CLE Math vs. Rod & Staff

[kagmypts]

I purchased Rod & Staff 4 Math for my daughter. I thought that this was the program for us, but once it arrived, I found myself having doubts. As I looked through the book, I kept wishing that it had more "meat" to it. I do love that the material is straightforward and forthright, but I am not sure that it would challenge my daughter. I am now thinking of using CLE. What are your thoughts on these two programs? How do the two compare? Thank you!

 

ETA - If I do switch to CLE, is there a good place to find it used? Does anyone other than CLP carry CLE math new? Thanks again!

[SilverMoon]

Maybe she needs the 5 book instead?

 

Differences... R&S is mastery, a textbook, and each lesson has a review section for old concepts. The TE has an optional oral quiz on past concepts, a scripted plan for teaching the new lesson, tips for common misunderstandings, and a full answer key. The student text has instruction in it also. Depending on the kid it could be done independently.

 

I haven't used CLE. It's spiral, workbook based, and doesn't appear to have as much teacher support. Since they're workbooks you're not likely to find them used.

[kagmypts]

Maybe she needs the 5 book instead?

 

Differences... R&S is mastery, a textbook, and each lesson has a review section for old concepts. The TE has an optional oral quiz on past concepts, a scripted plan for teaching the new lesson, tips for common misunderstandings, and a full answer key. The student text has instruction in it also. Depending on the kid it could be done independently.

 

I haven't used CLE. It's spiral, workbook based, and doesn't appear to have as much teacher support. Since they're workbooks you're not likely to find them used.

 

 

Did you mind if I ask if you have used R&S 4 with your child(ren)? Do you feel like they learned a lot over the course of a year? It could be my ignorance that is making the material appear "flat" to me. It just seems that there is not a lot of new material as the year progresses... learning 1-3 multiplication facts, then 4-6, and then 1 digit times 2 digits.... and finally 3 digits times 3 digits. My daughter has mastered (for the most part) her multiplication facts, and it just seems that working up to multiplying 3 digits by 3 digits should not take 160 lessons. I understand that other material is also presented in those 160 lessons, but I feel as if I am missing something or really oversimplying what she would be learning. I thought about looking at R&S 5, but I definitely can see that there are parts of R&S 4 she needs to learn (I was also hoping for more work with fractions). I may end up sticking with R&S, but rather than using the 4th grade book for the entire year, I may move to R&S 5 after a semester (or when she shows mastery).

[SilverMoon]

4 and 5 are the only R&S math sets I don't currently own. :ph34r: I've used every other level with at least one kid though. I did notice strong growth with them when they were appropriately placed. My younger ones had times they were ready to move faster than the book, but I think they would have done this with any math book. One is naturally "mathy" and the other gets bored in any subject when the challenge level doesn't stay firmly pressing on her skills. I condensed lessons and reduced work volume so they wouldn't get redundant for that particular child and season. When they moved far enough ahead the challenge level was stronger they slowed back down. (My older kids started R&S with the 6 book.)

 

It does sound like you'll need to speed 4 up a bit. In your situation I'd use the chapter reviews as placement guides. If she does great on one skip the whole chapter. If she only flops a section or two it will tell you which lessons those concepts are from and you can just do those. Obviously if she flops it she ought to slow down and work through the whole chapter.

[Mom0012]

I used R&S with my son. He did the 1st through 5th grade books and part of 6th after doing RIghtstart for a year and a half. It was a great fit for him and just what he needed. R&S 4 is actually where R&S makes a huge leap and begins to align more closely to other math programs. Once we began the 6th grade book, I spent a lot of time looking at the scope and sequence of R&S through the 8th grade book and felt that he was going to learn very little new material. My dd had been using CLE successfully, so I had him switch at that point. This is a child with lds, so I had him go into the 5th level of CLE instead of just starting him in the 6th. He's now in CLE 8.

 

I still think R&S is a good program and have heard many people say their children had no trouble going right into algebra after level 7 or 8. The things that drew me to CLE for my son were: 1) I felt the last levels of R&S were going to be too repetitive; 2) CLE introduces a lot of algebra and geometry concepts early on and continues to review them (I came to a point where I could see being introduced to these concepts gradually over time would really benefit him and this was the biggest factor in my decision); and 3) the workbook format was a huge draw since writing is so difficult for him.

 

His IOWA scores skyrocketed after we switched to CLE.

 

Hope that helps some.

 

ETA: Depending on your child, it might be worth doing the fractions portion of R&S 4. My son got a much stronger foundation in this area with R&S than my dd did with CLE. I didn't realize this until I saw she was confused over multiplying and dividing fractions in CLE 5. For her, it was just a matter of spending a little extra time working on this. For my son, it would have been disaster. I think so much depends on the child.

[Mommy22alyns]

You're highly unlikely to find CLE used. CLP is the only place I know of to buy it. Teacher support is fine in CLE - the texts make it easy, but the teacher notes give you extra boardwork on new concepts and some tips to help students.

 

I have not used R&S math, but CLE has worked so very well here.