heartofdakota.com

I know that the curriculum choices have been made years ago for HOD's younger guides, but I have a few lingering questions on these two curriculums. If this goes against any board rules. . . . please delete. . . . I'm mostly just curious about this topic.

I've been doing some research on curriculum lately, and on methods, mostly to answer some of my friend's questions on homeschooling (she's new to it! ) She's very interested in HOD and using a Charlotte Mason approach to learning. I came across these two curriculums while online: PLL (Primary Language Lessons) and ILL (Intermediate Language Lessons). They looked interesting to me as they were written over a hundred years ago, and are written by Emma Serl. Her format and style seem to be VERY Charlotte Mason friendly in their approach, and I was curious how they would work with HOD? Were these considered as possibilities for the HOD curriculum? They seem to be a nice gentle introduction to language arts, and would last a few years each. They are, for the most part, non-consumable and very affordable. Again, just curious, mostly on Carrie's thoughts on these two programs!

Thank you so much for your thoughts. . . . .

I realize you asked for Carrie's thoughts, but since I actually used PLL with another curriculum for a year I thought I would chime in too.

For my oldest 2nd grade year I was using a different curriculum than HOD that recommended PLL for Language Arts. I also happened to have my own interest in Rod and Staff for English. So for that one year I used both. My oldest for 2nd grade completed English 2 with R&S and the first half of PLL (scheduled to last two years). After 2nd grade I decided to continue with R&S for third grade and have since then put my second oldest in R&S English, without any PLL use.

Primary Language Lessons is a beautiful book. I did like it for the most part. My ds didn't like it; but he did do well with the lessons. It is much less incremental in building English skills than R&S. The grammar is sporadic and isn't as thorough. The dictations were good. The picture study was good. Overall it is a beautiful book, but I didn't feel in the end like my ds had learned much from it.

Rod and Staff is an excellent grammar program. It has pictures for the students to write sentences about, copy work, paragraph writing, and diagramming. It builds incrementally and is very thorough. The dictation that was in PLL Carrie has built into her programs. She also has narration and other Charlotte Mason approaches to learning built into HOD. I partly picked HOD for Carrie's CM approach to learning and writing, and I find R&S is a wonderful part of that learning.

I hope this is helpful.

I see why R&S may be the better choice, overall! We use it and love it, but I didn't know much about these other two, until now.

As I mentioned before, I was doing some research to help my friend with some decisions she's trying to make for her child. She's expressed an interest in PLL and ILL, and so I thought I'd ask for some wise counsel here, to see how this stood in comparison to R&S. I've been doing some reading in threads posted quite a while ago, and stumbled on a few addressing this! Of course, I couldn't find them before I posted! Anyway, in reading, I'm seeing that R&S offers much more rigor and depth of information, as well as retention of the material covered.

Thanks so much for your helpful responses!

Comparing PLL and ILL (at least the part we've used thus far) to R&S is like comparing apples and oranges. They aren't the same, at all! We alternated R&S 2 and R&S 3 with PLL and are using ILL now. My dd really loved PLL but isn't enjoying ILL as much, as there is a step up in difficulty. She still remembers some of the poems she memorized in PLL fondly. With both, we do as much as possible orally, as we do with R&S. R&S teaches purposefully and directly the skills of grammar and writing, while Emma Serl's books depend more upon modeling, observation, and an inductive method of learning.

The problem with using Serl's books with HOD is there is really a lot of duplication in copywork, dictation, narration and somewhat with the poetry, though HOD doesn't necessarily assign memorization. The picture study is unique, but otherwise much more is taught, as the PP mentioned, in grammar at an earlier age with R&S. Although HOD specifies any LA may be used, the content of R&S is assumed when writing is assigned in other areas. Used orally, R&S really is wonderful and not too far off of CM's intent. I imagine we will drop ILL altogether at the end of this year, about 1/3 of the way in. R&S 4 will be our next level. The longer I stay with HOD, the more I see that Carrie Austin has done all of the sorting through curriculum for me and found the best combination of all.

momtofive wrote: I wonder though, for a child that's not ready to start R&S yet, would PLL be a good option as just a very gentle introduction to this?

The dictations don't build incrementally like Carrie's do in Bigger, etc. The first one in PLL starts off with a paragraph, if I remember correctly. It was the first time I had taught dictation and the first time my ds had done it. He was a great reader in early 2nd grade, but it was definitely beyond his spelling ability. It was hard! The grammar was more gentle than R&S, but I wouldn't say it was easier. I remember the 9th lesson or so teaching to, too, and two. Another lesson taught 'a' versus 'an'. So in that way it is more gentle. It doesn't teach nouns or verbs if my memory serves correctly. I wouldn't say my son found that easier though. Retention was definitely lower with PLL for us. The copy work is longer than R&S 2. In some ways PLL dives right in: longer dictations of 4 - 6 sentences with punctuation, grammar that comes and goes, copy work that is longer, etc. The picture studies though are delightful and fairly easy for a student to do. Well that was my experience! I was using it though with a 2nd grade boy whose strengths are reading & math and who has been more of a reluctant writer; so I am sure that impacted our experience. PLL was fine, but I wouldn't necessarily choose to use it again. I actually have found R&S 2 to be a more gentle introduction to copy work and grammar. Carrie's dictations in Bigger are wonderfully incremental, which I have found helpful as well for a solid dictation introduction without overwhelming my children.

Having looked extensively at Primary Language Lessons and Intermediate Language Lessons and having used R & S English Levels 2-6, as well as HOD's Dictation Levels 2-8, I'd say the biggest difference between these resources is the steady, balanced, incremental coverage spanning Levels 2-8 of both R & S English and Dictation through the years. Having an eighth grader now that has worked through Levels 2-6 of R & S and Levels 1- a portion of Level 8 dictation as well as LHTH through MTMM, I am very happy to say that the retention this results in is truly impressive!!! The coverage in PLL and ILL is spotty by comparison, and nowhere near as thorough. HOD's plans also incorporate copywork from the living books or classical poetry being read within a guide, rather than pulling portions of copywork and poetry from random resources that are not read in their entirety. Oral narration and written narration skills also are based upon living books that dc are reading in their entirety with HOD. Poets are studied for a term, several terms, or for an entire year beginning with PHFHG (Beyond and Bigger expose dc to a variety of poets). Students choose poems to memorize as well within HOD through the upper years, and the poems they may choose from are the poems they have studied. HOD's manner of using living books and classical poetry dc are reading in their entirety as resources for copywork and narration skills parallels Charlotte Mason's methods beautifully! Drawn into the Heart of Reading is another integral part of this balance, as living books are used and skills are practiced. Carrie used PLL and ILL herself with her oldest ds, as well as all of the levels of R & S English and dictation. She mentioned it here...
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2937&p=21711

I just want to encourage you that in Language Arts, often times it is the consistency working within the framework of a balanced approach year after year that results in the most success - and not only in the LA subject area, but across the board in virtually every single subject area. Wyatt is using the LA skills he has gained from HOD's balanced approach to write literary critiques, research papers, essays, and lengthy written narrations in the areas of history and science, and the carryover is awesome! I cannot give credit to myself for this, other than I just taught what was in the HOD plans in each guide. I did not go above and beyond, spend one extra minute, add one extra thing, or work through the summer or anything else, to help Wyatt's LA skills along. I just taught school every year using HOD's plans, and I am very, very pleased with the results. I hope this helps as you consider the area of LA for your dc.

In Christ,
Julie

Thank you, Julie for your very detailed response. I am familiar with the sequence that HOD uses, as I've been using it now with my own five dc for the past several years, covering LHTH all the way through RTR, and now beginning Rev2Rev. I am not actually looking at these two programs to educate my own children, but am just inquiring about the programs, as my friend had been asking me about them and how they work. Upon looking at samples of these books, I became interested in learning more of HOD's thoughts on them, as they did seem very Charlotte Mason in style, at face value. I have realized upon further reading and research, that they are not of the same rigor and incremental skill building that Rod and Staff offers, especially when coupled with the HOD guide which incorporates dictation, poetry, copywork, and writing opportunities, etc.

I have read your kind and helpful responses, and feel that after reading these, and much reading on my own since I posted this, that I have a very good understanding of why these are not the best options, when using HOD. I've been sharing with my friend the information, and she's very thankful for the help! I am thankful for the time, thought and care that is put into all of the choices for each guide, (thank you, Carrie! ) and am experiencing those very same benefits with our own children.


Again, thank you for your helpful responses and the wisdom shared from your experiences.

Blessings!

Thank you so much, Lisa, for your response here! I really appreciate it, and I think this is a good discussion to have! Charlotte Mason's ideals are new to most of us, and how they are worked out in the day to day plans seems to look different from curriculum to curriculum. I think it is confusing - I know I found it very confusing. PLL and ILL have some of the aspects of CM ideals for sure, and I know that is why Carrie used it years' back. It is just a blessing there are other options now too that have more steady, year to year balance and training - via HOD's plans. Thanks for this post, and for your kind words about the board here - it is one of my greatest hopes and prayers that this board helps homeschool families as much as possible, and any little part I can have in it is a blessing.

In Christ,
Julie

Lisa,

I'll just pop-in to agree with the ladies great comparisons of the two programs. I actually used almost all of Intermediate Language Lessons (over 3 years as suggested) with my oldest son prior to making the switch to Rod and Staff in grade 5, and I'd say the ladies' assessments are spot-on.

I was initially drawn to ILL for its supposedly CM feel, and while we liked some of the writing assignments, the inclusion of poetry, and the old-timey feel; we didn't like searching for answers to odd questions (as part of the lessons) about things that are no longer used much anymore. We were frustrated by quite a few of the exercises lack of anything to do with grammar or writing, and we were actually relieved to get down to the business of learning these important skills through Rod and Staff's God-honoring, systematic lessons.

During the years I used ILL, I felt that it was much more structured than CM would have wanted at these young ages, and I also began to feel that if we're going to be headed for more structure than CM would advocate anyway... why not go the Rod and Staff route and actually get some retention out of the structure! Rod and Staff certainly isn't what CM would have advocated and is one area where we depart from her philosophy. Yet, I really found after using ILL that it wasn't what CM would have advocated either. In fact, CM delayed formal grammar and writing instruction of any kind until late middle school or early high school. What's more...the other aspects that were more CM about ILL, we had already included within our guides. So, for those families who may consider using PLL or ILL, I agree that you'd find much overlap between these programs and the rest of our guide. This makes Rod and Staff a great choice for grammar and writing instruction as one piece of your HOD plan.

Blessings,
Carrie