Rod & Staff placement

[Roseto27]

So, we've used abeka for language art from K5 on. I loved it though 2nd grade, and my sons have fantastic foundations. However, it's past time for something new. Over the past two years I've been supplementing and substituting and I just want to get rid of it altogether.

My first priority is rigor, so I'm looking at R&S (for grammar only) for my rising fifth grader. Should we just jump right in at the 5th book? I see some moms recommend starting with book 3, but haven't seen much by way of explanation along with those recommendations. I would love to hear opinions on placement level and, more generally, whether this will truly be our best option for grammar.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Roseto27

[Ellie]

Because they've been doing ABeka, they should have no trouble with Following the Plan.

 

The recommendation to start at a lower level is usually for children who have not been doing a formal, structured English up to that point.

 

However, if you only want grammar, then I wouldn't recommend R&S English, because it's more than just grammar. Have you looked at Analytical Grammar?

[Roseto27]

Thank you.

 

I am planning to use it for primarily the grammar sections, as the other portions of language arts are covered with other curricula. I thought I'd just skip over the writing assignments that I didn't feel would benefit his education. We may do an occasional composition lesson to see how skills from his primary writing instruction are generalizing, though. Does this sound feasible or would you still recommend Analytical Grammar over R&S?

[SilverMoon]

An average fifth grader with no previous grammar instruction could start in Rod and Staff English 5, in my opinion. It starts at the beginning with nouns and verbs and builds up from there.

 

 

FWIW, we've used R&S and skipped many of the actual composition lessons. It doesn't affect the flow of the lessons at all. There will occasionally be a question in the review that they haven't been exposed to as a result, but the answers are mostly common sense. Like a paragraph needs to have unity, sort of thing.

[Ellie]

Thank you.

 

I am planning to use it for primarily the grammar sections, as the other portions of language arts are covered with other curricula. I thought I'd just skip over the writing assignments that I didn't feel would benefit his education. We may do an occasional composition lesson to see how skills from his primary writing instruction are generalizing, though. Does this sound feasible or would you still recommend Analytical Grammar over R&S?

 

If you are wanting to simplify things, then Analytical Grammar. It's easier than deciding what to skip and what not to skip. :-)

[JudoMom]

If you are wanting to simplify things, then Analytical Grammar. It's easier than deciding what to skip and what not to skip. :-)

The writing exercises are marked as such in R&S, so it's extremely easy to skip them.

[Ellie]

The writing exercises are marked as such in R&S, so it's extremely easy to skip them.

 

Although this is true, there are other things than grammar and writing. And in the writing lessons are things like friendly letters, which the OP would have to decide whether or not to do, and she was wanting to simplify. So for simplicity's sake, if she only wants grammar, then my recommendation would be Analytical Grammar (although I'm assuming she'd prefer that over my *true* favorite, Easy Grammar, because AG has diagramming and EG does not, and R&S does diagramming).

[JudoMom]

Although this is true, there are other things than grammar and writing. And in the writing lessons are things like friendly letters, which the OP would have to decide whether or not to do, and she was wanting to simplify. So for simplicity's sake, if she only wants grammar, then my recommendation would be Analytical Grammar (although I'm assuming she'd prefer that over my *true* favorite, Easy Grammar, because AG has diagramming and EG does not, and R&S does diagramming).

 

What do you consider to be not grammar and not writing?  I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just confused.  Everything that isn't a writing lesson I would consider grammar (except for the last chapter that typically includes a handful of lessons on how to use reference materials).

 

OP, you'd be fine jumping into level 5.  If you are looking for a rigorous and thorough grammar program, R&S is exactly that :).

[Ellie]

What do you consider to be not grammar and not writing?  I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just confused.  Everything that isn't a writing lesson I would consider grammar (except for the last chapter that typically includes a handful of lessons on how to use reference materials).

 

OP, you'd be fine jumping into level 5.  If you are looking for a rigorous and thorough grammar program, R&S is exactly that :).

 

From R&S's scope and sequence for Following the Plan:

 

Oral Communication: Speaking; giving directions (previous years included giving explanations, conversations, book reports, telling stories; Progressing With Courage, 6th grade, extends previous skills)

 

Words: archaic; figurative

 

Using Helps: concordance; Bible dictionary (previous years included dictionary usage; 6th grade extends previous skills).

 

Also, much of the grammar instruction (including punctuation and capitalization) leads up to the writing assignment. And it does a pretty good job of teaching children how to take notes, outlining, and so on.