R&S grammar vs First Language Lessons/Writing with Ease

[Kims]

I started FLL and WWE level 1 last year with my son and are finishing up now. Because I already had it. We love them and they are easy and he has learned a lot.
I know next year as he will be 3rd grade we are supposed to start R&S (or that was/is my plan) and I am wondering if anyone here has used both and can tell me the difference and why R&S is better. I have R&S 2 here it came with my Bigger package I also have FLL level 2.
I really want him to be as prepared as possible when he hits high school as English is not my best subject to teach. (I am more math minded)
Thanks. And thanks for putting up with all my questions lately. It's that time of year for me to rethink things and stress about it. LOL

[daybreaking]

I don't have the post in front of me, but I remember Carrie writing about her experience using FLL. If I remember correctly, though their year went well with FLL, the next year she found there was not a lot of retention. When she switched to R&S, that all changed and there was great retention. Maybe someone can direct you to the actual post.

[Kims]

I am trying to search the forums and just can't find much.
I did test out my 7 and 5yos retention last night and they are retaining some of the stuff. I just think though if R&S is one program that also teaches writing then I want to do that. Plus I can not find a bad review about R&S.
I own both so not sure still.

[Maadrose]

Having used both programs with my three older girls I can say that they are very similar. I prefer FLL because of how well it is scripted. Both programs teach concepts in a similar fashion. You can't go on one persons opinion or experience. Personally I prefer to use FLL levels 3&4 first. I found that it gave my dc a very strong foundation in grammar. In fact they have no problem with retention. Also my oldest was ready for seventh grade grammar book after finishing level 4 of FLL. All of my dc have memorized all the definitions and jingles from FLL and it helps them when completing the exercises in R&S.

[abrightmom]

We have used both here; FLL 1-2 and R&S 2-4. I have purchased and evaluated FLL 3&4. Here's the comparison:

FLL 1-4 is scripted and includes not only "grammar" work but narration, copywork, and dictation. It is NOT a composition program, however, and the newest versions are designed to dove tail with Writing with Ease. There is an emphasis on memorizing definitions and lists. Lots of diagramming in FLL 3&4. It is a good program but keep in mind that it ends at FLL 4. You have to go somewhere else after that. Another feature of FLL is that because it is scripted it requires 100% teacher participation for every lesson.

Rod & Staff English is a "complete" English program that includes not only grammar instruction but strong, traditional composition skills. Rod & Staff has so much review built in that I find my children memorizing definitions and lists effortlessly. Rod & Staff offers a lot of variety in each lesson with oral work and written work. It touches on a variety of English skills in addition to the grammar and composition lessons. Some that come to mind include dictionary work and poetry. There is more but without pulling out my books I can't come up with a list. I have found R&S to be EASY to customize as well. We can choose what work to do orally, what to write, what to skip if a concept is a cinch for my child. There is plenty to choose from in each lesson and this makes it possible for me to "fit" the lesson to my student. With Rod & Staff you will be able to spend a few minutes in teaching and then require written follow up from your student while you are hovering nearby or perhaps even teaching another student. I find this to be the case more now in English 4 than in English 2 or 3 but that is likely my own experience with my particular kids.

If you are using HOD you have to keep in mind that Carrie intends for a strong portion of your student's composition skills to be learned and practiced via Rod & Staff. The farther we go in Rod & Staff the more I am LOVING it. I chafed under it at first and saw it as tedious. Boy, was I wrong! It is comprehensive and customizable. We have excellent retention here. Retention is a long term goal anyway. We build slow and steady, revisiting concepts each year. I believe that with consistent work there will be retention long term.

Another issue is the writing that you are doing within Writing with Ease. If you are using Bigger Hearts than you will be covering all skills within your content that you are doing separately in WWE. Writing with Ease works on narration, copywork, and dictation. In Bigger you work on narration daily via history and science readings; also with Emerging Readers if you're using those. HOD has plenty of copywork across the curriculum and uses studied dictation for years. Written narrations begin in Preparing Hearts and are quite similar to those done in WWE though WWE wants summaries earlier on. Carrie's written narration process is excellent as laid out in Preparing.

[daybreaking]

I am trying to search the forums and just can't find much.

I found the posts ...

Here's a link from 2007:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3963

and one from 2009:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=113&hilit=grammar

[Kims]

Thank you ladies that helps.

[Tabitha]

Oh, thanks for finding those links. I can't wait to read them.

I used FLL with my oldest, back when it was just a single book with 2 years of work. And, we have the cd that went along with it. We LOVED the cd. Is there a reason why they stopped offering that? I've never looked at FLL 3 or 4.

Anyway, I am anxious to see Carrie's take on it. I didn't use it with my younger two, but it is also something I don't plan to ever get rid of. I might use it for fill in/fun in the summer, and pop the cd back into the car as well.

[Carrie]

Kim,

The ladies are doing a great job of talking through your questions with you! The links shared were great too!

Here's another link where I share specifically about WWE and how it compares with what we desire language arts-wise through HOD:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6342&p=46417

I'll also paste below a past explanation of mine showing the difference between a Well-Trained Mind, classical version of narrating contrasted with a more CM version of narrating.
Another way we assess kiddos through HOD is with CM-style oral and written narrations. Written and oral narrations CM-style look very different from child to child. This is different than written narrations done classical style, which result in more of a summary (meaning most kiddos' narrations will look very similar when done summary-style). These are two different types of narrations. One is a summary, with certain key points being required. The other is a true written narration CM-style, where the child sifts and sorts through information, choosing what to write about and borrowing words and phrases from the author to write in the author's style (without having certain key points that MUST be included for the narrations to be "correct").

In this way, a classical style summary can have a specific answer key. A CM-style written narration wouldn't even know where to begin with an "answer key", as each child will draw out or seize upon different points to express within the narration. This is why in HOD's guides, we may ask leading questions to get the child thinking about what he/she read, but we leave the sifting and sorting up to the child as far as what to write and how to write it. The key idea within our guides on written narration days will provide you as the parent with a summary of the reading, so you can see if your child is on-topic in his/her narration, but it is not intended that the child include all those points in the key idea within the narration.

We do have children practice orally narrating in both summary style and descriptive style in our upper HOD guides, because it is important to have a balance of both styles of narrating. But it is important to understand the two different styles of narrating, as there is much more to narrating than simply summarizing what was read. Otherwise narrating in general can quickly become an exercise in outlining key points and will lose much of what makes CM-style narrating meaningful.

Since summarizing lends itself well to outlining, and these skills are both important, we teach these areas through Rod and Staff English in conjunction with science or history passages that are more factual. This is because a summary lends itself well to being written from just a portion of a book, while a written narration is instead intended to pull from a more continuous ongoing story, rather than just an excerpt. So, we tend to use ongoing books for written narration practice. This is because the knowledge gained as the child continues reading the same book, provides insights that can then be drawn upon and pulled together as connections when writing the narration. This process requires a different set of skills than those required to write a summary from a passage plucked from a source, where the goal is a summation of the key points in the particular excerpt or passage instead. We delineate that summarizing and narrating are two different skills with two different styles. It is important to note that narrating CM-style is a very different skill from summarizing or outlining. I do skim the text as my child is orally narrating to me, holding the book in hand. This helps me see if the child is including ideas, names, places, etc. from the text, but it also shows me that the connections are those which the child has made!

Last, I'll link a post that explains more what we're looking for with written narrations CM-style: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8059&p=58769

Link