katlew82 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Hi I was wondering how First Language Lessons holds up against Rod & Staff English? We are using FLL 1&2 right now (2nd grader), but I'm thinking about using something next year that has more of a biblical worldview... Just wondering what people's opinions are about these--- And also is there Christian curriculum out there that is set up to follow the trivium? I kind of like pulling from different places but it might be nice to just have a full curriculum that all goes together--- or not?? We're new to homeschooling this year (2nd and kinder, plus a 3 yr, 2 yr, and 7 month old) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chepyl Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 We are enjoying R&S this year. It is super easy to teach. We do most of it orally. As DS gets older, we will start writing more of it. Level 2 is very repetitive, bit I am doing it with my 6 to and it is not too much. It seems perfect for his learning style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boscopup Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Both are thorough programs. R&S includes writing. FLL does not (I prefer the WWE approach to writing anyway, though R&S's writing is age appropriate). I have used R&S 2 and 3, plus FLL1, 2, and 3. Looking at the TOC between them, FLL has more in depth grammar at levels 2 and 3 compared to R&S at the same levels. FLL also has poetry and narration, along with picture study (levels 1 and 2 only). R&S has a poem at the end of each unit, but it's nothing you've likely heard of. :tongue_smilie: I tried R&S 2 in 1st grade, and it was way too slow for DS. It spent 6 weeks learning sentence vs. phrase. He picked that up in one lesson. FLL2 varies the topics each time and doesn't spend that long on one topic (FLL1 has 45 lessons on common vs. proper nouns, but even that has other lessons interspersed between them). We tried R&S 3 in 2nd grade. It was much better than 2. The topics varied from day to day a bit, but still had a central theme. They started diagramming at lesson 6, but the diagramming remains very easy for a while and it became too repetitive for us. DS was ready for more complex diagrams, and we were still diagramming just the simple or compound subject and predicate - no adjectives, articles, etc. FLL3, OTOH, in the same time period has not yet done compound subjects/predicates, but it has introduced adjectives (including articles) and adverbs to the diagram. IIRC, R&S3 doesn't even diagram adverbs? I think that's in R&S4. We switched to FLL3 because I was still having to combine lessons in R&S3 when the same topic was taught over more than one lesson, and it was a topic that didn't require more than one lesson for my son to understand. Both programs do dictionary usage and how to write a friendly letter in level 3. I can't remember about FLL2 (we only did half of 2 - my son really needed a 3rd grade grammar program, where it starts to get interesting and have some meat to it). My FLL2 is loaned out at the moment. Also, I had some Biblical issues with R&S 2. The way it talked, it sounded like you were sinning if you made an incomplete sentence, and it used verses out of context to say why you should use grammar the way they're teaching. I found it odd. R&S 3 didn't seem to have those issues. If I were to use R&S again, I'd definitely skip R&S 2 altogether and just start with 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlsdMama Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 We started Rod & Staff in the days of old, before FLL existed. ;) Then, when FLL was released I bought it for DS. My PREFERENCE is FLL. But I will tell you I *just* received Rod & Staff grammar in the mail yesterday. Why go back? Simple. I felt that FLL required more hand holding. At the end of the day I must be training them into a little more independence. By the fourth grade I want to be able to teach grammar and walk away. It wasn't happening with FLL and I'm now paying for using teacher intensive materials with my oldest DS. Your family size resembles ours a bit. ;) I don't always choose the *best* material or the most popular.... With more experience under my belt now, I find myself choosing elementary materials based on how well they suit my long term goals. The most important (to me) is raising children and adults who are self motivated and independent doers. HTH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boscopup Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 At the end of the day I must be training them into a little more independence. By the fourth grade I want to be able to teach grammar and walk away. It wasn't happening with FLL and I'm now paying for using teacher intensive materials with my oldest DS. This is a good point. FLL3 and 4 are both still teacher intensive. I believe the second book of ALL (6th grade) is supposed to be independent? I have a 2nd grader now, and well, he's not ready to be independent in grammar yet. So FLL is a better choice for us right now. I have him learning independence via other subjects, such as history/science. That may change when I have 3 in school, of course! One nice thing about FLL and R&S both is that you can pretty much go between the two of them without missing anything, since they both review everything each year, and they have somewhat similar scope and sequence. So if you use FLL in the early years and change to R&S to get more independence later, that's fine too. :) R&S really wasn't independent for my son - too much poking and prodding required to get him to write that much, even when assigning only some of the exercises. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Governess Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 IIRC, R&S3 doesn't even diagram adverbs? I think that's in R&S4. We switched to FLL3 because I was still having to combine lessons in R&S3 when the same topic was taught over more than one lesson, and it was a topic that didn't require more than one lesson for my son to understand. I am using R&S3 right now, it does have the student diagram adverbs but you don't start until almost the end of the program. I wish that more of the parts of speech were introduced up front, rather than spending a whole half year (or more) on sentences, nouns, and verbs before adjectives and adverbs are even introduced. I have been skipping around and changing the scope and sequence a bit as I use it. Other than this minor complaint, I think it is a solid program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALB Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I have used R&S 2 and 3, plus FLL1, 2, and 3. Looking at the TOC between them, FLL has more in depth grammar at levels 2 and 3 compared to R&S at the same levels. FLL also has poetry and narration, along with picture study (levels 1 and 2 only). R&S has a poem at the end of each unit, but it's nothing you've likely heard of. :tongue_smilie: I tried R&S 2 in 1st grade, and it was way too slow for DS. It spent 6 weeks learning sentence vs. phrase. He picked that up in one lesson. FLL2 varies the topics each time and doesn't spend that long on one topic (FLL1 has 45 lessons on common vs. proper nouns, but even that has other lessons interspersed between them). We tried R&S 3 in 2nd grade. It was much better than 2. The topics varied from day to day a bit, but still had a central theme. They started diagramming at lesson 6, but the diagramming remains very easy for a while and it became too repetitive for us. DS was ready for more complex diagrams, and we were still diagramming just the simple or compound subject and predicate - no adjectives, articles, etc. FLL3, OTOH, in the same time period has not yet done compound subjects/predicates, but it has introduced adjectives (including articles) and adverbs to the diagram. IIRC, R&S3 doesn't even diagram adverbs? I think that's in R&S4. We switched to FLL3 because I was still having to combine lessons in R&S3 when the same topic was taught over more than one lesson, and it was a topic that didn't require more than one lesson for my son to understand. Thank you so much for this detailed review! This is very helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to share your comparison. Angela Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I have used both and will likely use FLL with my younger three. I feel it is clearer in explaining concepts, has much less writing, and does not insult the child's intelligence. I feel the teacher should be involved with grammar through Grammar Stage. I have learned it is much better use of my time to teach and solve the questions as they arise than to find out the child did the entire lesson wrong because he did not understand to begin with. We found R&S 2-6 rather distracting with all the religious references and condescending to those not of their faith. Some of the examples and exercises assumed the child was famailar with stories even I had not heard of. We found it to be wordy in explaining concepts and too much practice for concepts. The writing lessons did not have the feel of building on themselves leaving us wondering where we were going from level to level. All said, I feel FLL/WWE to be a clearer choice for my family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warneral Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Regarding R&S - does it do the repetitive definitions? I am appreciating the memorization of the parts of speech that FLL provides. This is the age to memorize such information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOrchidSong Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I used FLL 1/2 combo for my younger son and he didn't like it much. I switched to R&S 2 after we were done with FLL 1/2. He is a happier kid. He loves to do R&S English first thing every day. He likes the fact that he can see the book and do the writing part. I am reviewing what we already covered in FLL by doing only every 5th lesson in R&S 2 so that we can get to the part that he hasn't mastered yet, i. e. adjectives and adverbs. Then we will do the dictionary skill one lesson a day. I am not in a hurry to start R&S 3 . We will finish R&S 2 in three or four months and then go on to R&S 3. If I had another child to teach, I would start with R&S 2, as I did with my older son. It all depends on what works for your children and your teaching style. My older son has used R&S 2, 3, and half of 4 now. He never complains about it and I feel things are going very smoothly using this English program. I teach the lesson and the oral part, and then he is free to do his written part. It is a very good amount of teaching and independent work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Regarding R&S - does it do the repetitive definitions? I am appreciating the memorization of the parts of speech that FLL provides. This is the age to memorize such information. Nope. But my older two can repeat the pronouns and helping verbs years later from the few weeks of FLL 3. It really just depends on your style and your child which you go with. Both do an excellent job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.