Logic of English will I like it if I hated AAS

[prissygirls]

So my 10 and 9 year old have some major spelling issues. They take after their mother. We tried AAS and just hated it. I thought it moved so slow. I also did not like that it has a million different levels. I started them at level 1 and we never made it through. Would I like LOE better or is it more of the same?

[Chelli]

I HATED AAS and we are currently using LOE Foundations right now. And I like it about 1,000 times better. No moving parts, simple, fun, and it covers a LOT more in one book than AAS did. I am seriously tempted to move on to Essentials when we finish, but I haven't decided for sure yet. It's very, very tempting though.

[MyLittleBears]

I also disliked AAS. We did use both, and I prefer LOE by far. It is similar in that it teaches the phonograms and rules, but is definitely not more of the same. It moves at a good pace for typical learners and helped improve my older ds spelling tremendously. It moved way to fast for my dyslexic though, and AAS was not a good fit for him either, because it not an explicit OG program. It was at least, not explicit enough for severe dyslexia.

[blondchen]

I haven't used AAS but I just started LOE Essentials for spelling and I can already tell that it's simply organized and gets the job done efficiently. I think it would be perfect for your DC, based on their ages and the pace you want. The lesson layout allows for easily extracting the spelling portion if you don't want to use the grammar stuff.

[Mhorai]

For those of you using LOE (which I'd somehow never heard of right now) what about it do you prefer to AAS or AAR? I have a 6 year old that I'll be homeschooling (for the first time) starting in the fall. I liked that AAS was more scripted and seems very much based on the phonics rules. I've just looked at the LOE website and it only seems to have detailing on the LOE Foundations level A with no link to a student workbook sample. Am I missing something?

 

Thanks!

[blondchen]

I liked that AAS was more scripted and seems very much based on the phonics rules.

 

 

LOE is a detailed, phonics/rules-based program, and is very scripted. I've never used AAS, so I can't compare them, but I love how LOE analyzes spelling words. The lessons are very open-and-go. Great format.

 

I've just looked at the LOE website and it only seems to have detailing on the LOE Foundations level A with no link to a student workbook sample. Am I missing something?

 

 

Here is the link to the Foundations A page. On the right you'll find a bunch of sample lessons:

 

http://http://www.lo...dations/level-a

 

Edited to add: FWIW, I use Essentials, not Foundations, and I'm only using it for spelling. I'm teaching my kids to read with OPGTR and combining it with LOE's spelling portion and using the LOE phonogram cards to supplement OPG.

[Mhorai]

Thank you very much. Do you know where the overlap between Foundations and the LOE program is? It appears that Foundations levels c and d aren't out currently but may be by the fall. I see from your signature you have a 6 year old. Which program did you use with her? My son is already reading at a mid to end of grade 1 level but could really use some help on syllable rules in order to read longer words.

[Soror]

I'm beta testing Foundations w/ dd and started Essentials w/ ds 3 wks ago. I had and tried to use AAS twice w/ ds but like others I didn't like the pieces and it moved WAY too slow for ds.

 

We haven't made it all the way through Foundations- right now we are almost through what will be called Level B (originally it was just going to be 1 program). I wish I could remember details but I believe in the end Foundations will cover most of the phonograms that Essentials does, however at a much slower pace. For example Essentials assumes that the student knows the first 26 phonograms(alphabet) whereas those are covered throughout Level A in Foundations.

 

I do really like both, although I think the lessons in Foundations vary greatly in expectations for output, ranging from pre-K to 2nd grade level - as I said I've not made it all the way through yet) but have found the ramp in expectations to increase much too quickly. I plan to do Level A w/ dd2 perhaps in pre-K as it is a lot of fun but we will see. I have greatly slowed our speed as at first we did a few lessons a day, with her begging for more, then we moved to daily lessons for a good bit, now I find that it goes better to spread it out to 2-4 days per lesson. I had thought we would finish Level B this summer and try to do Level C and maybe D next year but I'm not sure right now. It is hard to say as reading can change so quickly.

 

Ok, that is getting a bit off tangent. I do love the scripting and the quicker pace is perfect for ds(so far anyway). I do like that there isn't a bunch of little pieces, just flash cards, which aren't too much of a hassle. Especially for ds he would be especially annoyed with the tiles at this age. I really like that we are already getting into some meat of the program. If the program continues as it is it will be perfect. I'm feeling a bit leery after the huge ramp up in Foundations though.

[blondchen]

Thank you very much. Do you know where the overlap between Foundations and the LOE program is? It appears that Foundations levels c and d aren't out currently but may be by the fall. I see from your signature you have a 6 year old. Which program did you use with her? My son is already reading at a mid to end of grade 1 level but could really use some help on syllable rules in order to read longer words.

 

 

I am using Essentials with DD6 for spelling only, mainly because she's reading really well and is getting toward the end of OPGTR, which is pretty advanced at the end. So, we just need spelling instruction for her at this point, which will of course improve her reading as she becomes more familiar with the spelling and syllabification rules.

 

I really don't know anything about Foundations, and though I am certain that it's very well done, I'm not sure I would have used it. I am not going the whole hog with LOE, mainly because I agree with SWB's approach of teaching reading, handwriting and spelling as separate skills rather than combining them (as Spalding, SWR and LOE do). My DD is an intuitive child and picked up reading very easily, and would have gone out of her mind if I had bogged down the learning-to-read process with lots of detailed rules and explanations, and even though OPGTR is most definitely a phonics-based program, it doesn't teach the concepts in enough detail for the child to be able to spell correctly. That's fine with me - I love how DD's reading has taken off, and I'm mainly starting spelling now rather than waiting until she's finished with OPG because she's always trying to write stuff down and sound it out herself (which gets hilarious results at times), and she asks me a zillion times a day how to spell words.

 

Anyway, that's my perspective. Language arts is my area of strength, and I'm very happy with the straightforward simplicity of OPGTR for getting my children reading fluently. But since OPGTR doesn't explain phonics rules in detail, even for the parent, I am glad to now have the LOE tools at my disposal if and when they are needed for supplementation - DD4 might process reading differently, and if she has issues with why something is pronounced a certain way (which DD6 generally did not) I'll be able to address that with confidence.

[A home for their hearts]

We've used both. AAS seemed to move to slow, and LOE went to fast. However LOE seems to be a good fit for my dd13 who doesn't struggle with reading but is a horrible speller. What I don't like about LOE is that there isn't enough review in each lesson for my dd13. I don't care for the grammar and the vocabulary development is ok. I wish is was just soley spelling with more review.

 

We also beta tested Foundations. I had high hopes for it for my ds8. Essentials was way over his head, unfortunately, like someone already mentioned, moved too fast for him. The leaps were too big for my ds, and again not enough review.