Rod and Staff English 3rd Grade

[nena3927]

I'm thinking of starting Rod and Staff English with my 3rd grade dd and 4th grade ds. They both did Abeka LA last year. Do you think it would work to put both in the 3rd grade book? My younger dd is more advanced and my son is average or a little below. I've read that a lot of people start a level behind because it is more advanced and only goes to grade 9/10. I think they would both be able to start in book 3 by looking at online samples but just wanted to get some advice first from ones who have actually used it! 

 

The only thing that makes me hesitate about combining would be the fact that the two don't usually work very well together. My older son tends to become frustrated that his younger sister picks up things easier than him and it causes tensions and tears. I thought about starting my dd in the grade 2 book but it really feels like it would be below her to do that. I don't know. What would you do? Thanks for your insight! 

[SilverMoon]

Fwiw, using the books a grade behind isn't usually until middle grades. Like 5th-6th and up.

Your last paragraph would keep me from putting them both in the same book. I've been there. It's not worth it. :001_smile: He'll adjust to sister passing him, but a daily reminder right there in his face won't help. It sounds like he's the one that most needs the thoroughness of R&S. I'd put them in 3 and 4 respectively, or else put the whippersnapper in a different grammar book altogether.

[nixpix5]

Did she do both A beka 1 and 2? My daughter is using R&S 2 right now as a 2nd grader waiting to begin BJU 3 in 3rd. She only did A beka 1 and because 2 is so repetitive she didn't need that, we skipped it. RS 2 is quite easy for her. She did FLL 1 though as well and is also doing ELTL 2. If your DD hasn't had any formal grammar then you could go with 2 but be prepared that the first unit in particular (first 25 lessons will feel repetitive).

 

Here's the thing though, if she did A beka 1 and 2 then many people move into BJU English for 3rd. I have R&S 3 and BJU English 3 on my shelf. I did a topic by topic comparison and they are identical except BJU 3 is slightly more challenging overall. That is a really hard call. If you feel moving her up and your DS back will effect him then you may just want to go with 2. A little repetition doesn't hurt.

[nena3927]

Did she do both A beka 1 and 2? My daughter is using R&S 2 right now as a 2nd grader waiting to begin BJU 3 in 3rd. She only did A beka 1 and because 2 is so repetitive she didn't need that, we skipped it. RS 2 is quite easy for her. She did FLL 1 though as well and is also doing ELTL 2. If your DD hasn't had any formal grammar then you could go with 2 but be prepared that the first unit in particular (first 25 lessons will feel repetitive).

 

Here's the thing though, if she did A beka 1 and 2 then many people move into BJU English for 3rd. I have R&S 3 and BJU English 3 on my shelf. I did a topic by topic comparison and they are identical except BJU 3 is slightly more challenging overall. That is a really hard call. If you feel moving her up and your DS back will effect him then you may just want to go with 2. A little repetition doesn't hurt.

 

My dd only used Abeka LA 2. We actually have BJU English 3 that she is working on as a backup until I figure out what I want to do with Rod & Staff. BJU moves kinda fast with introducing new topics daily and only reviewing at the end of each chapter. I do know there is more review in the TM though. Today she learned 6 capitalization rules and tomorrow is another topic adding more rules . I would like her to have a few more days to process those six rules before adding more. She is extremely bright but we do still prefer more mastery style with frequent review. MUS works great here bc of that. 

 

There is absolutely NO WAY my son could do BJU with a new topic daily. That's where I was hoping Rod and Staff would come in with more repetition. I could always leave my dd in BJU and place my ds in R&S but my plan was to move them both to R&S eventually. It's my first year having 3 in school plus a toddler into everything, so my brain isn't working well and my plans are all fumbled! 

[nixpix5]

My dd only used Abeka LA 2. We actually have BJU English 3 that she is working on as a backup until I figure out what I want to do with Rod & Staff. BJU moves kinda fast with introducing new topics daily and only reviewing at the end of each chapter. I do know there is more review in the TM though. Today she learned 6 capitalization rules and tomorrow is another topic adding more rules . I would like her to have a few more days to process those six rules before adding more. She is extremely bright but we do still prefer more mastery style with frequent review. MUS works great here bc of that.

 

There is absolutely NO WAY my son could do BJU with a new topic daily. That's where I was hoping Rod and Staff would come in with more repetition. I could always leave my dd in BJU and place my ds in R&S but my plan was to move them both to R&S eventually. It's my first year having 3 in school plus a toddler into everything, so my brain isn't working well and my plans are all fumbled!

Yep, that is why I say BJU 3 is more challenging. Due to its ambitious attempt to fit in ALOT it moves really fast. Even though RS 2 has some repetition, I think you would find that it feels like an easier pace. RS 3 may still feel a bit faster but it also has more practice for sure. It's a great curriculum and my daughter is enjoying 2 alot. Edited August 29, 2017 by nixpix5

[Ellie]

I'm thinking of starting Rod and Staff English with my 3rd grade dd and 4th grade ds. They both did Abeka LA last year. Do you think it would work to put both in the 3rd grade book? My younger dd is more advanced and my son is average or a little below. I've read that a lot of people start a level behind because it is more advanced and only goes to grade 9/10. I think they would both be able to start in book 3 by looking at online samples but just wanted to get some advice first from ones who have actually used it! 

 

The only thing that makes me hesitate about combining would be the fact that the two don't usually work very well together. My older son tends to become frustrated that his younger sister picks up things easier than him and it causes tensions and tears. I thought about starting my dd in the grade 2 book but it really feels like it would be below her to do that. I don't know. What would you do? Thanks for your insight! 

 

If they did ABeka last year, I would have both do their Official Grade Level English, especially as you say they don't work well together. So, Beginning Wisely for your dd, and Building With Diligence for your ds. And I would have them do all of their work on actual notebook paper, rather than doing much of it orally. You can spend some warm fuzzy face time with one child and assign the seatwork, then spend some warm fuzzy face time with the other and assign the work. 

[nena3927]

My older ds needs more instruction on writing and that is another reason I thought starting him one grade lower in R&S would be feasible. Would the 4th grade book give as much help with composing sentences? That's one complaint I have with Abeka LA bc it doesn't seem to teach HOW to write a good paragraph it just says, "Write good sentences with details". Even with the TM, I felt my son wasn't taught much on sentence writing last year in Abeka 3. My dd could do fine with whatever but he needs more hand holding and I'd prefer not to have to use a separate writing program at this point. I have my eye on IEW for the future, but not for this year anyways.

 

Is there enough writing instruction in R&S? I've read some reviews that say there is and others that say there isn't. I am really hoping there is and I won't have to supplement.

[nixpix5]

My older ds needs more instruction on writing and that is another reason I thought starting him one grade lower in R&S would be feasible. Would the 4th grade book give as much help with composing sentences? That's one complaint I have with Abeka LA bc it doesn't seem to teach HOW to write a good paragraph it just says, "Write good sentences with details". Even with the TM, I felt my son wasn't taught much on sentence writing last year in Abeka 3. My dd could do fine with whatever but he needs more hand holding and I'd prefer not to have to use a separate writing program at this point. I have my eye on IEW for the future, but not for this year anyways.

 

Is there enough writing instruction in R&S? I've read some reviews that say there is and others that say there isn't. I am really hoping there is and I won't have to supplement.

I adore Abeka phonics but I thoroughly dislike A beka writing instruction and refuse to use it. I use a combo to teach writing. I use WWE components across the curriculum since it is easy to implement plus they get more copywork in SYS plus I use BJU in 3rd and RS in 2nd.

 

In Rod and Staff 2 unit one it does teach basics of sentences and then kicks off into a bunch of grammar until unit 5 when you start talking about what a paragraph is, sentence order, etc. The way they teach grammar definitely gets kids' heads around how a sentence should sound and the building blocks that make a good sentence. It is pretty fabulous.

 

Rod and Staff 3 builds on sentence teachings by spending most of unit 1 working on them along with dictionary skills, and using proper capitalization, punctuation, quotations, apostrophes and so forth. Unit 2 hits nouns and pronouns hard, and 3 spends time on verbs. Each unit is 25 lessons so if you do it daily you will get through a unit in about 5 weeks give or take. It continues to be intense focus of grammar until unit 5 where the writing piece comes in. This focuses on parts of a letter, describing things, poetry, describing steps etc.

 

So to answer your question, yes, it does teach writing but it isn't necessarily the main goal of atleast the early years (and I haven't seen past RS 4) and it spends most of the year on elements of grammar. That doesn't mean you couldn't flip to Unit 5 and work there. If also doesn't mean that all of that grammar focus doesn't build intuitive writing sense. I believe it can and does. It is just more indirect.

 

If you want to work on sentences Kilgallon is a good one, EIW is a friendly light grammar and writing curriculum, IEW of course...there are so many options. I think BJU 3 is superior in its basic writing instruction. If it moves too fast maybe camping out on a topic for a bit and pulling in other resources would work.

 

Writing is a beast. I am a math/science person so teaching writing is not my forte. I think that is why I love classical writing curriculum the most because it makes intuitive sense and provides me order and sequence :)

Edited August 30, 2017 by nixpix5

[Ellie]

My older ds needs more instruction on writing and that is another reason I thought starting him one grade lower in R&S would be feasible. Would the 4th grade book give as much help with composing sentences? That's one complaint I have with Abeka LA bc it doesn't seem to teach HOW to write a good paragraph it just says, "Write good sentences with details". Even with the TM, I felt my son wasn't taught much on sentence writing last year in Abeka 3. My dd could do fine with whatever but he needs more hand holding and I'd prefer not to have to use a separate writing program at this point. I have my eye on IEW for the future, but not for this year anyways.

 

Is there enough writing instruction in R&S? I've read some reviews that say there is and others that say there isn't. I am really hoping there is and I won't have to supplement.

 

Yes, there's enough writing, *especially* if you require your children to do all of their assignments in writing, not just the ones which are labeled "writing." Because everything counts as writing. IT is not exciting, but it is enough. Have you seen the scope and sequence? and samples? Oh, yes, there's enough writing. :-)

[Mrs Twain]

I would recommend that your children be at grade level with R&S English for the grammar component.

 

As for your writing question, that is a more complicated topic.