammed sentences to show what they were doing, since I don't have many papers to "prove" it.

[Night Elf]

I purchased Rod & Staff and absolutely loved the format, just not the religious references. Most of them can just be overlooked as it doesn't come across as preachy, though we did get mighty tired of all the Biblical references. We had a bigger problem with the lifestyle views. Everything is rural related. My children just cannot relate to that at all. We spent more time discussing why the people were doing what they were doing instead of focusing on grammar. I'm trying to very careful with my words so that's the best way I can describe our problems with it.

[PollyOR]

R&S - About the amount of writing...we do the lessons orally as much as possible. We do diagramming on a lap size chalkboard.

 

When sentences need correction (capitalization, quotation marks, end punctuation, etc.) I type those and then let dd correct them on the computer. She would much rather do that than have to write.

[gardenschooler]

My dd is such a complainer, that she would dread writing out all the sentences.

 

That's why I went with GWG. No need to make my life miserable, and I just don't see how doing R&S with this particular little child would have been any other way.

 

She loves GWG, and even asks to do it first every day (and she doesn't praise curriculum highly, as a general rule!). That's priceless to me.

Other reasons:

 

*zero hassle

*quick, easy to teach lessons

*gets the job done thoroughly

*no need to worry if I don't like the writing component - it's straight grammar

* allows for creativity - dd will draw, write, or diagram other sentences in the blank spaces, but *detests* colorful workbooks

*short and sweet, and to the point, allowing me to add in some other fun things (like Schoolhouse Rock grammar videos, Ruth Heller books, and the like)

*It seems to be sticking - she will refer to a grammar rule she's learned from GWG when reading or writing, for instance

 

When I like something, I really like it. :D

[gardenschooler]

Accidentally posted twice

[Mamabyrd]

I switched one of my children from R&S to GWG because of the writing. DD hated having to copy everything. She was a slooooooooow writer also. I did not have the desire to do the entire R&S book orally. We switched to GWG and grammar became one of her favorite subjects.... go figure! My oldest used R&S with no problems.

[Wee Pip]

I do not use R&S or GWG, but if I had to choose, I would choose GWG hands down. I've looked at samples of both, and just generally liked the layout of GWG better, for several reasons -

 

I'm very visual, and like things direct, to-the-point, and something I can look at and immediately say "a-ha! Now I understand" without having to read through a bunch of text. I like books with a lot of white space around the words. Every time I look at R&S, I start to sweat and feel very overwhelmed and confused. But again, this is just *me* because of the visual way I tend to approach information.

 

I just generally do not like the looks of old fashioned textbooks for my kids. They look dry & boring & beat-you-over-the-head-ish - but again, its just my visual thing:)

 

It reminds me of my 8th gr english teacher who made us write 80 sentences per week and then pick out nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. The teacher didn't like me and I received poor grades in her class. I just shiver everytime I look at R&S because it unfortunately, through no fault of its own, reminds me of a very tough year I had in school.

 

My dd doesn't like to write a lot & it has been pulling teeth. Even so, R&S looks like it could be done orally, so I guess that can't really be my excuse, other than the dread I feel every time I look at it.

 

I have a friend that likes R&S and gets on very well with it, but she tends to gravitate toward the old-fashioned kind of books, and she likes the information it gives her. She also likes how the exercises tell a story, so if you get the answer right, you are rewarded by a story. I thought this was kind of cool, too, but not enough to overcome all my other biases with R&S.

 

So that's it...I just have a very strong visual bias:-)

[mom2abcd]

I've used both and I actually prefer R&S, but dd prefers GWG. I prefer R&S because I think kids learn more and retain it better. But if they hate doing it, that doesn't always work! What I should do and what no one has suggested yet, is let the kids write in the student book. They're inexpensive enough that if there's room for the work, I'd recommend it.

 

I gave dd atwo years off R&S, but I would like to go back to it for a year. I need to go to a curriculum fair and study the books to see which level she would place.

[Kay in Cal]

This was close to my experience.

 

Cons for us with R&S: I previewed the pictures, and felt that the lifestyle portrayed was simply so far from our experience that I thought it would be distracting. I particularly didn't like the fact that ALL the families were caucasian--I like at least a little bit of social diversity in what we read.

 

Pros for GWG: GWG follows pretty much the same scope and sequence as R&S, including diagramming, which I think is important. Retention hasn't been a problem for us. The workbook format is easy to implement, and my ds can do the work largely on his own. We haven't had a problem with retention. You should hear my ds's self-composed hard-rock rendition of what adjectives describe...

[Julie Herbster]

What is GWG? Groovin' With Grammar? Grammar With Guts? or what?

[Kay in Cal]

Lol! Growing With Grammar

 

http://www.growingwithgrammar.com/index.html

 

[mktkcb]

If I made my son write out all the sentences he'd be neurotic for sure. He a pencil-phobe. I have the extra worksheets, which we only use on occasion. I allow him to write in the book. They aren't particularly expensive. So depending on the lesson, or the day, we alternate between doing things orally, diagramming on the whiteboard, him circling/underlining what needs to be done directly in the book, him typing up a writing exercise on the computer, or as I said, the occasional worksheet. He does enough writing across the curriculum in general. I just find R&S REALLY easy to use. Lessons rarely take more than 15 min or so. There is review in every lesson. It isn't a subject I'm going to make any more painful than it has to be. Now that said, my son is very bright, and "gets" stuff fast, and doesn't forget it, so making him write out "every single sentence" would be counterproductive for him. Other kids might *need* to do it in order to learn what they need to learn. Bottom line......I love R&S, but YOU know what your kid needs. HTH,

Kayleen

[Johanna]

Well, I have decided to go with R&S for next year with its proven track record. Since we are Christians, we actually like all the content. I was just more worried about the amount of writing. But, I know realize that it can be tailored and simplified and streamlined. I will more than likely be doing a lot if it orally.

Thanks a bunch for all your opinions!

[mommaduck]

I'm a Christian, but I avoid R&S at all costs. Some of their examples are extremely offensive and inaccurate in their portrayal of other Christians.

[Guest]

We have used both and will be switching back to R&S for this year. My guys did not retain GWG. (No offense to the lady who wrote it. She did a FABULOUS job!) My guys need a LOT more repetion of a concept for it to stick. I also found the writing assignments to be more like afterthoughts. Personally, I think it would be a better program if she just dropped them from future editions. I also would like to have tests for each chapter.

 

I am switching back for the above reasons and for the added bonus of having my writing program all there for me. I need that simplicity. Still not sure how all the religious references are going to work out for us even though we are Christians.

 

What I would love is for someone to rewrite R&S as completely secular. But I guess that would be copyright enfringment.

[Johanna]

Really??!! Would you be able to give some examples?

Thanks.

[Johanna]

ooops...I should have quoted. I was referring to "training5's" post about what offended her.

thanks

[Guest]

Nothing offended me. I was referring to not offending the lady who wrote GWG. Or perhaps I am not understanding your reference. Too late for me to be up tonight.

[sarahberry]

We have used both and will be switching back to R&S for this year. My guys did not retain GWG. (No offense to the lady who wrote it. She did a FABULOUS job!) My guys need a LOT more repetion of a concept for it to stick. I also found the writing assignments to be more like afterthoughts. Personally, I think it would be a better program if she just dropped them from future editions. I also would like to have tests for each chapter.

 

I am switching back for the above reasons and for the added bonus of having my writing program all there for me. I need that simplicity. Still not sure how all the religious references are going to work out for us even though we are Christians.

 

What I would love is for someone to rewrite R&S as completely secular. But I guess that would be copyright enfringment.

 

I love R&S and I am a Muslim. I just bought a pack of white stickers (I suppse whiteout could work too), got out and ink pen, and edited it, when needed, to fit our family. It really hasn't been a big job and it works well for us.

 

I agree the retention is really good in this program. We have used it now for two weeks and I am amazed. DS loves it though I don't make him write everything. We do a mix of written on paper, whiteboard, and oral. Part of the appeal of this is that it does ask for a fair amount of writing as I want my son to start learning to do some book exercises.

 

I actually like the pictures but our family is kind of old fashioned and very conservative so these pictures don't seem odd to us at all the way it might for other families. I also like the old fashioned no non-sense approach as well as the black and white illustrations but then again it is my preference and I think it is less distracting for my children. some children would need a lot of color and excitement on a page but I try to avoid it at every cost.

 

I have no idea what GWG is though. Since i fell in love with R&S and it works very well for us I don't plan to change. I don't suppose it is for everyone but it would be nice, as the pp said, if there was a secular or more secular version of it.

[mommaduck]

I wrote about being offended. I had one of their upper grammar books and these were the following phrases I found: "Catholics are idolators", "Calvinists are arrogant in their view of salvation", and "The Jews killed Jesus". The group that puts out R&S really believes this. Unless you are in line with them or don't have children that are overly sensitive, I would avoid them. Because we have relatives that were associated with this group and other family issues, we avoid the curriculum also as I don't want anything that would assist relatives in "converting" my children.

[kalanamak]

I wrote about being offended. I had one of their upper grammar books and these were the following phrases I found: "Catholics are idolators", "Calvinists are arrogant in their view of salvation", and "The Jews killed Jesus".

 

Yeeek. Jingoism on any topic is a laziness I don't want to teach my son.

 

"Four legs good, 2 legs behhhhhh-ter"

 

I have the first level of GWG and have picked up a few texts of R&S at goodwill,etc. The texts are meant to withstand a tornado, but I grow weary of holding the spine open. GWG lays obediently flat.

[profmom]

The reason I chose GWG after R & S was because of the workbook. We were doing the R & S 3 text exactly as written. Dd loved it for 3rd, but then asked to use something different once she had a good look at R & S 4. This was when we were starting CW-Aesop, and I had already been thinking that R & S + CW might take too long. I also thought the fact that GWG is written to the student would allow me to focus my Language Arts teaching time on CW.

 

We've now used GWG for 4th & 5th and are going back to R & S for 6th. GWG has been easy for dd, but she completes everything so quickly that I'm not sure about retention. I was under the impression, somehow, that GWG was basically a workbook version of R & S, but I now think that R & S is more rigorous. Since we're still using CW, I plan to use the R & S text mostly orally (with a white board) and assign the worksheets.

 

About the time I was making the decision for next year (a couple of months ago), someone started a thread about currciulum that people here have used year after year and wouldn't consider switching. R & S grammar was one of the most popular in that thread!

[Johanna]

Nothing offended me. I was referring to not offending the lady who wrote GWG. Or perhaps I am not understanding your reference. Too late for me to be up tonight.

 

Oh, my....I need to stop posting late at night! I am sorry...I was confused and referred to your post when I meant another post.

Sorry:001_huh:

[Johanna]

I wrote about being offended. I had one of their upper grammar books and these were the following phrases I found: "Catholics are idolators", "Calvinists are arrogant in their view of salvation", and "The Jews killed Jesus". The group that puts out R&S really believes this. Unless you are in line with them or don't have children that are overly sensitive, I would avoid them. Because we have relatives that were associated with this group and other family issues, we avoid the curriculum also as I don't want anything that would assist relatives in "converting" my children.

 

Thank you for clarifying. THose are strong statements.

[Johanna]

The reason I chose GWG after R & S was because of the workbook. We were doing the R & S 3 text exactly as written. Dd loved it for 3rd, but then asked to use something different once she had a good look at R & S 4. This was when we were starting CW-Aesop, and I had already been thinking that R & S + CW might take too long. I also thought the fact that GWG is written to the student would allow me to focus my Language Arts teaching time on CW.

 

We've now used GWG for 4th & 5th and are going back to R & S for 6th. GWG has been easy for dd, but she completes everything so quickly that I'm not sure about retention. I was under the impression, somehow, that GWG was basically a workbook version of R & S, but I now think that R & S is more rigorous. Since we're still using CW, I plan to use the R & S text mostly orally (with a white board) and assign the worksheets.

 

 

This is what we have experienced this year with using GWG 3.....So, this is why i may try R&S 4th and then by 5th grade...I should know which one worked better.

[Katrina]

As far as writing goes, we do many of the lessons out loud, unless it's capitalization or puctuation practice, and we also use the worksheets.

 

I would be tempted to checkout GWG, but my oldest is in 7th grade and GWG isnt there yet, and it's just nice not having to purchase something else for my 4th grader.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I wrote about being offended. I had one of their upper grammar books and these were the following phrases I found: "Catholics are idolators", "Calvinists are arrogant in their view of salvation", and "The Jews killed Jesus". The group that puts out R&S really believes this. Unless you are in line with them or don't have children that are overly sensitive, I would avoid them. Because we have relatives that were associated with this group and other family issues, we avoid the curriculum also as I don't want anything that would assist relatives in "converting" my children.

 

WOAH! What? The most controversial thing I found up to the 8th book (which is the last one I would consider using) was their pacifist views and their references to martyrdom which were, in two places, overly graphic, IMO.

 

We used the curriculum as 1) a peek into another culture (which happens to be part of our own family history), 2) familiarity with the KJV in order to have easy familiarity of it in dd's brain, and 3) wonderful grammar instruction. The latter, of course, was the priority.

 

ETA: Oh, another thing we found... amusing... was the idea that mother couldn't figure out what to do when the van broke down until a big strong man stopped to help her know to put the thing in neutral and back it down to the shopping center at the bottom of the hill then telephone father. Ah well. Different strokes. I'm sure mother could manage her house and daily duties just fine.

[Kelli in TN]

I wrote about being offended. I had one of their upper grammar books and these were the following phrases I found: "Catholics are idolators", "Calvinists are arrogant in their view of salvation", and "The Jews killed Jesus". The group that puts out R&S really believes this. Unless you are in line with them or don't have children that are overly sensitive, I would avoid them. Because we have relatives that were associated with this group and other family issues, we avoid the curriculum also as I don't want anything that would assist relatives in "converting" my children.

 

I am not doubting you, but I have the books from 2nd-8th grade and we have been using them for several years. Can you remember what level you saw these disturbing statements in? I have missed them somehow and now I am worried.

[Guest]

Anyone writing a secular version yet? I am thinking I might try but I would probably get sued.

[sabrina]

My ds is a complainer as well. I just used R&S 6 with him this year after years of doing Shurley. He complained quite a bit at fist but has grown accustomed to the amount of writing. His spelling has improved immensely as well. I use the worksheet packet and allow him a day for a lesson and a seperate day for the worksheet. It takes a little longer to get through but he looks forward to worksheet day as a treat. I also love the things he learns about while copying the sentences. All kinds of scripture, history, and science. He will tell me about the things he discovered while diagramming, etc. Hope that this will help you. Unfrotunately I have never used the other curriculum. I don't even know what the initials stand for. I am going to have to learn a lot of initials!

[Storm Bay]

We use Easy Grammar for grades 3 & 4, because GWG wasn't out yet. I haven't seen GWG. I like Easy Grammar in a number of ways. I was reluctant to try R&S because we find most Christian curricula has at least some different doctrine and it's tough for dd to work around. We've used R&S 5-7 and find little marked doctrine other than the pacifism and that they don't show women in ministry. We believe in strong national defense and that God calls women to function in the church as well as men, but those aren't big issues to work around for our family. I haven't seen the later books with those inflammatory statements.

 

We chose R&S primarily for the diagramming and because it includes some writing. I think it "sticks" better than EG. I don't have my dd's write out every little thing and by the time they get to the level of R&S 5 they're ready to do more writing. We found the workbooks a waste of money for my dd's, but I may use them with ds if need be, although I doubt it.

[Johanna]

[quote name=

We chose R&S primarily for the diagramming and because it includes some writing. I think it "sticks" better than EG. I don't have my dd's write out every little thing and by the time they get to the level of R&S 5 they're ready to do more writing. We found the workbooks a waste of money for my dd's' date=' but I may use them with ds if need be, although I doubt it.

 

Yes, I am trying to decide if i should get the worksheets or not. I am leaning on NOT because I think we are going to do most of it orally...but, then I may need them for extra practice??

[Guest Shanna]

I wrote about being offended. I had one of their upper grammar books and these were the following phrases I found: "Catholics are idolators", "Calvinists are arrogant in their view of salvation", and "The Jews killed Jesus". The group that puts out R&S really believes this. Unless you are in line with them or don't have children that are overly sensitive, I would avoid them. Because we have relatives that were associated with this group and other family issues, we avoid the curriculum also as I don't want anything that would assist relatives in "converting" my children.

 

Can you give the places to find these references? I have not seen anything like this while using R&S.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Can you give the places to find these references? I have not seen anything like this while using R&S.

 

This actually sounds like the attitude of a couple of other publishers I could name, but it simply shocks me that this would be in a R&S publication.

[mommaduck]

For those wanting to know the level, I only remember that it was an upper level book. I kept it for years with the pages marked for proof. Finally tossing it because I didn't want it on my shelf. I know most of their schools go to 10th. My landlady's daughter is a teacher and uses R&S. I'll ask her if I can look at her books.

[mommaduck]

This actually sounds like the attitude of a couple of other publishers I could name, but it simply shocks me that this would be in a R&S publication.

 

It shouldn't. The group's main purpose is to teach their people their beliefs. They just happen to provide it for other anabaptist schools and homeschoolers as well. They see it as a ministry to share their beliefs.

 

I have to make a correction: the board of R&S consists of people from several churches. The group I'm speaking of acted as though they were sole proprietors of the company when we were in contact with them. My apologies for anyone that I may have accidentally lumped in.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It shouldn't. The group's main purpose is to teach their people their beliefs. They just happen to provide it for other anabaptist schools and homeschoolers as well. They see it as a ministry to share their beliefs.

 

I have to make a correction: the board of R&S consists of people from several churches. The group I'm speaking of acted as though they were sole proprietors of the company when we were in contact with them. My apologies for anyone that I may have accidentally lumped in.

 

It was in the GRAMMAR book, though? Not in the materials the group in question sent to accompany the books?

 

ETA: I see you already answered that above. But holy camoly. It's hard to see that following from what I saw in the grade 8 book.

 

The grammar book isn't, though, for evangelism. It's for instructing Mennonite children in grammar. So I'm not sure why you would say that group's purpose is to teach other people their beliefs.

 

I guess I'm a bit confused with this followup comment, as I can't figure out what you mean by "group."

[sarahberry]

I think my posting was somehow ignored in all the posting about offensive material in R&S. As a Non-Christian, but definitely very religious, I have not had any problems with Rod and Staff. I have reviewed books 2-8 and have not found any propaganda....in fact of all the Christian curriculum privdors that I have looked at so far this is one of the least offensive less pushy that I have found in terms of beliefs.

 

For any parts I do find objectable or offensive I simply place white stickers and write over it. I have found that this is quite easy to do and you still get the great grammar lessons. This isn't for everyone but for those who want R&S without certain things this is an option. It does require a little work but if you have several children you only do it once for all the kiddies to use the same books. You can do whatever you want to a book, for your own purposes, once you buy it, pretty much, so you can secularize it. There are lots of ways to make programs work for you but sometimes you do have to do a little work. I always figure that if a program is really the right one for my children and it is solid in the way I want it to be then it would surely be worth a little work on my part to edit when necessary. I don't use the workbooks for R&S though as they are actually more religious but if you want a workbook steck-vaughn's core skills in language arts is a good supplement and it is secular. You could always do R&S lessons and use the coreskills WB for the written exercises. I don't know about the upper grades but this can at least work through the middle grades.

 

I hope this helps :) It isn't easy finding secular materials :)

 

Sarah :)

[Kelli in TN]

For those wanting to know the level, I only remember that it was an upper level book. I kept it for years with the pages marked for proof. Finally tossing it because I didn't want it on my shelf. I know most of their schools go to 10th. My landlady's daughter is a teacher and uses R&S. I'll ask her if I can look at her books.

 

Maybe it was the 9th or 10th. I had the 9th grade book and I don't remember any offensive comments. But I can't look now because I sold it. I have never seen the 10th grade grammar.