If you had to pick between R&S LA and Language Lessons for the Very Young...

[asher]

We just started 2nd grade. We're using LLATL Red right now, but I think we need to look at emphasizing the different areas of Language Arts individually. I was looking at the curriculum thread and I saw a lot of recommendations for Rod & Staff LA & I am also drawn to Language Lessons for the Very Young. For those of you who have experiences w. either one of these, what did you like/dislike about the curriculum?

[Peela]

If you're thinking of continuing with the same curriculum, I think you need to realise that they are very, very different, and the difference will grow the longer you use them.

Rod and Staff is a very rigorous and thorough LA program. I never used Grade 2 but I remember R&S basically covering grammar and writing- not copywork and dictation. It is the recommended LA program in TWTM for good reasons- it is an excellent, thorough program (although I dont think TWTM recommends starting R&S with grade 2).

Language Lessons (I presume you mean the Queens books?) are a light, supposedly Charlotte Mason styled program although I think it's far lighter than CM herself would have used (people think she was 'light' but she was still Classical and rigorous by modern standards). It is based on copywork, dictation, very light grammar, some art appreciation and writing exercises- although I havent used the one you mention which I think may be mainly copywork. I have LL books for older kids- and I like them for this particular season, and I add to them. They are too light for me.

 

For 2nd grade, I am not sure it matters, but if you want to continue with the same program, I would check out the later years and see where the programs are coming from, and where they are heading, because they are very different.

[Another Lynn]

Take this with a grain of salt because I haven't used any of the programs you've mentioned.... but if you're wanting to give more attention to the individual subjects (spelling, grammar, writing, ) then I wouldn't think Queen's Lang. Lessons would accomplish this for you - it is just going to be more "general" LA work, (I think). You could add in R&S's grammar, but then you would still need to add in something for spelling.... by the time you did that you might have a lot more work than you want... You could add a spelling book this year and start R&S next year in grade 3 (I think that's when WTM recommends starting it). Also, have you looked at First Language Lessons for the Well Trained Mind? It would be grammar and you could do a lot of it orally without taking a great deal of time.... just a few ideas....

 

Maybe some other LLATL users will chime in with ways to supplement without getting too overwhelming.

[PeterPan]

Have you considered First Language Lessons, by the authors of this board? It's very good. You could go ahead and do FLL1/2 this year (just fly through the gr 1 portion of the book and focus on the gr 2 half) and be on-track to do FLL3 in 3rd. Even if you want to go to R&S later, FLL1/2 is a great preparation and not to be missed, especially that memorization of the defs of terms. It's so gentle but powerful. Check it out! :)

[chiguirre]

We just started 2nd grade. We're using LLATL Red right now, but I think we need to look at emphasizing the different areas of Language Arts individually. I was looking at the curriculum thread and I saw a lot of recommendations for Rod & Staff LA & I am also drawn to Language Lessons for the Very Young. For those of you who have experiences w. either one of these, what did you like/dislike about the curriculum?

 

I have all of these on hand and have used LLATL blue and Queen's Little Ones books. We'll be starting Red at the end of August. If LLATL looks too light, then I'd avoid Queen's because they're IMHO even lighter. OTOH, they're nice to add to other curricula for a CM touch that's open and go. Peela's advice is great!

 

R&S Grammar is not over the top if you do it orally. I would definitely not do it in writing because it would just be torture. R&S does have readers, phonics and spelling as well. They dovetail together and with the Grammar. The downside is that it is a LOT of work, and a lot of busywork. If you have trouble skipping things, this is probably not a good curriculum choice because you can easily burn out yourself and your child.

 

Another option is FLL and Writing With Ease. That wouldn't include reading, phonics or spelling. Depending on your child's reading ability you'd want to get OPGTR and Spelling Workout. If they're reading well, just do spelling. FLL and WWE include memorization, copywork, narration and dictation. This is much more classical than using all of R&S's LA.

 

If you're going to finish Red before switching, you'll be done with reading instruction so you'll only need to practice reading with real books. If you're going to switch now you will need to concentrate on finishing up phonics and fluency building in addition to an introduction to grammar.

 

If you just want to beef up Red in a particular area, I'd do that. IMHO, Red won't take up so much time that you can't add to it without burnout. Spelling is usually a problem, so you can add in SWO or ETC (it's phonics, but it reinforces spelling too). If grammar is your major concern, I'd add in R&S orally. The lessons look like they'd take about 10 to 15 minutes to do and there are 160 lessons/reviews. If you want more copywork/narration, I'd look at WWE. This is also a 4 day a week, 10 to 15 minutes, time commitment. It could stand alone or you could add in FLL which is also not too time consuming.

 

Good luck finding what you're looking for!

[Ellie]

Take this with a grain of salt because I haven't used any of the programs you've mentioned.... but if you're wanting to give more attention to the individual subjects (spelling, grammar, writing, ) then I wouldn't think Queen's Lang. Lessons would accomplish this for you - it is just going to be more "general" LA work, (I think). You could add in R&S's grammar, but then you would still need to add in something for spelling.... by the time you did that you might have a lot more work than you want... You could add a spelling book this year and start R&S next year in grade 3 (I think that's when WTM recommends starting it).

 

GMTA.:D

 

"Language arts" includes grammar, composition, spelling, and reading/literature. LLATL covers it all, so to replace it completely would require Preparing to Build, Spelling by Sound and Structure, and Stories About God's People (which means 2 readers plus 8 workbooks plus 2 teacher manuals).

 

With such a young dc, wouldn't LLATL be sufficient?

[asher]

Thanks for your replies. :) I see I'm getting ahead of myself. I just went through the rest of LLATL and now see how thorough it is in the grammar department. :tongue_smilie: I guess part of my worry is the spelling, although I guess that's for another thread. Do any of you supplement spelling w. LLATL?

[chiguirre]

I haven't gotten there yet, but spelling is the one area LLATL tends to flop in. You can add a spelling workbook like SWO or do weekly lists from a program like Spelling Power (or a whole bunch of other stuff).

 

For Red, I'm planning to use ETC 4,5 and 6 too for extra phonics/spelling. The last exercise in ETC is writing words from memory so it sort of combines spelling with phonics. ETC takes about 10 minutes a day to do 2 worksheets so it's not a huge time commitment. My kids like the silly drawings so they don't complain about the work.

[asher]

Aha! Good to know. That I can totally do. :) Thanks, Julianna.

[Cindy in Indy]

We started R&S English in 4th grade, which gave more time K-3 for general language arts - mastering reading, doing narrations, practicing handwriting, copywork, etc. My dc would not have been able to do much more for LA than that at K-3rd ages. (I think we used Cyndy Shearer's English for the Thoughtful Child back then, but FLL has superceded ETC).

 

4th grade was a perfect starting age for us to do grammar, composition, and all the things R&S teaches so well. So if you like LLATL (or want to use Language Lessons for the very young), I would use it until 4th grade, then switch to R&S. BTW, I like teaching spelling in a gentle way at the young ages, correcting missed words in their own writing. I find spelling begins to straighten itself out as reading becomes fluent - then "rules" can be learned as needed for trouble spots.

 

That's my $.02 worth;),

Cindy

[asher]

Thanks, Cindy, that's something to consider. :)