CLE vs Rod and Staff (in general, as curricula)

[dessertbloom]

After searching the forums extensively, here is what I've come up with:

 

-both are Mennonite

-both are generally solid academic programs, especially for English and math,

-both are more get'er done, traditional schoolish, written for 1 room school houses  

-Both seem to work well for bigger families and encourage independence in the kids from fairly early on (ie, less teacher intensive).  

 

-CLE is workbook based, whereas R&S is more textbook based after a certain grade level

-CLE is generally spiral in approach, whereas R&S is mastery

-CLE Learn to Read may be more phonics based, whereas R&S Phonics and Reading has more sight words (It looks like you may need to do both the phonics and reading programs together for both curricula as they are kind of tied together) 

-Lots of people seem to not use the spelling that is incorporated in CLE's English, whereas R&S's SSS seems to be pretty popular even for otherwise non-R&S users

-CLE goes through grade 12 (with the oldest grades in the first edition?), whereas R&S goes through grade 10 (but what they cover in those 10 years is more equivalent to PS grades 1-12?)

 

Do I have all this right so far? What other differences are there? Any pros or cons to either program? Has anyone used both and really preferred one over the other? (I guess this depends a lot on kids responding better to spiral or mastery, text or workbook...)  I'm particularly looking at LA and Math, and we'll probably stick with MFW for everything else (or something that will keep the whole family on the same page for content subjects.)   We really need less teacher intensive, open and go, get it done with our team of close-in-age littles. (Just found out we're expecting number 5 in December!)  :) 

[lorisuewho]

Excellent description for a non-user!  Good research!

 

I've used portions of both math and liked them both.  I liked them for different reasons for different children. 

 

I've used portions of both language arts.  You don't have to use CLE Language arts AND their reading.  They stand alone, particularly after the learn to read series. However, CLE spelling, writing, and grammar are all in the Language Arts book, although you could choose to skip part if you didn't want it all. 

Rod and Staff English, spelling, and reading also each stand alone and are in different books.

[Ellie]

After searching the forums extensively, here is what I've come up with:

 

-both are Mennonite

-both are generally solid academic programs, especially for English and math,

-both are more get'er done, traditional schoolish, written for 1 room school houses  

-Both seem to work well for bigger families and encourage independence in the kids from fairly early on (ie, less teacher intensive).  

 

-CLE is workbook based, whereas R&S is more textbook based after a certain grade level

-CLE is generally spiral in approach, whereas R&S is mastery

-CLE Learn to Read may be more phonics based, whereas R&S Phonics and Reading has more sight words (It looks like you may need to do both the phonics and reading programs together for both curricula as they are kind of tied together) 

-Lots of people seem to not use the spelling that is incorporated in CLE's English, whereas R&S's SSS seems to be pretty popular even for otherwise non-R&S users

-CLE goes through grade 12 (with the oldest grades in the first edition?), whereas R&S goes through grade 10 (but what they cover in those 10 years is more equivalent to PS grades 1-12?)

 

Do I have all this right so far? What other differences are there? Any pros or cons to either program? Has anyone used both and really preferred one over the other? (I guess this depends a lot on kids responding better to spiral or mastery, text or workbook...)  I'm particularly looking at LA and Math, and we'll probably stick with MFW for everything else (or something that will keep the whole family on the same page for content subjects.)   We really need less teacher intensive, open and go, get it done with our team of close-in-age littles. (Just found out we're expecting number 5 in December!)   :)

 

Looks good. :-)

 

I don't ever get hung up on spiral vs mastery.

 

Most textbook publishers have separate series for the components of English, so grammar/comp, spelling/vocabulary, penmanship, reading/literature (including beginning reading instruction). It is only the publishers like Alpha Omega, ACE, and CLE that bundle everything together (well, AO more than the other two). It is why it people would tend to use Spelling by Sound and Structure when they aren't using Building Christian English, instead of using CLE for only spelling.

 

I love R&S's arithmetic/math series. The first three years require someone to actually teach the lessons; there is no instruction in the student materials. This is a good thing. There *should* be some things that must be taught. The scripted lessons are in the very excellent teacher manuals, and take, oh, 10 or 15 minutes to teach; then you send the children off to do their assignments.

 

R&S's 10th grade English textbooks are heavy, heavy, heavy! Yes, they are absolutely high school level grammar/comp.

 

[SilverMoon]

I've used gobs of R&S over the years, mostly just the English, spelling, and math, with a sprinkling of other random materials. I've only glanced at CLE.

 

From my observations I would add that R&S has better TMs and the answers are included. If you're unsure of the material and/or teaching they'll hold your hand every step of the way. Most of them have scripted instructions for teaching new concepts, and beyond the early years those scripted plans are optional if you'd rather not.  English and math have optional oral/whiteboard quizzes. Spelling has test sentences and teaching tips. Occasionally common misunderstandings are pointed out.

 

Price-wise I think they are similar upfront, but if you have more than one kid R&S will be less expensive in the long run. My youngest has every grammar book he'll ever need already in the cupboard, and I can get every spelling workbook he'll need for less than $30. If he sticks with their math I'd only have to buy student books for the youngest levels.

 

I have other pros, but they're mostly just different versions of reusable textbooks vs consumable workbooks.

[OneStepAtATime]

I've used gobs of R&S over the years, mostly just the English, spelling, and math, with a sprinkling of other random materials. I've only glanced at CLE.

 

From my observations I would add that R&S has better TMs and the answers are included. If you're unsure of the material and/or teaching they'll hold your hand every step of the way. Most of them have scripted instructions for teaching new concepts, and beyond the early years those scripted plans are optional if you'd rather not.  English and math have optional oral/whiteboard quizzes. Spelling has test sentences and teaching tips. Occasionally common misunderstandings are pointed out.

 

Price-wise I think they are similar upfront, but if you have more than one kid R&S will be less expensive in the long run. My youngest has every grammar book he'll ever need already in the cupboard, and I can get every spelling workbook he'll need for less than $30. If he sticks with their math I'd only have to buy student books for the youngest levels.

 

I have other pros, but they're mostly just different versions of reusable textbooks vs consumable workbooks.

SilverMoon as some good points regarding R&S but I wanted to point out that CLE also has very good TMs that include additional targeted worksheets, explanations, dry erase board suggestions, alternate tests, etc. and the answers are included, as well as the explanations.  The CLE TMs are easy to use.

[OneStepAtATime]

By the way, OP, unless your siggie has not been updated in a while it seems you have a 6 year old, a 4.5 year old, a 3 year old, a 12 month old and another on the way.

 

I am uncertain how hands off you are hoping either of these programs will be so maybe I am misunderstanding your post but I would like to encourage you NOT to be hands off with your children at those ages, especially for core skills like reading and math.  Although CLE (which I am more familiar with) is pretty independent, it is NOT independent for a 6 year old.  They usually need a parent teaching the lesson and working with them on understanding and retention.  I can see why you need an independent program but kids that age usually need a lot of instruction/support/immediate feedback.  That doesn't mean they can't do parts of the lesson independently but they still need you to teach the lesson and give feedback, the sooner the better, before misunderstandings or bad habits become ingrained and harder to correct.  

[SilverMoon]

R&S is very teacher dependent in the early years too, because there's really just no other way learn the skills needed to be an independent worker. In the case of math the teacher would use the scripting as a guide to review/cement previous skills and introduce new ones. The concepts are covered in the TM for at least two days before they make it to a student workpage. After this teaching session the child can complete the workpage independently at your elbow though, because you've already taught them how to do it.

 

FWIW, we found the history/geography to be very, very dry and did not hold my kids' interest. The science doesn't really look any better.

[dessertbloom]

By the way, OP, unless your siggie has not been updated in a while it seems you have a 6 year old, a 4.5 year old, a 3 year old, a 12 month old and another on the way.

 

I am uncertain how hands off you are hoping either of these programs will be so maybe I am misunderstanding your post but I would like to encourage you NOT to be hands off with your children at those ages, especially for core skills like reading and math.  Although CLE (which I am more familiar with) is pretty independent, it is NOT independent for a 6 year old.  They usually need a parent teaching the lesson and working with them on understanding and retention.  I can see why you need an independent program but kids that age usually need a lot of instruction/support/immediate feedback.  That doesn't mean they can't do parts of the lesson independently but they still need you to teach the lesson and give feedback, the sooner the better, before misunderstandings or bad habits become ingrained and harder to correct.  

Sorry, I should have clarified.. I don't plan to be hands off at all in the early years. I'm just thinking down the road. I'd rather not curriculum hop, if possible, and I'd like to stick with a curriculum that will help them develop more confidence and independence in their learning as they get older and more capable. And even later, of course I wouldn't be totally hands off. In the early years, definitely they need to be taught, but some curricula are still more teacher intensive than others in what regards prep work, bells and whistles, etc. I meant more in comparing curricula as a whole (over the span of the different ages and stages). Thanks!

[dessertbloom]

Thanks, everyone, I am hoping to see these two in person at our up coming convention. Hopefully that will help. It is definitely a good point about only having to buy the textbooks once, (and minimal workbooks in the early years) with R&S. I think mine would like the feeling of accomplishing the LU's, but it would add up over time. I remember once reading around here that someone said they use Singapore and just have the bindings removed, punch the pages, put them in a binder, and pull out the pages to be used with a page protector. Nice money saving idea, but is there a benefit in being to go back through their work later? Would that work with LU's, or maybe not so much...?  

[SilverMoon]

Thanks, everyone, I am hoping to see these two in person at our up coming convention. Hopefully that will help. It is definitely a good point about only having to buy the textbooks once, (and minimal workbooks in the early years) with R&S. I think mine would like the feeling of accomplishing the LU's, but it would add up over time. I remember once reading around here that someone said they use Singapore and just have the bindings removed, punch the pages, put them in a binder, and pull out the pages to be used with a page protector. Nice money saving idea, but is there a benefit in being to go back through their work later? Would that work with LU's, or maybe not so much...?  

 

1) I'm not convinced it's worth saving the cost of another inexpensive workbook compared to the nuisance of the cost of a zillion dry erase markers (littles leave caps off all. the. time.), all those sleeves, and the extra amount of work that involves.

 

2) While keeping everyone in the same curricula seems ideal when they're all little, the reality is that doesn't usually work longterm. My oldest two were/are polar opposites. What worked for one simply didn't work for the other. Like this level :banghead: of d.o.e.s. n.o.t. w.o.r.k. You'd think by the time I'd got them both to high school all the little ones would have it made. Surely something from that collection would work for the next ones down? Well, the real books did. Some bits and pieces did. But every kid came with their own unique wiring. My fifth kid is using math books none of the older kids did, and my sixth is a philosopher who needs a different approach than the one I thought I perfected on the others. I will say I used/plan to use R&S spelling with all of them, and older ones have all completed at least a couple levels of R&S English even if they didn't stay with it.

 

Keep an eye to the future, absolutely. Just remember to teach the amazingly unique child in front of you instead of a curriculum or method. :001_smile:

[daybreaking]

I've not used CLE, but I have used R&S extensively, over the course of seven years.  I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE R&S.  We've used many of their subjects and have been extremely pleased with the outcome.  I love the clarity and thoroughness of the TM and have found them very helpful.  I love having everything laid out for me, with minimal prep needed.  I like how there are not a lot of bells and whistles.  It reminds me of an old-fashioned, one-room school house, black and white, no-nonsense type of education. :-) 

 

I like how I can be as involved as I wish.  Because I only have two children, I tend to be very involved with their learning.  However, sometimes life happens and I need them to be more independent.  The way the textbooks are set-up, my children know exactly what to do and their education keeps right on going.  I like how my children are getting a thorough education, with no gaps, and I like how they love to learn.  My children are very different, yet the curriculum works well for both of them.  There have been times I've dabbled in other curricula, thinking it will add something, but each time I've returned to R&S and have found it eventually covers the same material.  If it matters, for quite a few years now, both of my children have received a composite score in the 99th percentile on their standardized testing.  I attribute that to the excellent education they've received through R&S.

Edited June 3, 2016 by daybreaking

[boscopup]

Are you wanting to use R&S/CLE for all subjects? I'll warn you, that would make for a really boring school day. :lol:

 

I've used R&S Phonics and Reading for my struggling reader, which worked great for him. Once he outgrew the need, we dropped it.

I've used R&S Spelling for my older two kids. They did very well with it. It's a strong program. We are currently giving another spelling method a try (studied dictation).

I've used CLE Math and LA for all 3 kids at various times. We recently switched away from it because my kids were getting bored (and not really challenged), but also because they had become TOO independent, and their learning suffered from that (which I tried to not have them as independent, but the kids would do a lesson before I got a chance to go over it with them!). We've moved to more literature-based curricula (except math, of course).

 

At any rate, don't be afraid to change curriculum on occasion. I mean, if you're hopping and hopping and hopping because you think your kids aren't learning... the problem may not be the curriculum. ;) Or if you're hopping because you see something new and shiny and hopping gets them behind, that's not so good either. But if your kids are learning and you decide to make a change at some point because you see a need, it's not the end of the world. Goodness, my oldest did Saxon K-1 (in private school), Math Mammoth 1-4, Singapore 4-5, AoPS Prealgebra, Jacobs Algebra. That's 5 different publishers for math. Guess what? He's really good at math! He has had ZERO problems switching math curricula. I ALWAYS use a placement test. When we changed from MM to Singapore, I even went back half a level (he'd completed MM4A and part of 4B, then went to Singapore 4A). As the teacher, I was able to look at the scope and sequence and determine what my child needed to learn, regardless of the level. He got a full elementary math education and has done very well in algebra this past year. I didn't switch math curricula on a whim, but I noticed what my child needed at the time and made changes based on that. So we switched from Saxon to MM because Saxon was completely boring him and I needed a mastery program to accelerate to where he really was. MM made it very easy to do that, and I didn't have to break the bank going through 3-4 levels in a year. When he settled down in the acceleration department and I noticed that MM was TOO incremental for him, I decided that Singapore would be a better choice at that point. I'm glad we used MM initially, and I'm glad we used Singapore for levels 4-5. It didn't hurt him one bit to make those changes, and in fact I think the changes were good for him. Sometimes, exposing them to different methods can reinforce what they've learned - seeing it in different contexts.

 

I'm currently not planning to use CLE or R&S anytime soon, as I've found things I like better, but that doesn't mean I won't use them again at some point with kid #4. I can't predict what she'll use. She's not even talking yet. ;) I can very much say that each of my kids have had different needs in the early years. One was really good at reading and math but weak on writing. One was really good at math but weak on reading and VERY weak on writing. And the third is strong across the board and Mr. Independent - just a completely different child. So what one child has needed, the next one hasn't necessarily needed the same thing. And then their needs change over time, and I change things based on that. I'm not trying to replicate school at home. I'm trying to educate my children in a way that works well for me and them.

[birchbark]

I used them both (for English) and preferred R&S. However, we did the bulk of the R&S lessons orally, which took maybe 10 min. I became attracted to the idea of independent workbooks, and gave CLE a try, but found that I actually spent more time with it, going over all the work and correcting, then explaining to the student where he went wrong. I realized I was just doing my teaching after the fact, rather than before, and it was taking longer. And my student did NOT like the correcting process.

 

My perspective on elementary grammar instruction has changed since then, but my preference between the two was R&S.

Edited June 4, 2016 by birchbark