Classical writing...do you use a separate grammar

[CactusPair]

program with this writing curriculum or is grammar sufficiently covered in the Aesop level for 3rd grade?

 

I'm worried about not having clear, specific, concrete English grammar instruction.

 

Do you use a separate spelling program, too?

 

I have my grammar and spelling picked out if I need to use those, but I don't want to go overboard if CW covers enough.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm going with CW for writing, but I still need to look at WWE.

 

thanks for any info:)

[Carmen_and_Company]

There's enough grammar in Aesop, but many choose to add a grammar program. With my middle dc, we did not add anything to Aesop. With my youngest, we added in spelling because he needs it.

[Wendy in ME]

We used Writing Tales instead of Aesop and did not add additional grammar. We will be starting Homer A this year and will do the suggested Harvey's with the workbook to keep things simple.

[AllSmiles]

We have continued to work through the Rod & Staff English books while using the Classical Writing books. I appreciate the thoroughness and the systematic approach to grammar these books provide.

 

The Aesop books cover capitalization, punctuation, sentence types, quotations, and parts of speech. I know that there are some here that have found the grammar included in Aesop to be plenty.

 

After Aesop, you must use another grammar program. The Classical Writing books have Harvey's Grammar scheduled. We skip the Harvey Grammar assignments and work through Rod & Staff.

[CactusPair]

Thanks very much for your helpful relies!

[siloam]

Thanks very much for your helpful relies!

 

I am late to the party, but I do a separate grammar and spelling, but love the writing in CW. JAG is just a lot more concrete for me in grammar, my weakest area. SWR I was already using and it works, so why mess with it. :D

 

Heather

 

[Paula in PA]

But dd had other ideas. So we're using GWG 3, dd's pick. We will also be using a separate spelling, AAS 2 & 3, because she needs it. So the word analysis part will be more about vocabulary for us.

[Beth in Central TX]

I'd like to say, "Ditto!" to AllSmiles. I really, really like R&S grammar. It provides a thorough and systematic approach to grammar that I have not seen in any other program. For my youngest son I've decided to use FLL in 1st grade, but I'll switch him to R&S grammar in 2nd grade rather than 3rd grade. I have seen the great results of this program with my older sons and plan to work through R&S grammar 8.

 

I have also seen improvement in my boys' writing with the CW program. We'll continue with this program as long as they continue to publish the higher level books. My older boys are doing Homer B next year, so I'm hopeful that we are far enough behind the production schedule so that they can finish the complete CW program.

[ldee]

I use a seperate grammer and spelling program this year. I have not in the past but the SAT scores just are not too good. After adding these the scores are back to grade level. I do not want to leave holes. I know the scores are not going to be great at times; the schools we are compared to actually teach to the test.

I just want to cover me bases and make sure I don't leave anything out.

Besides, I already knew his spelling was not that great.

[CactusPair]

I appreciate you sharing all your experiences. It's so helpful to hear what works for different people. After musing on it, I think I will go with additional grammar and probably spelling, too.

 

I asked over at Rainbow Resource and they assured me the grammar in CW is sufficient. (I just love RR--they're so nice to me!) For most people, I'm sure it's plenty. But ds and I both need a super-structured, clear, concrete grammar road map.:auto:

 

I don't want to go overboard, but it might be more work for us in the long run if I skip grammar now and have to review and remediate later. I can see us with weak test scores, too, down the road if I don't add the extra English grammar.

 

I'm glad to hear so many people enjoy CW. It does look good. I'm looking forward to trying it.

 

Thank you ladies!:001_smile:

[Jenny in Florida]

. . . that no outside materials are required to teach grammar at this stage, assuming the teacher knows grammar well. They recommend Harvey's grammar texts or the Rod and Staff English Handbook as references for the teacher.

 

We'll be using Galore Park's English Prep 2 alongside CW next year. My plan is to try and tie them togethe by paying special attention in the CW model to whatever concepts are being taught in English Prep that week.

[siloam]

I appreciate you sharing all your experiences. It's so helpful to hear what works for different people. After musing on it, I think I will go with additional grammar and probably spelling, too.

 

I asked over at Rainbow Resource and they assured me the grammar in CW is sufficient. (I just love RR--they're so nice to me!) For most people, I'm sure it's plenty. But ds and I both need a super-structured, clear, concrete grammar road map.:auto:

 

I don't want to go overboard, but it might be more work for us in the long run if I skip grammar now and have to review and remediate later. I can see us with weak test scores, too, down the road if I don't add the extra English grammar.

 

I'm glad to hear so many people enjoy CW. It does look good. I'm looking forward to trying it.

 

Thank you ladies!:001_smile:

 

I have a feeling you won't be disappointed with your decision. The grammar in CW is enough, but it is also a little open ended. It will take a piece of the model, often a good 10 sentences, and have you find all the nouns, for example. Now at this point we had memorized what a noun was with the flash cards, but these are not simple sentences, and of course we underlined all the pronouns at first :blush:, then wondered why they were wrong (after looking at the answers in the TM). Long and short is that after struggling with the grammar in Aesop A which usually meant using the TM to reverse engineer the answer, I decided we needed something a little more basic.

 

Now if you (the teacher) are a grammar nut, or your child has had several years of grammar coming to CW then I think it would work fine to just use the CW grammar. In my case it is my weakest subject and I had avoided it in my dd's early years by using Ruth Beechick (SL) methods, which don't really cover grammar till later years. We were a little lost. :D

 

Heather