Also, I see in your siggie that you are doing MEP 1, too. How is that going? What sort of activities are big hits? I *love* MEP, but I've been hesitant about starting it with dd4.5.

Glad it helped :). And wrt seeming to understand all the necessary bits yet looking blankly at you when it comes to actually *doing* it - dd4.5 does that all. the. time. I just prompt her as much as necessary, up to and including pretty much walking her through it - I just make sure that I am verbalizing the thinking process I want her to be learning. I'm not sure when I'll start stressing over her being able to do things without needing heavy amounts of help - but not anytime soon :tongue_smilie:. DD4.5 is still so young - I'm more concerned about fun (but correct!) exposure than independent mastery right now. ETA: And I know that several moms here do the same think wrt walking their dc through difficult word problems, even at much older ages - that it is better for them to see how it is done, get experience seeing the sort of thinking required, than to not do it at all or be left to flounder.

I didn't see that he was three. In that case, I'd definitely not stress about him getting it right away - but I'd also present it with manipulatives of some sort every. single. time. until he does. For Christmas, I'm making my dd a set of jewels/sacks/treasure chests a la Arithmetic Village :tongue_smilie: to play math with (10 jewels per sack and 10 sacks per treasure chest ;)) - there are all sorts of manipulatives and games you can do to work on place value :). R did quite a bit with an abacus before we got out base-10 blocks, and it made things pretty easy for her to see. We did a lot of counting and such, as well as entering various numbers and whatnot (most in the context of her math lit books - I'd keep an abacus nearby and haul it out whenever numbers came up).

I think I'd keep on going - CLE does seem to have lots of place value things throughout level 1 - but maybe do each and every 2 digit problem/activity with the blocks. Or maybe you could try an abacus - give a different way to look at it. Also, can he count by tens? I've been counting the RS "mathy" way :tongue_smilie: - one-ten, one-ten-one, ... , two-ten, etc - and dd4.5 can, with prompting, count by tens with ten blocks or on the abacus. Once I remind her that one block/row is one ten, she can take it from there with two-ten, etc. The RS counting does really help make place value more transparent - maybe it's another thing you could try. Haul out the blocks (or abacus), and once he's confirmed via counting that one 10-block is ten units (or even if he needs to confirm that *every* 10-block is ten units :tongue_smilie:), have him then count by tens instead of ones to build up that number. He's counted them, he knows each 10-block is worth ten units, so let's now count how many *tens* we have. Really work on getting the connection down between ten ones and one ten. Would he agree that 10 units lined up next to one ten-block are equivalent?

How far are you in CLE? I was looking at the 103/104 samples, and there are quite a few place value activities. How does he do on the segmenting oral numbers into hundreds/tens/ones? And can he order 2 & 3 digit numbers - that is pretty dependent on place value. Anyway, there seems to be quite a few place value activities in each lesson - how does he do on them?

Since you otherwise like CLE, I'd be inclined to stick with it and add in manipulatives to flesh out the instruction and practice. What about the base ten blocks confuses him? Does he not get what 45, for example, really is - that it is how we represent in writing the quantity of 45 units, arranged into 4 sets of ten units with 5 units left over? Or that he doesn't get why anyone needs to spend time trying to learn this totally obvious concept :tongue_smilie:. If you gave him 4 tens and 5 units, could he tell you that was 45, and vice versa, whether or not he sees the point of that activity? What sort of place value activities have you done? I'm not sure what you mean by being "fine with numbers up to 100" if he really doesn't get place value :confused:. Does he have any understanding of what those quantities *are* - does he at least get that 88 is 88 units, even if he doesn't get how those units are arranged into 8 tens and 8 ones to get the notation 88? I would say that, yes, you really need to be able understand how to break apart numbers into tens and ones, and how to build them up from tens and ones. An understanding of place value is foundational to being able to understand arithmetic, particularly the standard algorithms. Without it, you're stuck learning the procedures by rote.

Also, wrt finding a curriculum that you both understand, I'd figure out which ones make sense to *you*, and then let him pick from those. You've said that neither MUS nor TT have worked out. You mentioned the blocks in MUS confused you both, but what were the problems with TT? Also, did you like how *you* learned math as a child - if so, maybe you could describe what you liked about it and the Hive could see what programs are similar. And if you *didn't* like how you learned as a child, what didn't you like about it? And do *you* feel confident about teaching math and your math education in general, or is it a weak area?

A couple thoughts: Can he carry in addition? Because it's basically the same principle, and pretty much the same procedure - put extra tens over the tens place, extra hundreds over the hundreds place, etc. Can/could he do multiplication without carrying? Like this: __532 x__26 ___12 => 2x6 __180 => 30x6 _3000 => 500x6 ___40 => 2x20 __600 => 30x20 10000 => 500x20 13832 (hope that's right, did it really quick, no checking :tongue_smilie:) Might show if it's a place value issue, or just a keeping the numbers straight issue.

I have both, though have not used them with kids, just with me ;). ER is kind of half-deductive/half-inductive, where CLC is much more on the inductive side. CLC has more/longer stories than ER, and I personally found the CLC stories more interesting. But depending on the personality of your dd, she might like the ER stories better (there's some distinct 12yo boy appeal to some of the CLC stories ;)). Also, I found the vocab load for CLC more manageable than ER (in terms of being able to just sit and read the stories without having to check the vocab list/glosses every two seconds, or having to spend time memorizing the vocab outside of just re-reading the stories); CLC introduces some vocab in cute little cartoons, which helps there. CLC moves slower at the beginning than ER (ramps up either in or after Unit 2). For my purposes - supplemental "fun" reader - I like CLC way more than ER. It's much easier to just pick up and start reading, and I like the stories better. I just can't get past the first few ER stories in terms of interest level, and I can't just skip them without running into vocab trouble - and thus ER just sits on my shelf.

What sort of mistakes is he making? Could you post a problem or two he did wrong, including all the work he did - there are so many ways to get things wrong, it helps to know the particular mistakes in order to figure out the cause.

This looks *awesome*. I'd think K4-g2 (a review classed it as preK, K, early elem). I think I'm going to get it for my 4yo for Christmas - she loves math and books and jewels :tongue_smilie:, so I think it will be a good fit :).

I'd pull out (or make) some base-10 blocks, or use a place value chart to visually show what is going on, and then talk her through it: Let's look at the ones. Can you take 7 away from 3? No? So what now? We need to regroup. So let's take a ten, and make it ten ones. Oh, we don't *have* any tens - well, let's go take a hundred and make it ten tens: 100s_|_10s_|_1s_ __2__|__0__|_3__ -_1__|__2__|_7__ => 100s_|_10s_|_1s_ __1__|_10__|_3__ -_1__|__2__|_7__ Now we can go, and take a ten, and make it ten ones: 100s_|_10s_|_1s_ __1__|_10__|_3__ -_1__|__2__|_7__ => 100s_|_10s_|_1s_ __1__|__9__|_13_ -_1__|__2__|_7__ And now, can we subtract 7 from 13? Yes: 100s_|_10s_|_1s_ __1__|__9__|_13_ -_1__|__2__|_7__ _____|_____|_6__ And now we look at the tens. Can we subtract 2 from 9? Yes: 100s_|_10s_|_1s_ __1__|__9__|_13_ -_1__|__2__|_7__ _____|__7__|_6__ And now let's look at the hundreds. Can we subtract 1 from 1? Yes: 100s_|_10s_|_1s_ __1__|_9__|_13__ -_1__|__2__|_7__ __0__|__7__|_6__ So our answer is 76. Does that help?

I love our church, too :). People are all so very accepting of little kid behavior in the service, and are happy to have my kids "sing" in the choir with me (b/c dh is the associate pastor, and so they are always with me Sunday mornings). At a previous church they sort of put up with it, but here they genuinely are ok with it :). And no one comments about my nursing my 2yo in the pew, or about the fact that our kids come everywhere dh & I do (b/c they won't stay with a babysitter). In general there is a lot of grace and live-and-let-live when it comes to most areas of life. Plus awesome Lutheran theology, which imnsho ;) is the most grace-filled, Christ-centered (and least-legalistic) teaching out there :thumbup: (making the above listed qualities more than just a lucky aberration).

One thing I read about (but can't find the link :glare:), is figuring out how many digits one can write in a minute, first - as that is obviously a limiting factor on speed on written fact quizzes ;). iirc, the mom tested herself first, to establish a baseline - it was something like 70 or so digits in a minute. Then she tested her son, to see if he needed to work on handwriting speed issues in addition to math fact speed issues. Once you know how many digits can be written in a particular time frame, then you've a baseline for figuring out how many problems per sheet to shoot for in that time frame. For example, 70 digits in a minute means a max of 35 problems with two digit answers. I think there are something like 45 unique mult facts, more or less (not counting the 0x and 1x facts) - so if you wanted to test them all, maybe 90-120 sec would be a reasonable goal (more time than it would take to just write the digits, but not *tons* more time, kwim). That was just off-the-cuff - but the sort of line of thinking I'd be pursuing.

I'm using LL for self-study. I *love* it - it is heads and shoulders above other reading texts in how it actually uses the story to *teach* the grammar and vocab, not just to introduce or review. I like that I can review by re-reading, instead of with flashcards and the like; as well, I enjoy the exercises. I'd taken 2 years of Latin in high school, but I couldn't read a simple sentence until I started LL - it really helps you get a feel for the language, right from the start. And it has quite a bit more reading material than most other programs. As far as teaching goes, the author recommends that parents/teachers are at least 10-15 chapters ahead of their student.

Well, if you think of the smaller bottle as one unit, and the larger bottle as one unit plus an extra bit, you have 30 units plus an unknown number of extra bits - b/c there were 30 total bottles sold, with an unknown number being large bottles and thus having an extra bit. Those 30 units cost $8 each, so they account for $240 of the total. So the unknown bits, all together, account for the rest of the cost - $24. Since each "extra bit" costs $4 each (b/c that's the price difference b/w the small and large bottles) and all the extra bits cost $24, there must be 6 extra bits. So there were 6 large bottles, and so 24 small bottles. Does that make sense?

Genuinely asking here :) - what are your reasons for going prescriptive? Because all I know of prescriptive is either English shoehorned into Latin rules or people who've basically done a descriptive analysis of a subset of "proper" English writing, and so the linguistic approach has seemed to be better grounded in the underlying truth/reality of what language and grammar really is. How do you see prescriptive grammar, so that you believe it to be a better approach? And better for what, for that matter? Thanks :)

Linguistics is the science of language, in that linguists study language as people speak it, just as biologists study living things. They try to describe it and come up with accurate models. Structural grammar is a particular approach to describing and modeling language. But as a science, linguistics always considers reality - how the language is actually used - as the final arbiter. If the model says A and the native speaker says B, the model needs improving ;). Otoh, prescriptive grammar says that these are the rules (but why? And where did they come from?), period. Any divergence is wrong by definition. But other than the strong influence of Latin grammar, I've no idea where they came from and why they are true - other than "the book said so". Sometimes people analyze a subset of writings that are deemed "proper" and extract the common features - but how is that any different from descriptive grammar analysis in essence?

Well, the link I posted does do that, inasmuch as traditional grammar is Latin-based. (I admit I'm completely confused as to whether the prescriptive grammar rules are necessarily Latin-based or not; at any rate, many prescriptive grammars are based on Latin rules, even if there are some that aren't. Btw, I'd love to hear about any that aren't :bigears:.)

See, and I consider teaching grammar from a linguistic point of view as teaching the true why's of language, as teaching language in a way that best emphasizes the true, the good, and the beautiful without sacrificing rigor. If I wanted to stick to the utilitarian, I'd go with the public schools ;).

Short answer, yes :D.

This is probably b/c I am having a remarkably hard time *quantifying* what about it I love so much :tongue_smilie:. Well, I got into structural grammar initially through researching Latin instruction. I was rather appalled at many of the traditional approaches, but still wanted to maintain a rigorousness that most modern approaches lacked. Anyway, I came across a fellow that applied structural grammar techniques to Latin instruction - quite a breath of fresh air. Here is the article in question, which I rather enjoyed but might be boring to anyone else :tongue_smilie:. (You saw beauty in *that* :lol:.) There was something about the emphasis on taking the language on its own terms, on analyzing it as a whole, that resonated. Rigorous and true. I'm afraid it's the best I can do at the moment :tongue_smilie: - I clearly don't have a good idea what I'm talking about ;). ETA: Also, my love is probably b/c structural grammar was my first encounter with linguistics - my first exposure to *real* language study - and I associate it with all the wonders I've found in linguistics as a whole.

Honestly, I'd say that MCT sounds perfect - it really gets to the *point* of grammar more than anything I've seen short of college level. Now, I did come down on the structural grammar side of the debate, and I am all about studying linguistics to get into the *real* reasons, but short of wanting to do that (which would take quite a bit of effort on your part, and is totally unnecessary unless you have a geeky love for language or a purist's determination to get to the genuine heart of it all, both of which describe me :D), MCT (and KISS grammar) are the best at really delving into the language in a way that maintains the *point* of it all. I don't think you are likely to do better with a language-loving kid who wants to learn how it all works.

I think we agree moreso than we don't - it's just clouded by my misuse of definitions (probably because I'm still a more-enthusiasm-than-sense novice :tongue_smilie:). I, at least, don't mean to imply that syntax is the whole of grammar - hardly! It's just that structural grammar was my first introduction to the world of linguistics, and so I tend to associate the two, as "real grammar". I think of traditional grammar as the Latin-contaminated stuff - I really didn't realize there was a traditional approach that avoided it. I thought it went (broadly) traditional -> structural -> transformational (with all sorts of competing theories in there), and that no linguist did anything at all "traditional" as we non-linguists conceive of it, that whatever theory they held to, *none* of it was remotely "traditional". And, at least my structural grammar book was very sympathetic to transformational grammar, so I assumed that the two could coincide - that you could be studying the surface grammar of a particular language while still learning/acknowledging the idea of a universal deep grammar. And I've been delving into linguistics in order to *have* a common framework for learning about and studying the grammar of Latin/Greek/Hebrew/English - I know there *is* one, and I thought that the traditional framework was Latin-contaminated/wrong-wrong-wrong, and so I turned to linguistics to get a better one. ETA: I'm starting to get the feeling I've no idea what traditional grammar *is*, if it's not the Latin-contaminated stuff :confused:.

For me, it's more that structural grammar seems more *real*, more true - that it's a more honest system, in terms of how English really is, and one that rests on all that linguists have been doing in the past century. It resonates with me, honestly - it attracted the always-dig-deeper for the *real* reason part of me. It seems that it gets to the core of things, instead of getting obsessed with splitting hairs and totally missing the point. Plus it introduced me to linguistics, which is so wonderful (even though I'm only just starting and am clearly misusing definitions all over the place :tongue_smilie:), so I love it for that. I really am just starting - my reasons aren't so much well-thought-out, here's the pros and cons - but more that structural grammarians speak to me, that their goals for studying English (to learn how it *really* works) are my goals. I don't do well with utilitarian goals, with learning how to use English well just b/c it is somehow necessary. I want to do things because they are true and beautiful - and structural grammarians are, to me, all about the truth of language. And in such rigorous terms - appeals to the logic geek in me :tongue_smilie:. It's really that simple - I read the work of some structural grammarians and got an English structural grammar book, and I loved it :). It seemed *real* to me, in a way that traditional grammar didn't. Thus why I want to do it :tongue_smilie:.