I think BJU 3 and then CLE 3 will be fine. There may be some overlap of concepts but all the stories will be different and the style of the programs is different enough (BJU is much cuter, colorful, thematic etc...) They are both wkbk based though - Good thing about BJU is you can get the booklinks which are novels w studyguides that are scheduled into the regular program (though they are optional.)

I found it on Christian Book and then researched it here - all I could find were a couple of old threads where people said "we use it and like it" - with no other details. It has all the same components as MP Latin (video, cards, wkbk etc...) It seems rigorous and the exercises looked (slightly) less tedious? I don't really know. I checked out Latin for Children, Lively and some others too and this looked the best to me.... but nobody is using it. Weird. Here's the link to the Logos Press page with the sample video.... I do admit that those kids look like they should maybe get out a bit more :) but otherwise it seems like an efficient, in depth lesson. Definitely more meat than PL.... How does it compare to LC?? http://www.logospressonline.com/logos-latin-1-dvd/

Thanks - I'll check out LC again. He doesn't hate the PL format but he kind of hates the wkbk activities (which aren't so bad imo - straightforward vocab most of the time.) I also think the problem may be sharing w/ younger dd who moves slower. I think he needs his own program. LOGOS just looks so fun. I wonder why nobody uses it? I couldn't even find 1 used listing on HS classifieds or any old threads here where people really talk about it. huh.

dp

:bigear: :bigear: :bigear:

That sounds about right - but the TM's are good for the times you need them. They also have extra tests inside and some nice little mini-lessons. I think, all in all, they are more useful than the answer keys....

Anyone using it? How does it compare to Latina Christina??? My DS is bored of Prima Latina and I need to move him into something a bit faster/ more complete - he's 8. Anybody? or any other suggestions?

My dd i doing BJU Reading 2 now (with the video instruction.) It's focued more on reading strategies (setting, character, sequencing etc...) along with phonics activities like "find all the long 'e' words." Interspersed through the lessons are some biblical principles and stories (maybe verses to??? but my dc don't do the Bible activities.) Once a week there is a "skill station" lesson which is basically a lesson on phonics rules. There are "book links" a few times a year which are novel/ study guide sets that are included with the main program. My dd hasn't done one yet but she has about 4 to complete for the year. I will have her continue with MP Lit guides in the summer (she should be able to complete 1 or 2 after we finish BJU.) MY dd loves it - It's very gentle but not 'slow.' - That said, my dd is a year ahead (just turned 6 doing 2nd grade.) If your dd is a strong reader she could probably skip into 3rd. You can see samples of the videos on BJU and of the books on Christianbook. ETA I use a separate spelling program w/ CLE. SS for younger and Megawords for older. I also use separate writing - Paragraph Book, WWE or Writeshop - mixed up as I like....

I'll preface by saying I love CLE but I found the 2nd Reading to be busyworky and overkill w/ the phonics markings. It's still probably one of the best the best traditional reading programs out there though. I've heard 3rd is better (actually, excellent) but never used it. I would suggest you look at MP study guides for reading. Specifically the Storytime Treasures ones or the Grade 2 ones (or a mix.) If you are intent on a reading "program" BJU is excellent (though quite preachy in parts.) The good thing about CLE is that you can always skip LUs. Maybe just get 204 or 205 in the LA and see if it's advanced enough. I think the 200's pick up quite a bit - they teach cursive, book reporting and the beginnings of diagramming. Good Luck!

I hope it was that one because it's awesome :) I followed the link from the other thread to.... we're starting it this week.

Does it have to be one box??? I would go BJU Math (w/ DVD/online instruction) MP for Language arts/ lit and VP self paced history (the Greek one would go along with doing the D'Aulaires study guide from MP. That would be really easy to organize and free you up a bit with the math and history.... IF the content (YE) doesn't bother you, the BJU science (video) grade 3 is great too. (We are super not religious and using it... there's a bit too much "god's design" language for my taste, but the academic material is excellent and the teacher is too.) I like the BJU video lessons b/c they give me a little break - though I still hover around and listen, prepare the books for each day, "grade" the lessons and do reviews with my kids so it's certainly not entirely "independent." We're also in the process of moving which is why I chose them.

Even though I don't like it much...... Elemental Science is a good resource to "help" you pull together resources and follow the WTM cycle. I found the grammar bio boring - but it was effective and easy to implement. It might be a good starting place. It also makes it easy to work with kids @ different levels (grammar bio/ logic bio..) Now we are using RS4K chem which I like a lot but need to supplement with living books (which again means pulling resources.)

For evolution I found this while I was putting together a unit on evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ and the new Cosmos - also has a lot of good referneces In the Beginning Creation Stories from Around the World http://www.amazon.com/In-Beginning-Creation-Stories-Around/dp/0152387420 And most importantly - I would recommend Joseph Campbell - Myths to Live By http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Live-By-Joseph-Campbell/dp/0140194614 Also, for fiction, you might have students that age read Inherit the Wind - about the Scopes trial concerning the (legal) controversy btwn creationism and evolution http://www.amazon.com/Inherit-Wind-Jerome-Lawrence/dp/0345466276/ref=sr_1_1_ha?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411866935&sr=1-1&keywords=inherit+the+wind

We use biblionaseum.com - it's free. You can set up reading challenges if you want. My kids log their books as they go. They really like it because they get awards for reading and they get to poke around on the computer. It also creates a list of their independent reading (as they log books) that you can print at the end of the year - for a portfolio or whatnot.

Herman Hesse has some fantastic short stories that should appeal to that age in Strange News from Another Star. Also The Body by Stephen King (It's the story that the movie Stand by Me was based on, it's not horror or full of inappropriate stuff - though there might be some coarse language.) and in the same vein, but more classical, HP Lovecraft. - We loved that stuff in middle school.

I have the both dc's doing a notebook to go along with it. For each topic, in addition to any reading from the list, I print up a coloring page or photo's or lap book pages for the topic - or in the case of my younger dd some "activity pages" (like crosswords etc) and have them cut and glue those into the notebook. For each topic they may have 3-4 pages (of which there is very little writing, usually just captions to explain pictures that I printed and they colored.) For my ds I also print up supplementary articles for him to glue into the notebook. I figure that way, they have a visual representation of what they covered (and it doesn't hurt the portfolio either.) Usually they do the notebook 1 or 2 times a week (on Sat. or Sun when we don't do school) and it's fun for them. I also printed up the words to the song and glued them to the first page of the book so they could follow along. We've never been real notebookers but in this case, it's working really well - and there's tons of free material online to print up to support each topic (so far anyway.)

Well, I gave a couple of examples before but here's another. The way we look at numbers in "traditional" vs "conceptual" Traditional teaches 45 is 4 tens and 5 ones - when you want to manipulate the number (+/- etc..) you will start with the algorithm. Yes, you should comprehend how the algorithm works but you will work through the algorithm largely using facts that you have stored (though of course there are some strategies for remembering and extending those facts) Conceptual says the same (of course) but adds an endless array of possibilities for breaking down the number depending on what you are going to do with it. If you are adding 45 + 55 then you should know that 45 is a 40 and a 5 and 55 is a 50 and a 5 - so 40+50=90 and 5+5=10 Therefore 45+55=100 If you are subtracting 36 from 45 (45-36) you might need to make 45 into 50 by adding 5 and if you do that you might need to add 5 to 36 too. So you would have 45+5= 50, 36+5=41 so 50-41= 9 (you may even go a step further and say 50-40= 10 and 10-1=9) Therefore 45-36=9 You might be adding 45+7 in which case you have to say "7 is a 2 and a 5." 45+5=50 and 50+2 = 52 therefore 45+7=52 There are 2 aspects of this process that I would categorize as "Logic Stage thinking." The first is the "therefore" statement. This is a statement of causation - causation is a form of analysis that is traditionally relegated to logic stage thinking. It is a logical syllogism. If 7 is a 5 and a 2 and 5+5= 10 then 7+5 is the same as 10+2 therefore 5+7= 12. The second is the process of choosing which strategy will be appropriate for a given problem. That requires a logical analysis of the problem. "It will be easier (more logical) if I....." That analysis constitutes a form of reasoning that is again based in understanding the underlying "cause" of the problem. And - after analyzing the problem, the student must turn to the number and devise a reasonable strategy to manipulate the number around the problem. Mind you - all of these strategies are super cool and very appropriate to teach to a kid who is ready to make that leap - but it is a leap. Grammar stage thinking would focus on fact acquisition, observation, repetition and comprehension (which I differentiate here from "understanding.") to build a body of knowledge that could later be applied to those types of strategies. Anyway - like everybody keeps on reminding everybody else, most programs teach both. The emphasis may be more towards one or the other, but the basic ideas are included in any solid program. I really only started the whole hullaballoo to say that there is nothing wrong with introducing the conceptual aspect later on and in fact, there may be reasons to wait. If you read the thread about "when did your kid start reading" there are all kinds of different answers. Some kids read at 3 and some didn't touch a book until 9 but now are breezing through Victorian novels. Sometimes introducing a concept at the right time makes all the difference.

Yeah - I did misread you :blush: sorry. I guess I'm all up in a huff... - So to address your question more properly I will say this - the manipulative aspect of Singapore was fantastic - (working with unifix cubes for number bonds, we also used counters and 10's frames, counters alone, physical number bonds with paper plates etc.. ) but - the leap from doing the concrete into the modeling was difficult for many students who were then lost later when they were required to manipulate the numbers mentally. Because the basic facts (including pairs to 10) were not memorized, kids had a terrible time translating the strategies into actual computation and applying them. SOME students excelled, loved the program and were able to manipulate numbers with incredible speed and a mathematical maturity beyond their years as the pp described of her own ds. I worked with 1st and 3rd graders and in my experience they not only had trouble remembering the facts but also determining which strategies to use. This is where logic stage thinking comes into play. If I told the students "we are going to regroup to have 10" they were fine but there was a huge lag for many students in being able to determine which strategy to use (and why.) I found that explaining the why was :banghead: for students who could not fundamentally understand that it is easier to add 10 to a number than say 7. I supplemented with C-rods and did a ton of written drills to improve their factual knowledge - which I admit gave me another bunch of students who could add 9+6 but could not explain it. But, it's easier to model a strategy for a student when they have the facts down and they can translate that knowledge into the conceptual/ abstract relationships of the numbers. The thing is that demanding that a student express several different ways of solving a problem before they have a base of knowledge from which to draw is essentially putting the why before the what. Even those early "tell different stories about this picture" exercise require a kind of analysis. A lot of kids require much more time than is "scheduled" into the program to make these analytical leaps.

It's true that Singapore does have "drills" which (in the standards editions) they call "Mental Math" because it is done orally. In my experience USING those drills with students, they were not sufficient. The computational strategies were so cumbersome for many students that facts above the +2's were unruly for regrouping.... I would say with the exception of the doubles (and for some kids also the d+1 facts) Of course there were some students who flew through. Now take it with a grain of salt because in a classroom it is difficult to tailor the pace of a program to meet students where they are - you can differentiate a little bit but are required to cover material according (basically) to the school's scope and sequence. I also reiterate that I am talking about GRAMMAR stage students here (up to 4th grade or so.) In the classical model, memorization, repetition and fact acquisition do precede ANALYSIS (not conceptual understanding) of a particular subject and its ABSTRACTION. Nobody is advocating teaching facts in a vaccuum - just suggesting that teaching the why and the how simultaneously is difficult for many students. SWB in WTM says that Singapore requires LOGIC stage thinking sooner. This is because Singapore requires students to create a syllogistic understanding of computational problems. That may be appropriate for some students but it is not universally "better." There are many countries besides Singapore that approach maths education the way that Singapore does. The system works well there and can work well here too. However, those countries have much more cross-curricular support for the kind of thinking that is required in Singapore. In my experience living in an Asian country (where math is taught in a similar way) I saw elementary students who were in school from 7 or 8 AM until their tutoring finished at 6PM. They also had full on university style final exams for all their subjects including computer and 2 foreign languages - I mention this to point out that the entire culture of education is different (probably better but different nonetheless.) I wholly maintain that Singapore requires Logic stage thinking from Grammar stage students - some of them my benefit from that and some may not. If you had actually read my pp, you would have understood that I think both the "conceptual" and "factual/ procedural" areas of math should be mastered by all students. The process by which mastery is achieved may be different - I just think that it is a fallacy to say that only a conceptual approach can produce a robust understanding of mathematical concepts and facility in approaching mathematical problems. Edited to remove my own passive-aggressive nastiness. Sorry Alte Veste Academy - you were right and I was wrong :blush:

This is an excellent point and you are right that it's not necessary to memorize 9+6=15 in order to see that it is equivalent to 10+5. Basically, this is the beginning of number bonds - re-arranging the parts of a number into a whole. But, where many children may *see* the equivalence when using manipulatives, they will not be able to "do" number bonds without the manipulatives until they have memorized the different ways to make the whole. You are especially right in saying that repetition will build that skill. And then you have accomplished the real goal of teaching both the "conceptual" and "factual" aspects of the problem. By the same token, you do not need to be taught that the process for finding 9+6 is to turn it into 10+5 in order to understand that the 2 are equivalent and there is a natural progression as math facts are mastered that leads the student into the process of making 10's to solve problems like this. When I teach using a traditional program, I start with the whole, 15 and memorize the different parts (9+6, 10+5, 7+8) etc... Once students have these facts down, they can "fill in" the number bond mentally. The only real difference is that the manipulation of 9+6 into 10+5 comes later. I was actually trained to teach Singapore, Everyday Math and MIF. The first 2 while teaching in PS and the last in a private international school. When I first saw Singapore I loved it - and I thought it would be a fantastic, exciting way to learn. I used a TM when teaching it in a BM school and, when my ds was in K-1 I used it with the HIG (later switching to MIF.) But after seeing how most kids (my own ds included) were unable to progress at the speed of the program (granted this may not be an issue when Hschooling) and had little retention, I found myself reaching for more and more traditional supplements. The reason that I even engaged in this conversation is because I think there is a misconception that "conceptual" programs are somehow more advanced, better or more "mathematical." They are not - they constitute a different approach which is highly effective for *some* students - and not others and it does demand logic stage thinking sooner. The key is to know your student and yourself as a teacher - also to understand that the ultimate goal, from both angles, is conceptual and procedural mastery. Taught equally well (and completely,) I don't think that one or the other method is superior to the other - just that the "facts first" approach is more classical in nature and can be as effective in promoting mathematical thinking as the conceptual programs.

Aw. See, I thought we were trying to have a productive conversation. Nobody ever said anything about "blindly memorizing 'math facts'," But I guess you only read the posts you agree with. The PP makes a point of mentioning that her ds must have memorized certain facts in order to complete the problem. As I said before, kids need both approaches - the discourse was about how and when to introduce the discussion of WHY. For the record, my ds who has done primarily "traditional" math (as it suited his disposition) is very quick with mental math and has DISCOVERED the Singapore strategies largely on his own as he learned to manipulate numbers. Yes, I taught place value and sometimes suggested that it might be easier to work with a ten ect... but he is coming into his conceptual understanding through his knowledge of the "facts." And, just because a kid can replicate a strategy does not mean that they understand WHY it works or why we do it that way. I just tire of the mathematical snobbery. Even SWB says that Singapore is introducing logic stage thinking at a time where it may not be appropriate. People want to think that they are accelerating their kids by pushing them into that thought process too early but *sometimes* they are actually decelerating them. The boards are full of Asian math users who complain that their kids have not mastered their facts.

That is like saying that if kids do copy work they will be resistant to learning to formulate compositions later. It's not true - but the concepts must be introduced at the right stage of course. They will not have to re-learn anything but will be enlightened to the complexity and number relationships with which they are already familiar. Nobody here is saying that we should be teaching PURELY math facts, it is a matter of where the emphasis is placed. And FWIW, we actually do teach kids to memorize phonics rules precisely so that they can decode different words later. We don't start out by emphasizing all the different exceptions to the rules, we build up a set of rules for them to use so that, as they become proficient in reading, they can analyze them to decode and later to spell. Then, in the logic stage, we teach them WHY there are so many different phonics rules (different linguistic roots, colloquialisms, strange etymologies etc....) but we don't teach them WHY the phonics rules are the way they are from the beginning. That would be far too much analysis for a grammar stage student.

:iagree: YUP.

Obviously I wasn't implying that there should be NO understanding or that any program would teach memorization with NO understanding. Obviously. I'm saying that the emphasis on understanding is premature - not that there should be no understanding but that the emphasis should be on learning, repeating and internalizing the facts and mechanics of math. Of course I expect comprehension - but the emphasis on strategy vs. mechanics goes beyond comprehension into analysis. It's the same thing grammar stage students do with language. They read, repeat, memorize rules and mimic structures. Of course we still expect them to comprehend what they reading, but the amount of analysis is limited. In math though, we expect students to analyze numerical relationships before they have a basic proficiency with the mechanics which means that many students never get an opportunity to build a knowledge base from which to draw later. And there is no "true" classical ed. anymore. By virtue of the systems and philosophies that have influenced education in our day and age there is probably nobody who is practicing "true" classical education. However, the basic precepts of "classical," trivium based education define a grammar stage where a young student is exposed to ideas, rules, facts and processes and a Dialectic stage where a student begins to analyze those processes, rules and facts and to discuss causation, formulate arguments and study logical syllogism. Much of the strategy taught in "conceptual" math programs falls under the heading of logical syllogism. 9+6 - If I take 1 from the 6 and add it to 9 then the 9 becomes 10 and the 6 becomes 5. 10+5 = 15 Therefore 9+6=15 This is akin to if P then Q and more appropriate to the dialectic stage. Just saying :)

Just adding to pp - One thing that I think is important to consider is also the child's readiness to "understand" and manipulate numbers conceptually. It is easy for me to do 28 + 37 as 30 + 40 = 70 and 2+3=5 so 70-5= 65 so 28+37=65. But for a child who is just being introduced to addition, and has to calculate every little fact, it is not easy to manipulate the numbers this way OR to understand WHY you would want to manipulate the numbers this way. Classical education emphasizes the importance of repetition and fact acquisition during the grammar stage. We have our kids doing copy work and dictation without knowing *why* but we know that the value is in the repetition, practice and internalization of the writing they do. IMO the current trend towards "conceptual" math is pushing kids into logic stage thinking before it is relevant to them. We all want little Johnny to know why 28+37=65 but in order for him to really understand why he has to have his basic skills mastered. Grammar stage is about memorizing and repeating - about building a base of knowledge to draw from when the question turns from WHAT to WHY. I don't mean to say that all the illustrations, examples and strategies in "conceptual" math programs are bad. In fact, they are fascinating and, taught properly, really demonstrate the LOGIC of math. However, the current push to prioritize that "understanding" above mechanics, fact acquisition and memorization is as counter productive as drill and kill ever was. Kids need both approaches to have real "understanding." To manipulate the numbers they must know their facts and be proficient in the 4 operations but proficiency alone does not a mathematician make. Yet, I say that the time to solidify facts is during the grammar stage and the time to pull back the curtain on the math wizard - that comes later. I don't ask my 6 yr old to postulate about the socio-economic factors that may have influenced the fall of the Roman Empire. The whole conversation would be referentially opaque to her. Instead, I tell her "Rome fell in 476 AD." I expect that in a couple of years, she can read Gibbon's account of the decline of the Roman Empire and come up with a terribly compelling thesis about how and why Rome fell. She's super smart - It's not that I don't think she's capable of understanding those things. She does not have the frame of knowledge to analyze them yet. But the more facts she tucks away, the deeper and more original her analysis will be when it does come. Anyway, IMO it's the same with math. We're so worried about teaching the why that we forget the natural learning process. That's why Singapore reduces so many kids to tears. Not because their parents are poor teachers or because they are not as bright as other kids - simply because they are not ready for that discussion yet. I know a lot of people use Singapore et al successfully and that's great - but I can only assume that those people are supplementing to teach the facts and operations or that their children are naturally inclined toward maths or have already bloomed into logic stage students. And one last thing - many of the concepts being used here to illustrate "conceptual" math actually are taught in the more traditional programs. CLE teaches expanding numbers (356 = 300 +50+6) it also teaches number bonds (though they don't call it that and it's a triangle, not a triangle made of circles.) It teaches why borrowing works etc.... It's just that the "traditional" programs don't put the focus on the why, they put it on the what.