We're jumping into grammar in 7th grade... which level of Saxon/Hake?

[RedHouse]

I have been woefully inadequate in the grammar department. We've gone over the very basic basics but not much else. My focus has just been elsewhere, but I suddenly realized I have an almost 12 year old on my hands!

 

I have been looking at R&S, CLE and Hake, and I think Hake's will be the best fit for her. I can't find a placement test anywhere for it though. I am looking for recommendations on which level to place her in. After looking at the table of contents for levels 5-7, it seems like each level covers the same topics. Is there enough review built in to just start her in 7? Can anyone who has used the program speak to this?

 

Thanks!

[EKS]

Ideally, I'd use Grammar Town for 8 weeks to give an overview then I'd dive into Hake 7.

[redsquirrel]

I would start in year 5 and just keep going. Hake only runs to 8th grade. With no grammar so far, she is going to need a couple years under her belt to be proficient, so just start with 5th grade and keep going for 3 years.

[Violet Crown]

[Caution: extreme minority view]

 

If I were starting grammar with a 12-year-old, I'd be tempted to go straight to a linguistics-based grammar text, such as Wardhaugh's Understanding English Grammar, or Borjars' Introducing English Grammar.

[Rasa]

I am using Hake 5 grammar with my 8-year-old (after four levels of FLL.) It is just the right level for him. I would think that Hake 5 may be a bit too slow / easy / repetitive for a 7-th grader. You could send an e-mail to Hake publishers and ask for a recommendation for your specific needs. They are very responsive.

[JudoMom]

I think you can jump into Hake at grade level without issue.

[MorningGlory]

I've read that Hake 5-6 are very similar to each other and that Hake 7-8 are also very similar to each other. I can't personally vouch for that, but I'm using that tidbit to plan my son's Hake use. Since I only have time for 2 of the years (like you), I am having him complete Hake 6 and then skip to Hake 8.

 

For what it's worth, my son had had very little grammar instruction prior to Hake 6. He is about 1/2 way through it and has had absolutely no trouble. Because of its spiral/review nature, it is a great program to jump into.

 

HTH!

[morningcoffee]

[Caution: extreme minority view]

 

If I were starting grammar with a 12-year-old, I'd be tempted to go straight to a linguistics-based grammar text, such as Wardhaugh's Understanding English Grammar, or Borjars' Introducing English Grammar.

 

wow... this is interesting! Can you explain the reasoning behind this suggestion? (I don't even really know what a linguistics-based textbook is :blushing: )

[Mom0012]

I would start in year 5 and just keep going. Hake only runs to 8th grade. With no grammar so far, she is going to need a couple years under her belt to be proficient, so just start with 5th grade and keep going for 3 years.

I think this is a very good point. Sure, Hake 5 and 6 are very similar and so are 7 and 8. Many grammar programs cover similar material each year and then just add on a bit. But, if your child hasn't had much grammar, you might not want to jump too far ahead, simply so that there are more books for you to use in the future. SWB recommends doing grammar throughout high school. Once my son finishes Hake 8 this coming year, I will buy at least one more student text, and have him do it 2 days a week for review and stretch it over 9th and 10th grade. My dd used Hake 5 this last year and she is taking 2 languages, including Latin, so I feel I can go a little lighter on the grammar. I'm considering spreading Hake 6 over 2 years for her. Of course, if your child picks up the concepts super quick, applies them to their writing and retains them easily, then maybe you won't need as much grammar.

[Violet Crown]

wow... this is interesting! Can you explain the reasoning behind this suggestion? (I don't even really know what a linguistics-based textbook is :blushing: )

 

Right, real linguists here please forgive me, as I'm self-taught and am certainly about to embarrass myself....

 

The study of grammar for the past century has been the study of the rules underlying spoken language: that is, the rules internalized by native speakers of a language. This field is part of linguistics.

 

Traditional English grammar also focuses on rules of the English language, but "rules" not in the sense of rules that are necessarily discoverable by examining how native speakers actually speak and understand language. Rather, these rules are a mixture of fairly arbitrary categorization (e.g. "the 8 parts of speech"), structural requirements derived from Latin as well as English, the features of privileged local dialects (chiefly London area and Northeast U.S.), usage and stylistic advice, and conventions of written English (e.g. punctuation).

 

The most obvious feature of traditional grammar as taught to children is the determination of a "part of speech" primarily or solely through analysis of the meaning of the word. In modern grammar, lexical and grammatical categories (roughly, parts of speech and features of those parts of speech, such as tense or number) are analyzed chiefly through an analysis of the structure of the words, phrases, and sentences (inflection and distribution).

 

As a crude example, in traditional grammar, a noun is initially defined as "a person, place, or thing"; in a linguistic study of grammar, a noun might be defined as a word that can replace X in the sentences "I want the X," or "He has some X," or "X is fun," and except for mass nouns, can be made plural, usually with the signal -s.

 

Sometimes these approaches are described as "descriptive" versus "prescriptive" grammar. This isn't really an accurate description, though. Linguistics-based grammar is prescriptive when used to teach non-native speakers; and recognition that Standard English is just one dialect among others doesn't mean that it can't, or shouldn't, be taught to pupils.

 

Traditional grammar seems to work well enough at the lower grades, with the kind of artificial sentences found in grammar books. But as a student becomes more advanced, the arbitrary categories and "rules" that aren't actually the rules people use start to break down (there was a thread recently in which we saw the disaster that ensued when the MCT curriculum tried to analyze a sentence with a modal in it). At this point, a pupil who has learned grammar through a linguistic approach will find the going much smoother. And if one isn't starting grammar until the teen years anyhow, I vote for just getting a modern grammar textbook and avoiding the whole traditional grammar mess.

 

YMMV.

[RedHouse]

Lots of good info here, thanks!

 

I did email Saxon, and got a response from the author, Mary Hake. She says, "We recommend that capable students, those who read at grade level, begin the Grammar and Writing program at grade level because each level reviews all the basic concepts. However, we recommend that 8th graders who are new to the program start with the 7th grade book to give them two years in the program."