MFW Language Arts suggestions

[Sara in WA]

I am really interested in MFW for the next academic year and I'm curious about the LA suggestions. Next year, my 2 oldest will be 2nd and 4th grade (with K and 3 yo along for the fun). MFW suggests:

2nd grade: Primary Language Lessons and Spelling by Sound and Structure

4th grade: Intermediate Language Lessons, Spelling Power and Writing Strands Level 3

 

This year I have been using FLL level 3, Spelling Power and Writing with Ease. I wonder about switching as I've mostly followed TWTM suggestions and have been pleased. MFW suggestions seem a more gentle approach to learning these subjects. Is that right? It might be something we need.

 

I've been impressed with the many comments about MFW and would love to hear from experienced ones about whether or not you followed MFW suggestions in these subjects - why and why not.

 

Thank you!

[Sara in WA]

bump :)

[Cornerstone Classical]

Yes, MFW suggest PLL and ILL as there grammar choices. These grammar texts are Charlotte Mason in philosophy. You can read this post here to further understand them, http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56661&highlight=PLL&page=2 and here http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22231&highlight=PLL

 

If you haven't already, I would read the WTM and then read books about Charlotte Mason, and figure out what philosophy is right for your goals. For The Children's Sake by Susan Schaeffer Macauley, A Charlotte Mason Companion by Karen Andreola and various books by Catherine Levinson as well as the online homeschool series from CM herself (available to be read online at Ambleside Online) would be great reads to understand each philiosphy. And in alot of areas WTM/CM are interchangeable. You then would have to figure out *do I want to be strictly CM or WTM or do I want to have a nice mixture*, and then decide what subjects you would want to follow in each one.

Rod and Staff Spelling is a really good curriculum. I guess you would have to look at it to see if it would be a good fit for your family.

 

In short, MFW's LA suggestions are going to lean more to a CM philosophy.

One reason I chose MFW is that I could stay with the choices in our core subjects. We follow the WTM suggestions. We use First Language Lessons, Writing With Ease, and Spelling Workout. We have done those from the beginning and they have worked well. So I find no need to change. And I do see the importance of doing full blown LA in the early years. I read this article and it made since to me. But then again, I tend to lean more "rigorous".

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/charlottemason.php

 

HTH, a little:001_smile:

Edited January 28, 2009 by Cornerstone Classical

[sweetbaby]

As Katherine mention, MFW LA suggestions are more CM geared. We have used Rod and Staff English for the past two years because I'm a little more rigorous when it comes to the three R's. CM suggests introducing formal grammar at a later age and using gentle introductions in the early years so MFW is doing just that. I know others who are using PLL/ILL and love it. It just depends on if you want your child to complete a gentle or more rigorous program during this time. In any case, it basically boils down to the needs of your child.

[Cornerstone Classical]

I love MFW but I don't follow their suggestions for grammar. I use FLL and then Rod and Staff. It's been a while but I think PLL and ILL were recommended in the first WTM. Good books for sure but I know some people ran into problems with the book assuming knowledge about things like the phases of the moon or something else their child hadn't learned yet.

 

The great thing about MFW is that you can choose your own LA and math that is just right for each child. I do use Writing Strands but I use MUS for math instead of Singapore. If what you are using works then don't change it. If it ever stops working then give MFW suggestions a try.

 

 

Where you around yesterday? I kept *looking* for your responses on some of these threads-----anyway, I didn't *see* you and I wanted you to know that I missed you. Good to see you today.:lol::001_smile:

[cbollin]

I'm using MFW's recommendations for language arts and math. It works and I like the overall approach and CM philosophy in it.

 

I like PLL. Easy to do out loud. Easy to stay with Charlotte Mason framework. I like the approach. I like the variety of language arts in it. I like that it fills in the gaps that are not provided in the language arts that are part of the unit studies in MFW. So, overall, it's working to get the job done. Covers a lot of stuff in a little time.

 

When I would run into a knowledge base problem, I would either look up the answer (such as what is the month of roses), or I would look at the lesson, see the goal and change the question. For example, in lesson 43, the goal is to learn that names of month begin with capital letter, and practice writing and spelling the names of the months. So I didn't care that June is the month of Roses, I just had her write the months. We learned later that it was June. So, I found PLL very flexible to change the assignment on one or two questions here and there when needed.

 

I like Writing Strands too. Lessons allow me to coach my child in writing. Takes a different approach. If I remember correctly in TWTM, Writing Strands was a recommendation for a long time.

 

With all of that said, I agree with Christina.... if you are using WWE and FLL and it is not overwhelming your day and your kids aren't complaining about language arts and math, then you don't have to change right away. If you get to the point where they aren't learning the material, or your day gets overwhelmed with language arts/math or you have a change in philosophy about approaches to grammar and diagramming, then make the switch.!!

 

Here's an older thread on MFW's board about the reasons that Marie Hazell went with the choices she does.

 

http://board.mfwbooks.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3240

 

 

-crystal

[Sara in WA]

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. I do need to more research. I have read and loved all the books mentioned from The Well Trained Mind to the wonderful For the Children's Sake. Sometimes I feel bipolar about Classical and Charlotte Mason. While I read both types of book, I am nodding my head in great agreement. Yes, I love the gentle approach and yes, I love the highly structure approach. I have enjoyed FLL and WWE and other WTM books, yet I find it does take so much of our time it's hard to do much more than language arts and math.

 

I will be rereading your posts and my books (and praying for guidance). Thanks again for your input.

 

- Sara

[dhudson]

We love MFW and use their math suggestions but not all of their LA suggestions. I like PLL and ILL but I feel the need to supplement with other things. I fall more into the classical methodology than I do Charlotte Mason so sometimes I change things around. I do like PLL for the younger years for the enjoyment of them but then I supplement with Abeka.

 

Overall MFW is great and they are usually right on with their suggestions.

[bethben]

I too am bi-polar Charlotte Mason and Classical Education...I find that Charlotte Mason works well in directing me to the twaddle free books and easier structure for grades 1-3. I am finding that as we're approaching 4th grade, I feel the need to start heading to a more Classical Educational style. I think a lighter approach to learning works well in the early grades when everything is new - reading, writing, spelling...

 

We have been using MFW for 2 years now. I did not like Spelling Sound and Structure at all. It made no sense to me as a teacher. We have done PLL and liked it well enough though I am skipping a lot of the composition in favor of WWE. I feel WWE is more Charlotte Mason in it's approach since it uses a lot of dictation/narration/copywork. So, we are doing All About Spelling, PLL, and WWE. If what you're doing is working, don't change it.

Beth

[LoveBaby]

I too am bi-polar Charlotte Mason and Classical Education...I find that Charlotte Mason works well in directing me to the twaddle free books and easier structure for grades 1-3. I am finding that as we're approaching 4th grade, I feel the need to start heading to a more Classical Educational style. I think a lighter approach to learning works well in the early grades when everything is new - reading, writing, spelling...

 

Finally! A diagnosis : Bi-polar CM and Classical. Now, for the cure! LOL

 

Seriously, though, I'm in complete agreement w/ Beth. I *love* the gentle approach to LA in the early years. I know that we'll step it up in the upper elementary years and won't miss anything, so I'm in no hurry now.

 

I've tried R&S English and my poor DD cried everytime we got it out. I switched to PLL and we both love it. I've used R&S Spelling for her and plan to do the same for my DS in 2nd grade. We will switch to Spelling Power in 4th for my DD. I am not using Writing Strands for my DD, though. I looked at it, but was much happier with the layout of Writing Tales. We plan to continue with ILL, too.

 

All that said, if what you are using is working then there is no reason to switch, especially if you don't feel like LA is bogging down your day!

[in Training in Texas]

I think our educational philosophy gives us a great framework, and then God gives us our individual children. If a child is more advanced in language arts, then feed that hunger and curiousity rather than continue in a gentle approach. I appreciate the suggestions given by a particular curriculum, and appreciate even more the curriculums that do not dictate an all-in-one approach in diverse areas as language arts and math.

 

iow: I love MFW.

 

You're going to end up doing what is right for each child individually; and my guess is you won't go more gentle with PLL/ILL unless that is something you have felt your child has been needing.