Rod & Staff Grammar Questions

[TheAttachedMama]

Hi Everyone,

Can someone help me with placement into Rod & Staff grammar for my rising 5th grader?   Would it be OK to just place him into the grade 5 package?   Also, I am assuming I would need to buy everything listed on this page to teach him grammar, correct?  https://www.milestonebooks.com/item/1-125--/?list=Rod_and_Staff_Grade_5

Finally (boy, I am full of questions)---how can I choose between using Rod & Staff vs. First Language Lessons Grade 4?   (Yes, he is going to be in grade 5, but I am very confused by the teaching recommendations for Grammar for the Well Trained Mind and covering only the first few lessons, etc.).  

 

Background:   He has done Logic of English Essentials for Grammar in 3rd grade, and then he did IEW Fix It last year.   He has never struggled with grammar.  However, all of the definition changes have been a bit confusing to the poor kid, so I would like to pick one thing and stick with it from here until high school.   Other curriculum he is using for "English":   IEW composition, Memoria Press Spelling and Literature,  

 

 

 

Edited June 12 by TheAttachedMama

[Zoo Keeper]

Depending on what he does actually know, grammar wise, you could put him in the R&S 4th or 5th grade book with no shame.  Milestone books does have a placement test on their website that may help with know which book would be best for him... https://www.milestonebooks.com/bin/Placement_Test_English.pdf

FWIW, I've split up the 5th grade book over two years (5th and 6th grade), and everything came out fine in the end.  I switch to vintage Warriner's Grammar and Comp for 7th grade and up.  Not because I think R&S is unworthy, but because I have all the Warriner's books already, and *I* was taught using Warriner's, so I find it easy to pick up and go.  The transition from R&S 5 to Warriner's 7th grade book has been seamless for 5 kids and counting.  Not trying to muddy the waters, but trying to reassure you that you can use different programs and you won't mess up your child forever. 

And the whole definitions bit?  I just pick one term (in my house, we say predicate nominative, and not predicate noun), and we go from there, no matter what the book says.  😉  I teach it the way it was taught to me, way back when.  It's just easier for me.

Edited June 12 by Zoo Keeper

[freesia]

Yes, starting him in 5 would be fine. My older three all started with 5. You don’t really need the worksheets. You do need the pupil textbook and teacher book. You should be able to get those used. 

[Kezia]

R&S 5 would be fine, even at the one year pace. There is a lot of writing if you do all of the exercises. We did some orally, some written and some worksheets. I love R&S. You will know grammar after R&S, but it is a bit dry and repetitive. We also used the tests. We would compete on the tests. We had some fun with it.

I think MP used to use R&S for grammar. It is a solid curriculum, but after using 5, 6 and 7, we are ready for a break. 

[Resilient]

I found r&s useless in application to real-life instruction. The grammar instruction uses contrived examples. 
 

Grammar for the WTM uses sentences written by published authors as examples. This is writing that people care to read and examples of good writing.  
 

Much better. FLL is better than R&S even if the grade levels LOOK  younger.  

[TheAttachedMama]

On 6/15/2024 at 2:28 AM, Resilient said:

I found r&s useless in application to real-life instruction. The grammar instruction uses contrived examples. 
 

Grammar for the WTM uses sentences written by published authors as examples. This is writing that people care to read and examples of good writing.  
 

Much better. FLL is better than R&S even if the grade levels LOOK  younger.  

It is funny, I am much more familiar with FLL because I used it with my older children (along with a host of other grammar curricula).   However, recently I was sitting around with a lot of homeschool mamas that I respect, and they were raving about how much better R&S is compared to FLL.   

 

[Servant4Christ]

On 6/13/2024 at 7:18 AM, Kezia said:

We did some orally, some written and some worksheets.

We would compete on the tests. We had some fun with it.

It is a solid curriculum, but after using 5, 6 and 7, we are ready for a break. 

Same here.

Ooo, I never thought to compete on the tests! That might make it a little more fun for my oldest.

We've used R&S since grade 3 and just completed the grade 7 book. I'm with you on needing a break. Some of the stuff this year was hard for me keep straight, but that could be because I have two youngers to teach, too.

Edited June 21 by Servant4Christ

[Resilient]

On 6/16/2024 at 4:57 AM, TheAttachedMama said:

It is funny, I am much more familiar with FLL because I used it with my older children (along with a host of other grammar curricula).   However, recently I was sitting around with a lot of homeschool mamas that I respect, and they were raving about how much better R&S is compared to FLL.   

 

Ask them why it is better. What is the long term result of a curriculum?  FLL is more teacher-intensive than R&S…which might make it possible for some level of grammar to get done.  The integration of grammar an and composition makes it easier on the teacher.  
 

But for long-term results—the ability to write well in middle and high school…to go beyond formulaic processes and patterns…to write coherent and interesting essays… Ask about those things. 
 

Ymmv.