I just wanted to pop-in and clarify HOD's stance on this particular area, as its getting to be an often asked question. We did originally begin by carrying FLL after using it with our own oldest son in years 1 and 2, but then when FLL 3 was not done and there was no hope of it appearing on the horizon, we looked for something else. As we headed into Easy Grammar and later BJU English, we found there was little carry-over of any of the concepts we'd studied in FLL. We were struggling with any retention in grammar at all with the grammars we'd used and felt we were working way too hard at grammar instruction to have that be the effect.
At this point, we went the more CM route for grammar for a year (except for using Intermediate Language Lessons for 3 years for the writing portions only). We came upon the Queen's books and felt they embraced the more CM-style language arts approach that we were leaning toward, so we made the switch as a company from carrying FLL to carrying the Queen's.
As the next year passed, I really struggled with the no grammar until the child is 12 CM approach. I felt I was missing the nuts and bolts of how to talk to my oldest son about how to do a written narration, or why the sentences that he'd written weren't complete, or how he could add descriptors to make his writing better, etc. We were lacking a common terminology of how to communicate about his writing. We also had an impending writing assessment coming about which I was pretty sure he would do fine, but really wanted to make sure his grammar was also in place. Enter... Rod and Staff. When we made the switch to Rod and Staff 4, I could tell an immediate difference in my son's understanding of grammar and later as the year wore on, within his writing. He has now completed all of 4 and 5 and will head on into 6. My second son in line has completed all of 2 and 3 and will head into 4 next year at half-speed.
As the years have passed while we've been using Rod and Staff English 2-5, we have found less about the Queen's books that is of worth in the grammar area. It is so light in that capacity that we've become uncomfortable with its coverage. As we've continued to write our guides with a CM slant, we have discovered that we've included most of the skills within the Queen's books within our own HOD guides. Our guides include copywork, poetry, creative writing, and written narrations. Rod and Staff takes care of the grammar and includes more formulistic writing. As an added benefit HOD guides also include the CM-skills of dictation and oral narration. So, with the only extra included in the Queen's books being picture study, we no longer feel it's worthwhile for HOD customers to do the Queen's books, as there is much overlap in language arts skills. We will be done carrying the Queen's books when our stock runs out.
We've found that we agree with CM in just about all areas, but the delayed introduction of formal grammar is not one of them. We do advocate a gentler very CM-style grammar introduction with Beyond, but then move toward a more formal approach with Rod and Staff after that. Yet, we do not fall in the classical category for grammar instruction, as we advise completing Rod and Staff 6 by the end of grade 8. We feel this plan is the best of both worlds, making sure grammar (for the purpose of writing better) is well-covered, yet not at a pace that will burn-out either student or teacher.
While you can easily take the grammar path you feel is best for your family, since this is the HOD board, I wanted to fully explain HOD's reasoning in this area.