Um., I wasn't. I don't care which math people use, or which math from Singapore, or Russia, or the US, or anywhere. Certainly My Pals are Here is newer than the original Primary Mathematics, and Primary Mathematics was what first came to the US. And what got everyone interested in Singapore Math originally, since it was first published in 1984 and the other two much later. And I was talking about authors, not publishers. Primary Mathematics was written by the Project Team from the Ministry of Education. They all have different authors.That is not to mean that another author can't do a good job too; they will just write it differently, though probably follow the same ideas. Maybe newer authors are influenced by newer ideas in math education. Likely overall better than US math, but maybe it all depends on how it is taught. No magic in any math book. Primary Mathematics has pros and cons, Math in Focus has pros and cons. Marshall Cavendish currently publishes Primary Mathematics and Math in Focus. Frank Schaffer publishes their books along with a publisher called Singapore Asian Publications. There are several series of textbooks used in Singapore, with different publishers, and loads of supplementary books by lots of publishers, so why should any one be more official than any other. There is nothing "official" about any of these,old or new, and I make no claim or assertion about which is better or worse. I was trying to say it was fine to use any supplement with any core curriculum, they won't line up completely.

Well, Frank Schaeffer is not any more or less making use of the success of Primary Mathematics or the Singapore name than Math in Focus. Both are published in conjunction with a publisher in Singapore. Neither was written by Ministry of Education in Singapore like or same authors as Primary Mathematics. So it is likely to have as many goods and bads as any supplement. But also it won't line up exactly.

Yes, both Primary Mathematics and Math in Focus have a publisher in Singapore. That would presumably make them both math originating in Singapore. Different authors. Just like Saxon and Everyday Math are both US math. Although probably there is more similarity between them.

My kids are done with Singapore math, and we used the Primary Mathematics, and it is ahead in some areas but other topics are delayed and then covered in depth when they are introduced, but I have seen parts of the other material, like the practice books and Math in Focus. These are all different and somewhat with different market in mind, I think, and so you cannot really say one is what is in all as far as level or depth, any more than you can say that Saxon levels are just like Everyday Math, just because they both come from the U.S. However, there are similarities, too, as between different US math books.

I don't know anything about beast academy, but I have used Singapore Math. Mental math strategies are sometimes only really applicable under certain circumstances, and you would not apply them under all circumstances. For example, adding when a number is close to 10 or 100, e.g. 98 + 487 = 100 + 487 - 2, you use when the number is close to 10 or 100. The Singapore Math also taught some strategies for multiplication, but again when the number was close to a ten or 100. Is Beast Academy recommending changing 66 x 64 to 65 x 65, or is it rather suggesting this strategy for when both factors are close to a ten? By the same difference?

I have found that no one curriculum is perfect. If you switch because of one problem with one curriculum, it is possible the new curriculum will have a different issue, if that curriculum actually corrects the issue with the old curriculum. Possibly. If remembering mental math strategies over time is a problem, a less expensive means of correcting that is simply to provide more ongoing practice. I think that is what all the mental math pages at the back of the guide are for, and the game suggestions, which you can do at other times than when the material is being taught, plus there are other resources just for mental math. Of course, if there are other things you don't like about a particular curriculum, it could be better to switch. Also, there is nothing wrong with doing the math in a non-mental way when the mental strategy is forgotten, that is why the standard algorithm is so useful.

It is just a guide. You are not even supposed to do everything in it. Just what you want. You should not even have it open during lesson time. Read it to get an idea and do it your own way that fits best with your child. But if you really hate it, do something else.

I think the guide says it makes things easier, but you don't have to, and some children have an easier time when they can use some of the strategies for addition and subtraction. Like counting on or back 1,2 or 3. Doubling and so on. But the more number bonds they know the more facts they know. You have to do what is good for your child. There is no curriculum/guide that will tell you exactly what will work for your child. The guide is a guide, descriptive not prescriptive. When they get to adding past 10, they really do need to know their facts for addition and subtraction within 10 well. I didn't use Extra Practice. I used IP at same level. As a chapter review. I used CP at same level too, but not the whole book or every problem. My child did not need spiral. If he forgot something we just went over it quickly. He did not forget concepts. That is what is good about the program - it emphasizes concepts, not just learning steps without understanding them thoroughly. I don't understand it when someone says, we have not done multiplication for a while, my kid forgot how to multiply. Maybe forget some facts. But not how to do it. Or maybe forgot how to do long division. If they understand the concepts, and have done it with manipulatives, they can redo it in their mind to remember the steps, or a little reminder works. If all they have learned is the steps, or some kind of mnemonic, then yes, that can be forgotten. At some point in math there are facts that just have to be memorized, maybe some properties of geometric figures, or formula for outside angles of a polygon, or like indentity rules for trig, or that tan is sin over cos though you could figure that out. So you memorize that for a test, and then maybe forget, but know there are rules, and can look it up, and know the concepts, and so understand the formula and how it was derived, even though you don't derive it again. I can't keep that all in my head. It seems that can be the same for a child. With the division, they at least are doing it all the way through all the books. So it all depends on your child what you do, and you can get lots of ways other people do it and then experiment.

I don't think the guide was meant to remove flexibility, just provide material as suggestions. Some kids like games, so there are games for them. Some don't, so don't use them. Mine don't. Well, I don't. They have some enrichment material to make the IP or CWP a little easier, but don't do them if you don't need them. There is a suggested way of presenting the material concrete, but the student does not need the concrete, don't do that part. Mine did sometimes, but not other times. We did not use the mental math pages. It is just a guide. Not a lesson plan. No way you should do everything in it the way it is there. No guide can ever accommodate every type of child. I think it is aimed at the middle with some ideas for those on either end. Also to help with those teaching it the first time by giving what the child should know and where it is going. If you find you don't need it or use it, don't get the next one.

I think when kids get older they can explain their thought processes better. And that language skills (which are part of expressing though processes when doing it out loud or having to write words to do so) can develop later than math skills in some kids, and that being forced to write down steps he does "without thinking about them" can kill the enjoyment of math. My son never wrote steps down, though sometimes he had to explain them out loud to me, and by the time he was taking classes at the community college he was quite able to then write the steps down in order to get a good grade. It did not bite him, because he was ready then.

Sullivan Programmed Reading workbooks. Phoenix Learning Resources http://phoenixlearningresources.com/Programmed_Reading-d-list.aspx They were wonderful. Just the workbooks. You don't need all the teacher stuff.

My take, having had my children go all the way through the Singapore Math and into calculus: Use bars if you need them, don't if you don't. They are just a tool. They get overrated at lower grade levels. They are easy enough to learn with the harder problems when they are more useful, so long as you learn a few basics with easier problems to see how they could be helpful. Later, in CWP 5 and 6, there will be problems that if you solve them with algebra you would use 2 equations in 2 unknowns. The bars do help you visualize that, but eventually they will get cumbersome and algebra becomes easier than the bars. They are a good and fun tool for problem solving, but the main goal for CWP should be to think through the problems, understand them well, not just plug in a bar model by some rote type of procedure. Maybe you can start with a bar and then no longer need it for the rest of the problem. Some problems really are easier without the bars. And by the later levels of CWP, some word problems are designed around the bar model; they are certainly not very real-life. Also, some word problems can have a totally different approach using algebra vs bar models, so bar models do not always lead to an approach that you would use algebraically. Except we who are used to algebra try to stick an algebraic type of method and turn it into bars, but a student who has not already learned algebra would solve it a completely different way with bars.

http://oilf.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-edworld-double-speak.html

You can learn "mental math" by rote, and even memorize the strategies or steps and simply follow them. Some programs that say they are conceptual give all the steps, and end up being procedural; the student does not have to do much conceptualizing. A lot of US programs or US-adapted programs seem to do this - lay out all the steps for the student, tell them or show them exactly what comes next, and then practice until they can do follow those steps. Programs that are online or "digital" tend to be like that, I think. Here's the problems, here is how to solve it, go forth and do some more. Though good math students will make the conceptual connection with most any math program. It is whether the student can solve problems he has not seen the same type and steps but cover the same principles or combine concepts in new ways that would determine if there is a conceptual understanding, I think. And whether he can make the next step on his own, maybe with a little help, if the next step really builds on previous understanding. That won't happen if he is immediately given it. So what is a "conceptual" math program? Is it one that tells the student everything? Or one that makes him think for himself, building carefully on earlier ideas? A program that teaches mental math does not necessarily do that, or even just any program now that teaches how to use bar models, because they have become popular. Even those things can be reduced to steps, like some of the steps by step model drawing books I have seen. Possibly it is how a student responds, or how it is taught (by a parent or teacher, not by a book or online program) so maybe there is not a particular program.

As far as I know, the standards edition includes everything required by California state standards at each grade level. That does not mean it aligns strictly. California standards has no multiplication and division in second grade, for example, I don't think.

It does not ignore that they need to know their facts. The guides say they do, and have games and mental math pages. They just don't put lots and lots of pages of math facts within the textbook and workbook. I saw something called Sprints on their site for drill. My kids needed different amounts of time and different ways to learn them.

It does not matter where you put the total, unless it matters to your child! Bar models are not a technical writing exercise. The guide said it is more like notes to yourself. Or that is the way it should be eventually. I think it is usually put on the top in books because it is probably easier to copy a model and modify than create a new one when creating the images. The models are just a way to organize thinking, and if you think the parts first, then label the parts first. If you want to get technical, he did not need the second bar at all. He could have just labeled the entire first bar with the total. Maybe eventually he won't bother with two bars with a simple part-whole problem, but if it helps him for now, let him draw two bars. But if he can solve it without a model, he should not bother with a model. He actually really should not need a model with such a simple problem.

Then teach your child to do some research. The internet is full of information. Knowing what questions to ask and how to find the answer is a good skill to have, even at that age. To assume that everything will be in the textbook means you have to have a pretty fat textbook, and even textbooks can be biased or have problems. By trying to find the answer in other books or on the internet, your child could find out a whole lot of other things, pursue some interest, learn a lot more. This is supposed to be a discovery program. It has the basics, but education is a lot more than reading a textbook and answering questions where you regurgitate what you read. You do that, and it is just school stuff. Not education. I suppose in a classroom situation a teacher might have look ahead into the supplements like HOTS and the homework book and provided resources or specific links on the internet or something. But even that can let kids get interested in things not directly related to the topic by exploring a child-friendly site. And learn so much more that way.

I saw some videos of teachers using Math in Focus, and the activities seemed like a lot of time spent on artsy stuff. I guess that could make the "math" more fun, but its seemed like it was Investigations style. Probably that is just how they were teaching it - the math itself was fine - you could certainly turn any math class into art and literature and add whatever activity you want to make it more appealing to some kinds of students. Maybe they drop the artsy stuff later on, but it looked like US "math" to me. Though you can't go by how they are teaching it in a classroom.

Maybe connect it to length. How much longer is one line than another. Or, how much longer/shorter is this set of linking cubes than that. Then go to how many more/less.

I think with the Primary Mathematics they expect the material to be taught and discussed, so they don't give the steps outright sometimes, else the kid doesn't have to think through them, just follow them. I don't think the textbooks were ever meant to be the main teacher of the material. I think the teacher is supposed to guide the student into thinking about what could come next so they have to think for themselves and discuss. That can be hard if the parent doesn't understand the math well enough. The HIGs I think try to give too much information so the parent can think of it in different ways to be able to do this process with the student. Confusing to try to understand it all viscerally or fundamentally. But it could possibly be less thinking through the material by the student if the steps are provided. When I was doing the CWP problems ahead of my child I learned a whole lot more trying to do them without steps provided, and was better at helping my child think through the process, since I had to think from scratch, so to speak. But my son actually had some better approaches than I had, and better ones that the few solutions in IP sometimes. I don't even like a few of the solutions in the new CWP; whoever wrote some of them did not have the most elegant approach. At least in my mind. US textbooks do give lots of steps. Do this, and this, and this, and practice it. They were so boring.

I think the standard algorithm is not any harder in this case. But it all depends on what you are used to. My son would do the bumping up kind of stuff a lot easier than I do, and my daughter liked to write it down as the standard algorithm, so she could keep track of it better. I suppose my son was better at keeping stuff in his head, plus he avoided writing whenever possible, whereas my daughter had no problem with writing quickly. I guess it does not matter how you do it, just so long as you know that you are missing a whole, and need to find it, whatever way you want to use to find it. Bumping up, subtracting, whichever is easiest under the circumstances. I guess the point I was trying to make is that with small numbers it is easy to find the answer mentally, with larger numbers, or something more complex, maybe, must maybe, some kids might want to write something down, in which case maybe, just maybe, writing it down as a subtraction and doing it the standard way for them is easier. I think the HIG said to have your student identify the parts and whole and then do it mentally, with no restriction on the mental process, but if they have difficulty they can fill in a number bond and use an equation. It is a concept being taught, not how you want to do the subtraction, in this lesson.

He does not have to rearrange into a new equation after he understands it. The point is to understand it, and then do it mentally if he can, but be able to use the subtraction when needed. You get something later like 3287 + ____ = 8026 You have a missing part and a whole. To find a missing part you can use subtraction. Then you can do a quick subtraction algorithm. A little hard to do mentally. The focus is on part whole ideas. If you are used to number bonds, it is easy to see what to do. Algebraically you would subtract from both sides to isolate the unknown, but that comes later. In US texts, a lot of time is spent on balancing the equation, it seems. Like the Hands On Equation. This is just a different way to look at it early on. Then you get ____ - 6932 = 6584 You are missing the whole. So you add the parts. Algebraically, you add to both sides. 8498 - ___ = 3961 Algebraically, what do you do? Without resorting to negative numbers? You do it in two steps, show adding the unknown to both sides, then subtracting from both sides. With part-whole, you have a whole and a missing part. So you subtract the other part from the whole.

I did to through all of Miquon with one child. Had 2 sets of C-rods, rulers that fit them, and all that. And I agree that counting can be a problem with some kids. C-rods can probably be very useful. They weren't that useful with my next child who did not have a problem with counting, and we never even used the linking cubes much, just for introducing an idea, and then did drawings more. So the C-rods sat unused. I guess I meant that it is not necessary to rule out linking cubes or go buy c-rods. Paper strips could work too. I think I used the back side of two rulers to illustrate more than once. We used the Math U See blocks more. The unit cube there can become a tenth cube as well.

I like linking cubes. I don't like C-rods. Except maybe to use them as templates for bar models if your child can't draw rectangles well. Without concern for the value of the rod. Counting is not a problem at K or 1 grade, and seeing the units makes it more concrete. After 1 you can use number bonds and transition into the more abstract representation of bars, and then the bars are not necessarily supposed to represent a known number of units anyway, which the C-rods, if you use Miquon, are supposed to do. This is for Primary Mathematics, not Critical Thinking. This of course depends on the student. For one student, using the rods might make lights come on, so to speak. For another, they can understand the concept well enough with the linking cubes or drawings. You can't make a hard and fast rule for what worked with one child must work with every child. Linking cubes are bad, C-rods are better because that worked with my child, or C-rods are bad, linking cubes worked with my child. Use what works. Try both.