Flying through FLL...

[Guest]

We are flying through the original (combined) First Language Lessons 1/2. We are doing a lesson per day as it is my son's favorite subject (or close ;)) and he's retaining fine (he's actually at a point where he's been asking me, can we move on, please?). I looked at FLL 3 when I went to convention and didn't think I really wanted to go into it for 2nd grade...but we are on target to finish FLL 1/2 by the end of this year (1st grade). Should I slow down so that we don't? (We have almost completed our first quarter and are a quarter through the book.) Or is FLL3 okay for a 2nd grader?

 

Hope I phrased this coherently. Thank you!

Edited September 7, 2011 by Guest

[boscopup]

I'm using FLL3 for my 2nd grader. It's going great. There really isn't that much writing in it. It just LOOKS like a lot in the workbook because some days there are 5 workbook pages, but they're mostly reading a table of words or something (at least so far... we did lesson 15 today).

 

We did FLL1 in a month last year, about 18 lessons of FLL2, and then tried R&S 3 for a bit (did one unit... still had to combine lessons), and finally moved to FLL3. We're going to stick with FLL3 this year, do MCT Island next year, then make a decision for after that later.

 

Grammar comes easily for DS1. He's usually pretty good with abstract things (grammar, math, etc.).

[Guest]

Thank you ladies, I value both of your opinions. We are going to head in that direction, I think. :)

[Occasionally]

I have to say that little exchanges like this are invaluable to me. They really help me when I'm planning. :001_smile:

[Five More Minutes]

I'm using FLL3 for my 2nd grader. It's going great.

We're going to stick with FLL3 this year, do MCT Island next year, then make a decision for after that later.

 

I hope I'm not hijacking here, but I am curious about moving to MCT Island after FLL3. Why that instead of FLL4? (I'm curious because I'm thinking of doing a very similar sequence here, but am very undecided at the moment.)

[Aloha2U]

We are flying through the original (combined) First Language Lessons 1/2. We are doing a lesson per day as it is my son's favorite subject (or close ;)) and he's retaining fine (he's actually at a point where he's been asking me, can we move on, please?). I looked at FLL 3 when I went to convention and didn't think I really wanted to go into it for 2nd grade...but we are on target to finish FLL 1/2 by the end of this year (1st grade). Should I slow down so that we don't? (We have almost completed our first quarter and are a quarter through the book.) Or is FLL3 okay for a 2nd grader?

 

Hope I phrased this coherently. Thank you!

 

I personally wouldn't be in a rush to toss the rest of FLL2 to the side. My little man benefitted from the repetition, but not because he needed it, iykwim. It just solidified what was learned, even if it he could've jumped to FLL3. We both enjoyed chanting the preposition list, reviewing the helping/linking verbs list, etc. and they have truly been helpful to him. It seems as though I may be the only one to say this, but I'd recommend staying the course, finishing FLL 2, and then go from there. Just my 2 cents. :)

Edited September 8, 2011 by CMama

[SorrelZG]

Making mental notes. :) Not sure what we'll be doing next year but DS is at the same place with FLL and going the same speed.

[boscopup]

I hope I'm not hijacking here, but I am curious about moving to MCT Island after FLL3. Why that instead of FLL4? (I'm curious because I'm thinking of doing a very similar sequence here, but am very undecided at the moment.)

 

I like what I see in MCT and think it will be a good fit for this child, front loading the grammar, then using the grammar the rest of the time. I like how it intertwines poetry and vocab with the grammar and writing. I think it's something we will both enjoy doing.

 

Plus sometimes it's good to have a bit of "and now for something completely different." :D

 

We could have done it this year, but I didn't convince myself to do it until we'd already gotten started, and I don't think I can sneak a purchase that large past DH after I already said I was done buying curriculum for the year. :tongue_smilie: It's ok though. I think we'll get more out of it when his physical writing ability is increased.

[FairProspects]

I should preface my comments by stating that it probably depends on your purpose for teaching grammar in the early years. If you are using it as a skill building subject, then MHO below stands and you can take it for what its worth. If you are using it as a fun preview to get your dc hooked on grammar then by all means go through it quickly and find something else fun too. :D

 

I guess I'm questioning the purpose of doing FLL everyday. Sure it is fun and we could easily go the same pace, but it is designed to be done 2-3 days per week to ensure review & retention over a long period of time similarly to phonics. Flying through it would not be conducive to this purpose. Knowing the definition of a noun after you've heard it 30 times in a row is one thing, but knowing the definition and applying it 3 years later is another.

 

Is there a supplement you could do on alternate days to stretch it out and get the long-term memory and skill building effect that is intended? MCT maybe? My personal bias is to go wider or deeper rather than faster and hit things from different directions.

[boscopup]

I guess I'm questioning the purpose of doing FLL everyday.

 

I'm using FLL3 at normal pace - 3 days a week. It will last the whole year. :) We just had to get to FLL3 in order to do that. FLL1 and FLL2 were too slow for this child. He understands abstract concepts such as grammar, so he really didn't need the repitition or the slower pace. FLL3 is going well. He could still go a bit faster, but it's better than anything else we've done, and he's not ready for ALL yet.

 

 

My personal bias is to go wider or deeper rather than faster and hit things from different directions.

In grammar, everything is repeated every.single.year. So going faster doesn't cause you to actually skip anything.

 

Sometimes a child gets way too bored with a slow pace, so you just have to move on. That's what the Accelerated Learner forum is all about - accelerating. ;) I accelerate until we get to the spot where DS actually IS. Then we go whatever pace he needs (which may be the pace intended, or may be faster than the pace intended). I agree that you don't need to do FLL 5 days a week. We flew threw FLL1 because we did multiple lessons in one sitting and skipped or skimmed the common vs. proper noun lessons. He already understood the concepts. There was no sense in beating a dead horse.

 

I think MCT will help us go deeper, though at some point, you've gone as deep as you can go with an elementary age child and you have to move on... just like with math. You can't go very deep in the lower elementary years of math. There is only so much to the 4 basic operations. When you get to Algebra on up, THEN it's easier to go deep. :)

[FairProspects]

I'm using FLL3 at normal pace - 3 days a week. It will last the whole year. :) We just had to get to FLL3 in order to do that. FLL1 and FLL2 were too slow for this child. He understands abstract concepts such as grammar, so he really didn't need the repitition or the slower pace. FLL3 is going well. He could still go a bit faster, but it's better than anything else we've done, and he's not ready for ALL yet.

 

 

In grammar, everything is repeated every.single.year. So going faster doesn't cause you to actually skip anything.

 

Sometimes a child gets way too bored with a slow pace, so you just have to move on. That's what the Accelerated Learner forum is all about - accelerating. ;) I accelerate until we get to the spot where DS actually IS. Then we go whatever pace he needs (which may be the pace intended, or may be faster than the pace intended). I agree that you don't need to do FLL 5 days a week. We flew threw FLL1 because we did multiple lessons in one sitting and skipped or skimmed the common vs. proper noun lessons. He already understood the concepts. There was no sense in beating a dead horse.

 

I think MCT will help us go deeper, though at some point, you've gone as deep as you can go with an elementary age child and you have to move on... just like with math. You can't go very deep in the lower elementary years of math. There is only so much to the 4 basic operations. When you get to Algebra on up, THEN it's easier to go deep. :)

 

Right, and I could be misunderstanding, but this is not the case with the OP. She is flying through it because they are doing a lesson everyday not, not because they are accelerating it. Since she mentioned not wanting to get into FLL 3 in 2nd grade originally, why not just slow down to 2-3 times per week?

 

Your post does feel slightly demeaning though. Obviously I understand acceleration, but I disagree that you have to move on. There are other ways to do grammar (and every subject for that matter) besides just accelerating and this is not the accelerated board anyway. You can take a week off and watch School House Rock. You can do Mad Libs or something else. You can apply it through writing. There are always ways to go wider. Going faster is a choice, and that is fine, but it is not the only choice and some of us are intentionally choosing not to go faster despite understanding because we choose to overteach or it is just not our educational philosophy. This doesn't make one choice better than the other. Only the OP can decide that. I was just presenting a different option and the OP can take it or leave it.

 

Other posters gave very similar responses and when that happens on any thread I like to play Devil's Advocate so everyone can see a variety of choices. :D

[boscopup]

Right, and I could be misunderstanding, but this is not the case with the OP. She is flying through it because they are doing a lesson everyday not, not because they are accelerating it. Since she mentioned not wanting to get into FLL 3 in 2nd grade originally, why not just slow down to 2-3 times per week?

 

She said this:

 

Should I slow down so that we don't? (We have almost completed our first quarter and are a quarter through the book.) Or is FLL3 okay for a 2nd grader?

I also used info from her previous posts that suggest that her child is a bit accelerated or at least capable of being accelerated. So my answer is, yes FLL3 is ok for a 2nd grader. That's what she asked. Her child is asking for FLL everyday because he's enjoying it, and she said that he has asked to move on when they go too slow. That tells me that he's ready to move on.

 

I'm not at all saying that anyone specifically should go faster. I just said that she CAN go faster if that's what would be meeting her child's pace. Grammar is naturally overtaught because it repeats itself every year. You're not missing anything by skipping 1st and 2nd grade grammar. It's all taught yet again in 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Everything that was taught in FLL1 and FLL2 is retaught (as if it were new) in FLL3. Using FLL one year ahead does not prevent you from overteaching. :)

 

The fact is, 1st and 2nd grade grammar (all programs that I've seen) is very, very simple. So if a child is able to understand more abstract concepts like that, I think starting with a 3rd grade grammar text is more useful. If a child is struggling with 1st or 2nd grade grammar, I would not recommend skipping it and moving on to 3rd grade grammar in 2nd grade. That'd be silly. The OP did not say her son was struggling. Quite the opposite.

[FairProspects]

She said this:

 

I also used info from her previous posts that suggest that her child is a bit accelerated or at least capable of being accelerated. So my answer is, yes FLL3 is ok for a 2nd grader. That's what she asked. Her child is asking for FLL everyday because he's enjoying it, and she said that he has asked to move on when they go too slow. That tells me that he's ready to move on.

 

I'm not at all saying that anyone specifically should go faster. I just said that she CAN go faster if that's what would be meeting her child's pace. Grammar is naturally overtaught because it repeats itself every year. You're not missing anything by skipping 1st and 2nd grade grammar. It's all taught yet again in 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. Everything that was taught in FLL1 and FLL2 is retaught (as if it were new) in FLL3. Using FLL one year ahead does not prevent you from overteaching. :)

 

The fact is, 1st and 2nd grade grammar (all programs that I've seen) is very, very simple. So if a child is able to understand more abstract concepts like that, I think starting with a 3rd grade grammar text is more useful. If a child is struggling with 1st or 2nd grade grammar, I would not recommend skipping it and moving on to 3rd grade grammar in 2nd grade. That'd be silly. The OP did not say her son was struggling. Quite the opposite.

 

This is just not my week for people understanding or agreeing with me. Ah well, some weeks are like that. Even in Australia. :D

 

The bolded doesn't make me feel any better either. What is that supposed to mean for someone on track? That we or our dc are simple and silly? That's kind of harsh.

 

Ack, Boscopup! This is just where I start to see our personalities (and probably career choices) differ. I don't see anything as black and white. I'd rather ds do something way, way too easy for him in 5 different rainbow colored ways than move on. I just want to take advantage of all the creative ways and projects to learn!

 

But you are making me re-think math. I think you can lean too far either way and my approach is probably just frustrating ds in math, when he gets it wants to move on already. So, see good can come out of having your philosophy challenged :)!

 

(sorry for the hijack OP, but I'm assuming you have at least a couple of pages of answers to help :))

[Miss Tick]

I'm glad to see this post because we are running on a similar track, probably starting FLL 3 in or just after we start 2nd grade and I was starting to wonder if that would work.

 

We're going to stick with FLL3 this year, do MCT Island next year, then make a decision for after that later.

Boscopup - I really like reading your posts as you are about a year ahead and using similar curriculum (and have thought out your reasons why). I will be looking into MCT Island!

 

I think that interspersing a year of another program would make sense. It seems like a good way to add depth without trying to juggle multiple, overlapping curricula in one year (which intimidates me). I'm thinking I will do a similar thing in math. Since we don't take a long break from math and LA in the summer, we are getting ahead in both.

[boscopup]

The bolded doesn't make me feel any better either. What is that supposed to mean for someone on track? That we or our dc are simple and silly? That's kind of harsh.

 

I apologize. That does sound bad, doesn't it? What I mean is... It is simple for a child that has already made the leap to abstract concepts. It is simple as far as grammar goes. Just like counting is simple for math. Simple is AGE APPOPRIATE for 1st and 2nd grade when it comes to grammar, just like simple counting is age appropriate for a 4-5 year old in math. For a child that has moved beyond those levels, simple can often equal boring. That doesn't mean that the kids that are on track are "simple". They're supposed to be doing simple stuff at that age. It's the kid that's beyond that that is the weird one. ;)

 

Ack, Boscopup! This is just where I start to see our personalities (and probably career choices) differ. I don't see anything as black and white. I'd rather ds do something way, way too easy for him in 5 different rainbow colored ways than move on. I just want to take advantage of all the creative ways and projects to learn!

You see, I grew up doing the easy stuff, and because I wasn't challenged, I had a hard time learning to work hard. I hardly ever had to work at academics. It was just easy. I want my son to know how to work hard, and to do that, I must find material that actually challenges him. If he already knows 1+1 every which way you can learn it (because he figured it out years ago), there's no sense in continuing that way just because that's what a child of a certain age "is supposed to do". It's time to move on and put 1+1 to use. Make sense? That doesn't mean you skip foundational concepts! You still make sure the foundation is laid. But an accelerated child is typically capable of understanding things faster than average, and that's how they're able to accelerate while still learning the foundational steps. Otherwise, you end up with a very bored child.

 

And again, I'm not advocating skipping foundational grammar steps! I've used FLL1, 2, and 3 now, and the SAME STUFF is in each one. FLL3 just moves faster and is thus able to add more depth to it. So yes, I am going deeper. Because of the spiral nature of grammar (repeating itself each year), I'm able to do that by just going to the 3rd grade program where it starts to get a bit more advanced (in the realm of grammar). I do think grammar is important, and I do want it to become automatic so that when my son starts writing his own compositions, he won't have to think about the grammatical concepts. They'll already be ingrained. We'll also be hitting grammar from multiple sides by doing FLL one year, MCT another year, plus we use WWE and discuss grammar in that context, etc. So we are essentially doing what you suggest - overlearning and hitting it from all sides. :)

 

:grouphug:

[FairProspects]

I apologize. That does sound bad, doesn't it? What I mean is... It is simple for a child that has already made the leap to abstract concepts. It is simple as far as grammar goes. Just like counting is simple for math. Simple is AGE APPOPRIATE for 1st and 2nd grade when it comes to grammar, just like simple counting is age appropriate for a 4-5 year old in math. For a child that has moved beyond those levels, simple can often equal boring. That doesn't mean that the kids that are on track are "simple". They're supposed to be doing simple stuff at that age. It's the kid that's beyond that that is the weird one. ;)

 

You see, I grew up doing the easy stuff, and because I wasn't challenged, I had a hard time learning to work hard. I hardly ever had to work at academics. It was just easy. I want my son to know how to work hard, and to do that, I must find material that actually challenges him.

 

 

Thank you for the apology. I knew you must not mean it that way from our other conversations. :grouphug:

 

The interesting thing to me is I had the opposite experience growing up. I was in private schools and with such creative, interesting people who were so incredibly intelligent that we were always challenged by each other no matter the topic because the group took it further and deeper. Many of these people work in the White House, or on the faculty of Ivy Leagues & medical schools now ;). I just can't see education being boring because there are so many cool things to do and talk about with others, but that was probably also a result of my experiences growing up. Of course, my experience also created my disdain for our local public schools. I forget that in homeschooling it can be a different animal and different accommodations or accelerations may be needed.

[SorrelZG]

This is just not my week for people understanding or agreeing with me. Ah well, some weeks are like that. Even in Australia. :D

 

The bolded doesn't make me feel any better either. What is that supposed to mean for someone on track? That we or our dc are simple and silly? That's kind of harsh.

 

Ack, Boscopup! This is just where I start to see our personalities (and probably career choices) differ. I don't see anything as black and white. I'd rather ds do something way, way too easy for him in 5 different rainbow colored ways than move on. I just want to take advantage of all the creative ways and projects to learn!

 

But you are making me re-think math. I think you can lean too far either way and my approach is probably just frustrating ds in math, when he gets it wants to move on already. So, see good can come out of having your philosophy challenged :)!

 

(sorry for the hijack OP, but I'm assuming you have at least a couple of pages of answers to help :))

 

For what it's worth, it didn't come across as demeaning to me. Simple doesn't equal silly - silly is a class of it's own. :biggrinjester:

 

I get both philosophies, especially yours with math. I can see (literally and regularly) that being frustrating to a child also (I have one that wants to move forward but doesn't really know as well or as much as he thinks he does, however, trying to "over learn" with him ends up with me seeing yellow - You know, the color of school buses?). On the other end of things, I don't want to keep my child in an intellectual holding pattern more often than not. That was the story of my education and it made me lazy. This may seem sacreligious but I don't want my child graduating 12th grade and earning scholarships with thoughtless ease. I want him to find his personal ceiling for achievement. Hope that makes sense. My point is really that I see the value in both approaches and how both can go very wrong if not in proper balance for the individual child.

 

 

eta. I was typing slow with lots of character issue related distractions going on around me while y'all were kissing and making up. :)

Edited September 8, 2011 by SCGS

[Five More Minutes]

I like what I see in MCT and think it will be a good fit for this child, front loading the grammar, then using the grammar the rest of the time. I like how it intertwines poetry and vocab with the grammar and writing. I think it's something we will both enjoy doing.

 

Plus sometimes it's good to have a bit of "and now for something completely different." :D

 

We could have done it this year, but I didn't convince myself to do it until we'd already gotten started, and I don't think I can sneak a purchase that large past DH after I already said I was done buying curriculum for the year. :tongue_smilie: It's ok though. I think we'll get more out of it when his physical writing ability is increased.

 

Thanks so much for sharing this. MCT is very tempting ... but like you, the price is going to hold me back for this year at least ... :001_smile:

[Aloha2U]

I should've also added that I do believe FLL 3 is right on target for 2nd grade. Maybe because it's what we're doing? :D That being said, we did end up finishing FLL 2 half way through 1st grade. I was most curious about Shurley English and I had Level 1 on hand, though Level 2 would've been more desirable, so we finished out the year and part of the summer with it. I'm glad we were able to experience SE before we started FLL 3, because the jingles and the question and answer flow for classifying/parsing sentences are definitely carrying through and being usefully applied to FLL3 and MCT that we're doing this year. We've pulled the good from both FLL2 and SE and I'm very glad of it. Perhaps this may be an option for you and your little man?

 

BTW, are you still doing SWR? FLL is certainly a nice complement to SWR - or at least I think so. :)

[Satori]

Hmmm... I don't want to add to the tension here, but I say go for it! (FLL3 in 2nd grade) We flew through FLL1/2, as we did several lessons at once. FLL3 seems to be right on target for us right nwo and we are just doing one lesson a day, 2 times a week, and that seems perfect.

 

We have become quite the grammar geeks, and also do GWG3 3x/week and MCT Island which we just started in a relaxed manner early this summer. Sometimes we even do EPGY LAW, but that might be overkill at the moment, hehe.

[Guest]

Oh my. So this is what I miss when I busy myself teaching a co-op class!

 

Just for some clarification - I do appreciate everyone's angle; it always helps me think through ideas fully. So, I do thank everyone for their input. As boscopup mentioned, my ds does work at a somewhat accelerated pace. Because of a lot of pressure from this forum, we have slowed down so much, but there are many days and times when I really feel like I'm holding him back.

 

The answers have been extremely helpful here, and I don't wish to make anything muddier, so thanks again. :)

 

and Melissa - yes! We are using SWR and it is going SO great. I am LOVING it. So glad we stuck with it.