Jump to content

Menu

About to curly up in a cozy chair with my new LOE manual!


Recommended Posts

 

The manual looked so expensive to me on the website, but when I could see it in person and see how MUCH was in it, and see how well this program is organized, well then it seemed completely worth it to me. :001_smile:

 

 

I had the exact same reaction. We love it here! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lori- Is LOE mostly spelling then? What do you plan to use for grammar after LOE? Is the grammar in LOE basic? I guess what I'm asking is, will there be a need for additional grammar after LOE? I also wonder about grammar needed after PR? I'm not sure if more is needed or not, especially if one will be studying Latin.

 

First, I agree with you on having many programs and ideas to choose from, if one has the funds to do that. Every program I have looked at over the years has added to my "tool kit" and knowledge even if I didn't specifically USE that program.

 

I personally have every intention of doing Rod and Staff English for grammar, because I want my children to learn diagramming. I don't know how much of LOE grammar we will use, because I know that is where I am headed. I am completely tempted to use the LOE grammar as written. It looks so simple in the way it has been integrated. In other words, I don't know what I am doing:tongue_smilie:.

 

This is just my opinion having looked through the manual and not having actually used any of it yet (which may make this worth zero), but it looks to me (from my background as a teacher and reading specialist, not from any experience with the program) to be a very complete and quite comprehensive grammar program. The student learns all the parts of speech, practices identifying them in sentences, and uses this knowledge practically in the composition section of the lesson. Denise also has extra practice activies, games, and work suggestions provided. Also, in some lessons, a challenge section expands on that particular grammar piece. I am not a grammar expert. I'd feel more comfortable giving an opinion if I had worked this program (or ANY program) with my own children first. I have learned so much more working intensively with my own children than I ever learned in a classroom setting.

Edited by lorisuewho
Link to post
Share on other sites
I But, when people are investing money they don't have, to transition from a finished curriculum that is WORKING to an unfinished curriculum, it's concerning.

 

 

I think this is an important point. I'm a big babywearing advocate, and I felt the same way in that area. Yes, that carrier someone else owns may be totally awesome, but if you don't have the money for it and what you have is already working, why would you spend even one more second thinking about the newest thing? If a $20 piece of cloth is getting the job done, don't buy a $250 carrier, especially if you have to beg, borrow, and steal to afford it.

 

Those who are familiar with LOE in some depth-- would it be overkill for a child who is a natural speller and who can pick up the spelling rules easily?

 

I have How to Teach Spelling and the corresponding workbooks, "How to Spell", which gives a pretty solid base in rule-based spelling. However, I'll be honest that I am tempted by LOE. I like the extended list of words based on each spelling word, and having the grammar right there in the lesson makes me think I'll get it done more efficiently. But still, it's at a much steeper price than going through the "How to Spell" workbooks.

 

I don't know the answer to your first question.

 

I do know that I bought How to Teach Spelling and the How to Spell workbooks and they look great! It isn't a very parent-friendly, hand-holding program, but it does look thorough. I won't be selling that curriculum off any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First, I agree with you on having many programs and ideas to choose from, if one has the funds to do that. Every program I have looked at over the years has added to my "tool kit" and knowledge even if I didn't specifically USE that program.

 

I personally have every intention of doing Rod and Staff English for grammar, because I want my children to learn diagramming. I don't know how much of LOE grammar we will use, because I know that is where I am headed. I am completely tempted to use the LOE grammar as written. It looks so simple in the way it has been integrated. In other words, I don't know what I am doing:tongue_smilie:.

 

This is just my opinion having looked through the manual and not having actually used any of it yet (which may make this worth zero), but it looks to me (from my background as a teacher and reading specialist, not from any experience with the program) to be a very complete and quite comprehensive grammar program. The student learns all the parts of speech, practices identifying them in sentences, and uses this knowledge practically in the composition section of the lesson. Denise also has extra practice activies, games, and work suggestions provided. Also, in some lessons, a challenge section expands on that particular grammar piece. I am not a grammar expert. I'd feel more comfortable giving an opinion if I had worked this program (or ANY program) with my own children first. I have learned so much more working intensively with my own children than I ever learned in a classroom setting.

 

Thank you Lori. I appreciate your input. I haven't looked at all the levels of PR closely. I do have levels 1-3 here. I know she teaches diagramming, but I've always wondered if I would need to add more grammar after we completed PR. Since LOE/SWR are similar to PR, I thought I'd ask what others' plans may be concerning grammar after completing a program like this. Thanks again. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I have no intention to switch to LOE and abandon PR. I just think in the long run PR is going to cover a lot more but it's not just spelling. I still will most likely buy LOE at some point in the future. I'd love to have it for a slightly different perspective. I have other children coming up, and I'm not sure that PR will work for one of them, she's very different. I also have AAS levels 1 and 2 and 2 levels of AAR. I like having a lot of OG type programs to draw ideas from.

 

Lori- Is LOE mostly spelling then? What do you plan to use for grammar after LOE? Is the grammar in LOE basic? I guess what I'm asking is, will there be a need for additional grammar after LOE? I also wonder about grammar needed after PR? I'm not sure if more is needed or not, especially if one will be studying Latin.

 

I don't think LOE includes the literature that PR does. One of the reasons I didn't invest in PR was my fear that the lessons were too integrated into the literature, that I wasn't sure I wanted to do.

 

For those of you wanting diagramming, and have started the lower levels of CGE, do know that CGE covers diagramming extensively, in the upper levels. So much so, that I was quite surprised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you wanting diagramming, and have started the lower levels of CGE, do know that CGE covers diagramming extensively, in the upper levels. So much so, that I was quite surprised.

 

Noooo, I didn't know this!! I am so happy right now!!! :D Why didn't I look at the other levels when I was at convention?? I didn't think to do this. We only own levels 1 and 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Noooo, I didn't know this!! I am so happy right now!!! :D Why didn't I look at the other levels when I was at convention?? I didn't think to do this. We only own levels 1 and 2.

 

Lori, what I did was invest in the two teacher books for 5-6 and 7-8 to get a view of where the curriculum was heading. Then when I saw it was right, I ordered the student workbooks. I was lucky that Rainbow had some damaged copies and I was already putting in an order.

 

This is the first curriculum I ever bought the full set ahead of time. It really helps me to see the whole picture. Because every single lesson is meant to be completed, just viewing one year can be deceiving. They don't repeat every type of lesson every year, forcing you to figure out what to complete and what to skip. So it can look like important composition topics are skipped, when they are not. I can see that at times I might want to redo a composition lesson from an earlier year, when doing a unit study, and certain type of writing is called for.

 

The only R&S book I ever owned was the OLD grade 8 when there was no grades 9-10. I really liked that book. It was the finale. CGE reminds me of the old R&S which I fear has become too updated for me. I adore finale curricula. CGE 5-8 come with handbook appendixes. The grade 7/8 handbook is extremely useful as an adult resource. I have never seen a curriculum that masters letter writing, any better. I recommend this curriculum for the letter writing instructions alone. The 5/6 handbook would be useful as a resource in the younger years. The thesaurus is particularly nice, and could be used in a variety of types of vocabulary lessons.

 

CGE is worthy of putting on a bookshelf as a reference even if you don't use it.

Edited by Hunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunter, what is CGE?

 

Tx

Lisa

 

Lori, what I did was invest in the two teacher books for 5-6 and 7-8 to get a view of where the curriculum was heading. Then when I saw it was right, I ordered the student workbooks. I was lucky that Rainbow had some damaged copies and I was already putting in an order.

 

This is the first curriculum I ever bought the full set ahead of time. It really helps me to see the whole picture. Because every single lesson is meant to be completed, just viewing one year can be deceiving. They don't repeat every type of lesson every year, forcing you to figure out what to complete and what to skip. So it can look like important composition topics are skipped, when they are not. I can see that at times I might want to redo a composition lesson from an earlier year, when doing a unit study, and certain type of writing is called for.

 

The only R&S book I ever owned was the OLD grade 8 when there was no grades 9-10. I really liked that book. It was the finale. CGE reminds me of the old R&S which I fear has become too updated for me. I adore finale curricula. CGE 5-8 come with handbook appendixes. The grade 7/8 handbook is extremely useful as an adult resource. I have never seen a curriculum that masters letter writing, any better. I recommend this curriculum for the letter writing instructions alone. The 5/6 handbook would be useful as a resource in the younger years. The thesaurus is particularly nice, and could be used in a variety of types of vocabulary lessons.

 

CGE is worthy of putting on a bookshelf as a reference even if you don't use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lori, what I did was invest in the two teacher books for 5-6 and 7-8 to get a view of where the curriculum was heading. Then when I saw it was right, I ordered the student workbooks. I was lucky that Rainbow had some damaged copies and I was already putting in an order.

 

This is the first curriculum I ever bought the full set ahead of time. It really helps me to see the whole picture. Because every single lesson is meant to be completed, just viewing one year can be deceiving. They don't repeat every type of lesson every year, forcing you to figure out what to complete and what to skip. So it can look like important composition topics are skipped, when they are not. I can see that at times I might want to redo a composition lesson from an earlier year, when doing a unit study, and certain type of writing is called for.

 

The only R&S book I ever owned was the OLD grade 8 when there was no grades 9-10. I really liked that book. It was the finale. CGE reminds me of the old R&S which I fear has become too updated for me. I adore finale curricula. CGE 5-8 come with handbook appendixes. The grade 7/8 handbook is extremely useful as an adult resource. I have never seen a curriculum that masters letter writing, any better. I recommend this curriculum for the letter writing instructions alone. The 5/6 handbook would be useful as a resource in the younger years. The thesaurus is particularly nice, and could be used in a variety of types of vocabulary lessons.

 

CGE is worthy of putting on a bookshelf as a reference even if you don't use it.

 

Thank you so much for this information. You were wise to get the guides to be able to see where it was going. I will definitely pick them up the next time I go to Clay or place an RR order.

 

I really regret that your review above isn't listed in a thread entitled Climbing to Good English instead of in this LOE thread, because the chances of someone finding it when searching for CGE information is slim buried here.

 

I am really happy about the diagramming too. I planned in my head to do CGE with LOE, and I'm still tickled pink that this might just work out without having to go over to R&S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have grades 4-8 of CGE spread out on the floor.

 

Book reports are covered in grade 4, and then more in depth in 5 and 6. Then book reports are NOT covered again in 7 and 8. There are reports including a biography report, but not a specific book report.

 

Diagramming is simple subject/verb/DO in grade 4. Grades 5 and 5 tackle advanced diagramming. Diagramming is in the HANDBOOK for grades 7 and 8, but there are NO diagramming LESSONS in 7 and 8. I didn't realize that.

 

I noticed topics not covered in grade 4 that were covered in grade 3. That was the first time I realized how much CGE expected a student to master a topic in a grade level, and didn't repeat everything in every grade.

 

I think I'm going to need to scan and print out the handbooks in the back, and the most important composition lessons, to have as a resource. I like the presentation of the lessons very much, but might find that I need to repeat the lessons more often than 36X3 allows.

 

I don't have any of the supplemental worksheets. I'm going to assume they are mostly grammar review and not more composition. It would be interesting to see how much diagramming is in the worksheets. My preference is to do more composition, rather than more diagramming and grammar.

 

It looks like one of use tagged this for CGE. I don't remember doing it, so it must have been you :-) We'll need to tag this thread up.

 

I like that all reports and composition do not include worksheets and graphic organizers. Everything is shown in cursive outline examples, and are meant to be completed on regular notebook paper. It reminds me of Student's of the Word, but better. I really like generic instructions, that are meant to be completed in paragraphs. Often these type of instructions are vague and sloppy, but CGE isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is LOE mostly spelling then? What do you plan to use for grammar after LOE? Is the grammar in LOE basic? I guess what I'm asking is, will there be a need for additional grammar after LOE?

 

Just to add my 2 cents, imho, the grammar in LoE is a basic introduction. It is suitable for a 7-8 year old as a first lesson for each topic, but it doesn't provide a lot of practice, nor does it go in much depth. It is in no way comparable to grammar texts such as R&S, MCT or KISS (all of which I have).

 

So, while you may not need additional grammar while you are doing LoE, you will have to do a separate grammar program after LoE. I personally think a combination of WWE plus a good in-depth grammar program like R&S will be a good follow-on to LoE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
would it be overkill for a child who is a natural speller and who can pick up the spelling rules easily?

 

It probably would, but then, you need to use something to teach the spelling rules and LoE is as good as any.

 

I would say, if you can afford LoE, do get it and work through it in a year and then move on to HTTS.

Apart from the benefits LoE will have on your student, having read the manual and worked through the program will make HTTS easier for you to use in future. In any case, HTTS has quite advanced spelling words, so it will not be made redundant if you do LoE first.

 

If you cannot justify the expense on LoE, you are not going to miss much (except scripted lessons).

 

Hope that helps you make a more informed decision. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have grades 4-8 of CGE spread out on the floor.

 

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I truly appreciate it.

 

It probably would, but then, you need to use something to teach the spelling rules and LoE is as good as any.

 

I would say, if you can afford LoE, do get it and work through it in a year and then move on to HTTS.

Apart from the benefits LoE will have on your student, having read the manual and worked through the program will make HTTS easier for you to use in future. In any case, HTTS has quite advanced spelling words, so it will not be made redundant if you do LoE first.

 

If you cannot justify the expense on LoE, you are not going to miss much (except scripted lessons).

 

Hope that helps you make a more informed decision. :)

 

Thank you for the opinion on HTTS as a follow up to LOE. I have HTTS sitting here and I really like it. I was planning to use it after LOE. However, I haven't actually worked either of the programs so I was unsure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I noticed topics not covered in grade 4 that were covered in grade 3. That was the first time I realized how much CGE expected a student to master a topic in a grade level, and didn't repeat everything in every grade.

 

So, could a student start in the grade 4 book or would there be too much missed to do so?

 

ETA: posted this question in the new thread linked below.

 

It looks like one of use tagged this for CGE. I don't remember doing it, so it must have been you :-) We'll need to tag this thread up.

 

Could we get this started in a new thread? We might get more traffic from others that have used CGE too if the thread title said CGE and not LOE. :001_smile:

Edited by atozmom
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Lori!! I was going to cut and paste and start a new one, but it wasn't by thread so I didn't want to step on any toes. :001_smile:

 

No toes stepped on here!

I don't have time to cut and paste, but if you can, that would be great. Otherwise I'll try to do it later this afternoon.

Thank you for the suggestion to move the discussion part about CGE over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It probably would, but then, you need to use something to teach the spelling rules and LoE is as good as any.

 

I would say, if you can afford LoE, do get it and work through it in a year and then move on to HTTS.

Apart from the benefits LoE will have on your student, having read the manual and worked through the program will make HTTS easier for you to use in future. In any case, HTTS has quite advanced spelling words, so it will not be made redundant if you do LoE first.

 

If you cannot justify the expense on LoE, you are not going to miss much (except scripted lessons).

 

Hope that helps you make a more informed decision. :)

 

I have HTTS, and wasn't able to use HTTS before I seriously understood WRTR and SWR. The cons for HTTS after LOE are still needing to learn new rules instead of being able to apply the ones previously learned on easier words, to new harder words. The phonograms don't match. And there is no alphabetical list of words or glossary that allows easily locating misspelled words.

 

HTTS might be a better follow up, in some ways, but is an even worse option in others, especially not having a reference list. A reference list for misspelled words is very important to me.

 

HTTS is a definite option after LOE though, that I had not thought of. Thanks for the idea! HTTS at least groups words by type and has great dictation lessons. But personally, now that I am using McGuffey's, I already have a better controlled dictation resource. I had recently picked HTTS back up for another look, but discarded it again, when seriously implementing McGuffey's controlled word list, because it's redundant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No toes stepped on here!

I don't have time to cut and paste, but if you can, that would be great. Otherwise I'll try to do it later this afternoon.

Thank you for the suggestion to move the discussion part about CGE over.

 

Cut and pasted to new thread. :001_smile: Hopefully I got it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It probably would, but then, you need to use something to teach the spelling rules and LoE is as good as any.

 

I would say, if you can afford LoE, do get it and work through it in a year and then move on to HTTS.

Apart from the benefits LoE will have on your student, having read the manual and worked through the program will make HTTS easier for you to use in future. In any case, HTTS has quite advanced spelling words, so it will not be made redundant if you do LoE first.

 

If you cannot justify the expense on LoE, you are not going to miss much (except scripted lessons).

 

Hope that helps you make a more informed decision. :)

 

This is helpful to know re: HTTS as a follow up to LOE. I just have to wrap my head around the HTTS manual. It makes me feel really stupid every time I look at it. I have almost resigned myself to just using the workbooks only.

 

I think my problem is that I am a "natural speller" and a very whole-parts learner, so the "whole" of spelling just intuitively makes sense to me. When it is broken down into its "parts" a la Spalding & other programs that go through the phonograms and rules, my head starts to spin. And yet I still want my kids to have that opportunity to learn it parts-whole because they may not be as intuitive in spelling as I was.

 

For some reason LOE is the only one so far that I can just look at and "get".

 

I also have a grammar question about the LOE curriculum: is it insanely repetitive like FLL, or does it teach the concepts and move on? I'm looking for the second :) And does anyone know what level of FLL it would correspond with upon completion?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is helpful to know re: HTTS as a follow up to LOE. I just have to wrap my head around the HTTS manual. It makes me feel really stupid every time I look at it. I have almost resigned myself to just using the workbooks only.

 

I think my problem is that I am a "natural speller" and a very whole-parts learner, so the "whole" of spelling just intuitively makes sense to me. When it is broken down into its "parts" a la Spalding & other programs that go through the phonograms and rules, my head starts to spin. And yet I still want my kids to have that opportunity to learn it parts-whole because they may not be as intuitive in spelling as I was.

 

For some reason LOE is the only one so far that I can just look at and "get".

 

I also have a grammar question about the LOE curriculum: is it insanely repetitive like FLL, or does it teach the concepts and move on? I'm looking for the second :) And does anyone know what level of FLL it would correspond with upon completion?

 

Thanks!

 

I agree, that one can just look at LOE and get it. There isn't the insane reading it through 5 times before the lightbulb goes on.

 

I have only paged through the manual, not used it. The grammar does not look overly repetitive to me. That is why I think it would be a bit much for my kiddos. It looks like it moves at a steady clip. I don't use FLL so I can't compare. I bought the first one, but knew it wasn't going to work for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add my 2 cents, imho, the grammar in LoE is a basic introduction. It is suitable for a 7-8 year old as a first lesson for each topic, but it doesn't provide a lot of practice, nor does it go in much depth. It is in no way comparable to grammar texts such as R&S, MCT or KISS (all of which I have).

 

So, while you may not need additional grammar while you are doing LoE, you will have to do a separate grammar program after LoE. I personally think a combination of WWE plus a good in-depth grammar program like R&S will be a good follow-on to LoE.

 

Thank you. That is exactly what I was wondering. I appreciate you answering my question. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked the grammar questions of the LoE forum and Denise replied saying that there is enough grammar for the age of my dc who are 11 and 12.

 

This is what Denise said.

 

All the parts of speech are taught as well as punctuation and comma rules. Students also begin to learn about clauses. When they finish Essentials you could go on to a program such as Analytical Grammar which will review what they have learned and complete their grammar study.

 

I would strongly urge anyone who has questions to ask them on the LoE forum

Denise is really good about answering people's questions. I've also heard she's good at answering emails and questions by phone. There is so much information on The Logic of English website, I would suggest people peruse that as well.

 

From what I gather, her plans are to hopefully have the primer level out by the end of this year. Then she is going to go to graded levels. She has said that Essentials is the fast track and can be used when anyone. If you child is advanced you can speed it up, if you child is struggling or young you can slow it down. After Essentials she says you can use any root word program, plus continue to add in your own spelling.

 

For what it is worth, I have HTTS and my kids and I hate it! It's not very user friendly and I didn't feel that my dc were really retenting much information.

 

HTH!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked the grammar questions of the LoE forum and Denise replied saying that there is enough grammar for the age of my dc who are 11 and 12.

 

This is what Denise said.

 

 

 

I would strongly urge anyone who has questions to ask them on the LoE forum

Denise is really good about answering people's questions. I've also heard she's good at answering emails and questions by phone. There is so much information on The Logic of English website, I would suggest people peruse that as well.

 

From what I gather, her plans are to hopefully have the primer level out by the end of this year. Then she is going to go to graded levels. She has said that Essentials is the fast track and can be used when anyone. If you child is advanced you can speed it up, if you child is struggling or young you can slow it down. After Essentials she says you can use any root word program, plus continue to add in your own spelling.

 

For what it is worth, I have HTTS and my kids and I hate it! It's not very user friendly and I didn't feel that my dc were really retenting much information.

 

HTH!

 

What is "enough" grammar is a VERY controversial topic, with many different opinions. Vintage and Plain and classical textbooks are far more advanced than the topics you are listing. For children that are/were done with grammar/schooling at 14, and are/were taught diagramming, are going to need more than that.

 

I personally don't push grammar as hard, as some here do. So I am not in disagreement that LOE is "enough" grammar for any age.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is "enough" grammar is a VERY controversial topic, with many different opinions. Vintage and Plain and classical textbooks are far more advanced than the topics you are listing. For children that are/were done with grammar/schooling at 14, and are/were taught diagramming, are going to need more than that.

 

I personally don't push grammar as hard, as some here do. So I am not in disagreement that LOE is "enough" grammar for any age.

 

That's true, maybe 'enough' wasn't the right term. She also suggests using another grammar program once Essentials is completed. I'm not familiar with Analytical Grammar to know if diagramming is covered or not. It really just depends on what you really want for grammar. For some people, ;) the grammar in Essentials will be all they need, for others they may want to supplement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For what it is worth, I have HTTS and my kids and I hate it! It's not very user friendly and I didn't feel that my dc were really retenting much information.

 

HTH!

 

Well that is disappointing. It looks so promising to me. Maybe if I do LOE first, and they already know the phonograms and most of the rules, it will just be further application.

 

I need to go search for Spelling Wisdom threads, because what I really want to move towards is dictation after LOE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I was going to go with HTTS, but I think I'm going to try SWR again.

 

My reasons are:

 

The alpha list is affordable for students as a reference spelling dictionary for misspelled words.

 

The spelling flashcards give a visual of the spelling rules.

 

The Wise List comes with companion CDs that a student can use to independently drill spelling words.

 

The Wise List is numbered, so I can pencil in numbers next to the words in the McGuffey's Word List.

 

I already have the SWR phonogram flashcards and the HTTS cards are expensive and quite different.

 

And I decided to use the Cursive First font and it goes with SWR, but really, that isn't logical. But I know that is a contributing factor :-0 I've learned in my post trauma therapy that everything I do, doesn't need to be logical or "right", so...I'm just sitting with this little weird reason.

 

HTTS was a strong contender and I can't say that I won't switch up AGAIN and try it AGAIN. It has its strengths. I like it's focus on the spelling rules instead of the markings, and it's grouping of similar words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...