In the App Store, type Singapore Math in the search box. More apps than you can shake a stick at-- including bar model apps for levels 2--6.

We also did multiple lessons per session. I still didn't open the workbook until after we were done with the text for the day. He blew through 2-- 2 1/2 levels per year for a couple of years, so yeah, I get this. IP book was on a separate day altogether.

Hmmm one of these posts made me wonder... When I took algebra 1, we were not allowed to use anything until we had proven it to our instructor. I wish I knew which text we used! So geometry was a piece of cake. Now it seems algebra is being presented with less reliance on proofs. Is this generally true?

I think in the US we need to be careful about using our own frame of reference when thinking of what kids can or should do in math. The fact is, traditional math instruction here has been pretty poor-- it has moved at an intolerably slow pace for no good reason (really-- in the traditional sequence into the early 80's at least, kids were still working on arithmetic into the 8th grade; only the very cream of the crop got to try algebra by then, and the general math courses did not introduce much in the way of algebraic thinking). So of course to many kids, even good ones, algebra and geometry felt like "a jump" in cognitive skills and thinking. I think that is why Singapore Math and a few related programs feel so Earth-shattering to us (and is one reason why there is so much blow-back on the Common Core). Not only do these programs offer much better gradual buildup of numeric literacy and mathematical logic from the beginning than traditional US instruction typically did, but in the Asian classrooms, the methods of instruction were very different, as were the methods of teacher development. I just read a WSJ article from a Japanese teacher, describing how kids were encouraged to talk in class, interact with one another, and be generally noisy in math class, rather than sitting at their desks absorbing from the teacher, developing multiple strategies and helping each other find the problems in their solutions-- things people in the US are crying foul over as being developmentally inappropriate and not possible-- because our teachers have not received the critical support and training they need to see how this works, in order to be productive and instructive rather than chaotic. Apparently, kids really can do this stuff. Those of us who use Singapore's Primary Math series already know that teaching kids multiple strategies works wonderfully, as does introducing algebraic thinking and more advanced geometry earlier (though even in 7DM, I am seeing foundations for formal proofs rather than line by line actual proofs, though I could easily adapt the program to make it that way-- I don't because I see that step developed more in the Additional Math program that hits later on). I get that people had these experiences. I think we need to remember that our experiences were based upon our baseline educations, which even in good schools, was maybe not the most up to date model available to us today. It could be a mistake to hold our kids back because of what we experienced. I make an effort to teach the programs written, not the programs I recall-- yes, I tweak here and there, and I am in charge, not the book-- but if I change something, I try to make sure it is for sound reasons, and not because I'm being a stick in the mud. I need a better reason than, "WEll that's how I larned it, and I done did good!" I think that goes for both sides--whether we feel our background was lacking or superior. No matter who you are, there is probably something that could be learned.

Kind of a thread hijack, since the OP wants to stick with CAT, but just FYI, you don't need this if you want to take the SAT-10 online. Sign up through Brewer Testing, and they will be the test administrators. No bubble sheets, no test books to mail in-- the whole thing is done online! I do recommend using the pre-test the day before so the kids can learn how to use the ruler and calculator tools on the screen beforehand though. The Brewers are super nice to work with and you get the results in about 24 hours, esp if you don't test right in prime season.

DS10 and DS13 both enrolled. DS13 blew through it-- he started out, "Do I have to??? I don't think I'm really into programming." He finished with, "When do they release the next course??????" He loved it. I loved it. The instructors got back to him quickly when he submitted something or asked a question, and the feedback on the final project was so detailed that I was really impressed. Where he was good (most of it, because they taught the course well) they let him know specifically why it was good. Where it could have been better, they pulled no punches, but did so in language that did not discourage him-- even though he had completed the course, he dove right back in to see if he could make those things better and follow their suggestions. In the end, he had created a really credibly good Minecraft mod! He also found that programming could be a very creative outlet, he learned how to really stick with debugging, and how to ask somebody other than Dad and I for help, or to be responsible for his own learning a bit more. DS10 is taking it a little slower (he has done Super Scratch Programming Adventure) but is also making really good progress. He will sit and work on it for hours when it occurs to him. Despite the price, I put no pressure on either of them to get it done; it is easily achievable within the year timeframe. I will have to go back and look at the Khan Academy stuff-- not sure if it still has value after the mod design class or not, but they both enjoy KA so maybe that will help some of the info they learned from Youth Digital stick!

Yay, I just got a biiiiiig box in the mail :D Already had DM 7, that's what DS10 is using now, so the box had DM8, 3, & 4 (series used to be 1--4) and Additional Mathematics :D :D :D. We are set for the younger dude! (plus two more boxes full of the chem lab I'm going to teach alongside Life of Fred Chemistry woot!)

We used the US Edition levels 2--5 before moving on to level 7DM (which we love-- I just bought up levels 8--10DM and Additional Math before the last 3 go out of print). I like that the US Edition goes to 2-tone instead of staying full-color at level 3; my son was less distracted. I liked the larger emphasis on metric. There is a phenomenal amount of review in the US Edition-- assuming you use both the text and the workbook. Both contain multiple review sections per chapter. Beyond that, in the word problem sections, everything already learned is used in the word problems from that point forward, so if you do all of the word problems, the material is never lost in the first place and the need for review is negligible. If you have learned measures or fractions, they appear in every single section of word problems after you learn them, so when will the student forget? For those who need more practice, you can add in the additional practice or challenging word problems books, or for an advanced student, the intensive practice book.

Another way to go might be to spend a year with AoPS Number Theory and Probability books in 8th, then hit geometry in 9th, you could still review algebra throughout the year to shore up any areas where she needs more confidence.

Just do it when you like. We loved how many experiments were in Fred Physics-- we found a pile of them in every chapter. You will definitely want a $3 spring scale so you can play and do what Fred is modeling with discovering mu(s) and mu(k) and such. My 10YO had to prove everything Fred did to himself, as much as was practical ;) We ended up getting some of those K'Nex education kits-- the simple machines versions-- for his birthday, and they were hooked up to the spring scale as well and loaded with Skylanders and boxes of marbles and various other loads as the boys tried to figure out whether inclined planes and pulleys and levers would have additive or multiplicative effects when put into a system . . . It was a really delightful book when we played with it!

Let us know what you think. From some other comments on here, I am thinking I need to look again and maybe lighten up a bit. My husband has told me to not worry about it, reminding me I will be teaching the class, saying, "Remember, the textbook is only a small part of the class . . . it's how you teach it that will really count . . . " Ummm.... mimble wimble??? Have I mentioned I am nervous?? And somehow that didn't help? I'm not teaching a class to be a be-all and end-all for the kids; just a fun and hopefully helpful supplement every other week that may make some concepts seem doable and not dubious, and provide a supervised lab environment where the kids can work together to figure stuff out and maybe learn a bit there too. But it's still a responsibility and I haven't done it before . . . I'd no longer be just screwing up my own kids! Okay, back to Fred. Easier to talk about Fred being weird and fun :)

OMG. I am cracking up at the videos. I actually think the are pretty funny, and they explain an awful lot about Fred . . . I think every college student should have to watch his diatribe about "How much have you learned" at the beginning of episode 17 during freshman orientation!! But yeah . . . maybe he should have rethought that costuming bit in the in bed sequence :lol:

The Singapore Math series uses a continuously integrated model just like it does during Primary Mathematics, eliminating the need for review. Once something has been introduced, you use it constantly in the word problems and examples thereafter, so you never "lose it." The algebraic concepts are used in the geometry sections and the geometry concepts are used in the algebraic sections, which is, truly, part of the entire point and beauty of the integrated approach. I did experiment with "monstering together" a course this year for older DS who is not using Singapore-- one week of Fred algebra 2, one week of AoPS geometry. Although I liked the geometry book, he ended up hating switching gears each week, and he didn't want to do two math books concurrently. We did end up dropping AoPS so he could just finish Fred, and he'll do Fred Geometry when he's done. So I think I agree with Ruth in terms of a program that isn't designed to go together from the outset-- his problem sets weren't designed to work together beautifully as they are in Singapore Math, so mentally, it was just a clash for him rather than being an integrated anything. We didn't have a review issue, but it just didn't run smoothly and they were not complementing each other as I did not have the time to invest in working them into one another; we just did one and then the other. So . . . done right and done very thoughtfully, it can be a really beautiful, elegant thing. Lacking that degree of planning and insight, it can just be an ugly clash that detracts from the program and I think Ruth is spot on-- one topic a year would be better than a clash and clamor.

Interesting! FYI, my last email communication with Singapore Math confirmed from their end that they will support only K-8 math for the time being once their current stocks sell through, so if anyone is planning to use through DM4, find them now (one of the texts, either 3 or 4A has already sold out; I think I got one from Rainbow). They will continue 7-8 Dimensions Math. They did not specifically address their uppermost math program, the Additional Math, that adds in the rest of trig and the beginning of calc, but the email specifically said they will focus on only K-8 "for now." I took that to mean they will not support that last level either and bought it while I was at it. I didn't know about the starpub group. My younger DS is working through 7B now, and I love the integrated approach. Since the divisions are artificial, this just makes more sense to me.

I see you already bought AoPS. If that proves to not be the correct fit for her, don't write off just continuing with Life of Fred. I brought my older son home in the fourth grade, and he started with the LoF Fractions book and is now in Advanced Algebra-- I just bought Geometry for him (the Fred series reverses algebra 2 and geometry). DH is a math professor, and he is as happy as I am with the depth and completeness of Fred, btw, so no worries on that front. It is not a trivial series. Our son often sits with and explains algebra 2 problems to much older kids who are using more traditional texts, explaining the reasoning behind the solutions to the problems to them quite clearly-- and he learned it from Fred, not from us. So . . . it's affordable, complete, and she already loves it . . . it might not be a bad fit for your daughter if AoPS just doesn't work at some point. And, FYI, even if AoPS doesn't work this year, you can always try it again later. I know from my reading of a couple of the books, I really dislike AoPS's approach in pre-algebra (I personally feel they make a very simple subject matter far too difficult, unnecessarily so without any real gain); however I felt the geometry text was brilliant. For some reason, I have always like Alcumus. My younger is doing well with Singapore Math's Discovering Math/Dimensions Math series, but the upper levels of that are about to be discontinued for an unspecified period of time, so that one is pretty hard to recommend right now for a kid who isn't already doing Singapore, as you kind of have to either commit now and buy up the about about to be discontinued books from whereever you can find them (levels 3 and 4, and very likely soon, the Additional Math series that takes you into farther trig and calculus are the levels being discontinued so that SM can focus only on K-8 for now, according to email correspondence I have had with them recently) or figure on finding something new again in a couple of years-- and the shift into Singapore style thinking probably isn't worth it for that short a time period. Dolciani is also a good choice; many mathematicians were trained using Mary's books and think of her as an old friend :)

I have to say I am a little disappointed. On the whole, I find the book a fun one for middle school level chemistry, or a fun supplement for high school chemistry, not quite on par with the neat Physics book he produced earlier. The adventuresome will find plenty of embedded labs and plenty of chemistry instruction therein. What disappoints me is that Schmidt's snarky tone has reached really new heights, and he makes some really incredible claims about what "you will not find in any other chemistry book." Well . . . he must have had really bad chem books, because all of the concepts he mentioned were in my chem books in high school. I think he needs to start working with a real editor, someone to can stand up to him and make him eliminate the disparaging remarks he makes about every book except his own. I love the asides about history, English, Latin, and everything else, but these disparaging asides about how brilliant he is and how awful everyone else is might be an attempt at humor, or something else, but I find them very distracting, because my brain pops right out of the book and thinks, "huh??" Throughout the book, there is a chemistry professor who is a complete dunce who doesn't know how to teach, and Fred saves the day, having never taught chemistry before a day in his life, because he knows all about how students really learn. This is pointed out explicitly time after time just in case the reader misses the point. It is pretty clear Stan Schmidt has a long standing grudge against some past chemistry professor in his student career, and it is sad he took it out on the kids reading this book, which otherwise held some serious promise. Now I have to figure out if I can sanitize it enough to teach it in my co-op... I am running out of time to put together yet something else new from scratch. (waiting for WTM'ers who know me to pass out cold on the floor that I just slammed a Fred book).

This is a complete hijack, but I had to respond :) There are three really fun books to address the extreme sizes of things for kids: Is a Blue Whale the Biggest Thing There Is? How do You Lift a Lion? What is Smaller Than a Pygmy Shrew? They are very cute and do a fun job of introducing the scale of the very large and very small :) For Physics without math, as I saw earlier on the thread, look at almost any of the books used by NOEO Physics levels 1 & 2; that is one of the reasons I refused to use it-- I wanted my kids to have the math as I see physics and math as being pretty inseparable. But the resources they use are pretty fun including the Simon Basher books. Also, the K'Nex Education building sets are awesome-- levers, inclined planes and pulleys, and the others will have kids building everything from working scissors (well, they won't cut, but they will open and close) to a crank car window to a blender and a phonograph player to explore simple machines. No math needed. It comes with a teacher DVD in case you want to get into some explanation with them. The Science Wiz kits are excellent and come with all the parts you need-- the color kit is outstanding for the really young kids, Light is good fun. There is also Electricity and Inventions. Snap Circuits are also good physics fun.

I am so glad to be reading this. I knew in advance this level would move more slowly than PM did-- he blazed through those at a little faster than 2 per year, and I am thinking we will not finish 7B this year, but since he is young for this level of math, I keep telling myself to back off, let him take his time and learn it. But it is really nice to hear that this is pretty typical of the other young kids at this level! I think it is more demanding, but this level has made me love Singapore Math even more than ever. As well as he is doing in Fred, I kind of wish I had made the leap into Singapore with my older one when we started as well; SM just does some really unique things. Ah well, they're both thriving. I just need to learn to relax and be satisfied! I can't teach them both everything six times just so I can try everything out LOL

Have you gone through Smullyan's "What is the Name of This Book?" The writing can be a tad old-fashioned here and there, but the puzzles are still fun. My kids love working out the issues from the Isle of Knights and Knaves :)

Consecutively is not all that uncommon, for a host of reasons, particularly when doing higher level math young. I think that is different from doing two primary programs concurrently.

I would not personally add Fred to Saxon at the upper levels. Fred is already a complete program unto itself unless you blast through it, and if you blast through, you miss the depth of the math it includes, so why bother, unless you bought it cheap? Few middle and high school students have the time and patience to do two simultaneous complete programs. You might get away with the earliest books-- Fractions, Decimals, and Pre-A with biology, since they are shorter books (but still deep) and going at a slower pace won't matter too much. But going through Algebra and Advanced algebra simultaneously with a beast like Saxon would either be brutal, or you'd be necessarily giving Fred short shrift.

I'm glad it looks good for you! I loved taking the Coursera course!

A note about LOF Economics... Yeah, Stan is kind of a political fruitcake. However. I had my son work through the book anyway. And I read the book too. And we had some amazing dinner table conversation about politics and economics those couple of months. He started reading the newspaper (at 11). Economics and politics have become some of his favorite subjects. He follows the fate of the Euro and the state if the European Union (we are Americans). He asks about trade agreements. I have a friend who works in the part of law dealing with international mergers and acquisitions, and he quizzes her mercilessly. I have another friend who is a corrosion engineer, and he chats him up about how energy affects global economics and politics. In short, he has not adopted any of Stan's funky ideas; however two years later, the book has still had a profound impact on his interests and passions, and he is now a far more informed world citizen because of it-- probably better informed than most adults! The ideas in the book may be distasteful, but if you discuss them, they need not be harmful. The math is still solid. My son learned a great lesson about not blindly agreeing with everything written in a textbook, and about not needing to make it an "all or nothing" decision; he could take the awesome (the math and Fred's delightful story) and use the rest to become a better person as he became more educated about why the rest was a problem. He avoided the fallacy that if some is bad,it all must be (particularly since the important part, the math, was fine). There were no murders or salacious content to shield him from. I think only reading things I agree with is boring, and results in little growth, for defining why I disagree in precise terms often takes some research and effort (do I know as much as I think I do?). Maybe that is why I keep reading these forums-- no lack of things I disagree with (Saxon or TT usage?? <ducking> <grin>. ). It's worth considering, before just chucking it. You could be passing up an opportunity to grow.

I don't think Singapore has a monopoly on bar models; anybody who has used cuisinaire rods can get the same effect if they follow through to algebra. However, for me, Singapore's method goes beyond the word problems (which to be honest, I never found to be all that magical. They are more thoughtful than most programs' problems, and move into sensible, rather than contrived, multi-step problems fairly early on, which is probably what many people are talking about, and I do appreciate that they incorporate all previously learned concepts into their problem sets, negating the need to stop and review-- a problem set might include measures, geometry, decimals, fractions... everything a student has learned up through that point in the program). So the strength of the word problems is that they feel less mathematically contrived, they are built in review themselves, and they are often multi-step, building those logic skills. However, the rest of the program is what attracts me. I love how elegantly the skills are taught, sometimes in ways I had never before considered (and I have a reasonable background in mathematics). The emphasis is on understanding and numerical literacy, not plug and chug; a student who is taught Singapore Math correctly should have no trouble thinking outside the box to apply his knowledge to problems that look nothing like the examples he has seen.

I recommend the workbook. I am a lonely voice saying the Primary Math US series has too much repetition and review, and Fred is plenty as a standalone... and even I think the practice in the workbooks is needed to master the material even for a gifted kid. DS10 is currently 75% done with 7B DM.