Grade level comparisons for math programs?

[profmom]

Is there a chart somewhere that gives an honest assessment of the equivalent grade levels of various math programs. Many claim to be advanced.

 

Take 4th grade, for example. What is your understanding of where any or all of the following math curricula fall when compared to public school?

 

~ Abeka 4th grade (equivalent to ps 5th grade?)

 

~ Horizons 4

 

~ Rod & Staff 4

 

~ BJU 4

 

~ CLE 4

 

~ Singapore 3B/4A (sequence recommended by MFW for 4th grade)

 

~ Singapore 4A/4B

 

~ ACE Paces

 

(Feel free to rate other math too.)

 

 

I'm sure there isn't a "typical" public school, but there is something that publishers compare themselves to. Isn't there? I'm not asking so I can choose the most advanced but just to get a feel for where they may fall. It's confusing stuff!

 

Also, which of these cover the material that is covered on typical end of year achievement tests when the grade level on the book matches the grade the child is in? (I don't live in a state that requires testing, but I would like be able to use the test results and not feel I have to discount any low score because our math program covers things in a different order.)

[Karen in CO]

I haven't been able to get a good comparison. Here is a basic scope & sequence for for k-8 math. You can compare when they teach certain concepts, but you can't really compare the depth at which they teach them or compare how challenging the problem sets are without sitting down with each book. For instance, my dd8 had trouble with addition with carrying and subtraction with borrowing at the beginning of this year. So we worked on it a lot. She can now add and subtract 9 and 10 digit numbers or a column of 8 or 9 numbers long and just as many wide. I had dropped all of our math programs and just worked on continuing to challenge her with this skill once she became excited about it. Now, I've been looking ahead at the next levels of math and they are teaching addition with 4 digit numbers or 5. It is just silly to me. Anyway. Hopefully you will find what yu are looking for.

[MrsMe]

:lurk5:

[MIch elle]

The math standards across this country are not the same. As homeschoolers, it would be of value to know this information.

 

As a user of past user R&S and current CLE math user, I would say R&S is behind and CLE is on par with our local school system.

[sagira]

:lurk5:

 

This would be useful, at least a comparison to the best standards in the country so we would know. I keep hearing that MCP Math, which we're using, is slow and behind compared to Christian programs. However, I believe in cementing those facts as well.

 

It would be neat if Maria Miller of Homeschoolmath.net took it upon herself to write a comparison based on her reviews.

[Renee in NC]

:lurk5:

 

This would be useful, at least a comparison to the best standards in the country so we would know. I keep hearing that MCP Math, which we're using, is slow and behind compared to Christian programs. However, I believe in cementing those facts as well.

 

It would be neat if Maria Miller of Homeschoolmath.net took it upon herself to write a comparison based on her reviews.

 

MCP, Calvert, and ACE seem to be on about the same level.

 

R & S is a year ahead of those (the 4th grade is roughly equiv. to the 5th grade of the above from what I can see.)

[profmom]

Can these programs be ranked then?

 

Based on this thread and other info I've seen around here, is this ranking accurate (most advanced to least)?

 

Horizons 4

Singapore 4A/4B

ABeka 4

Singapore 3B/4A & CLE4 & BJU4

R & S 4

ACE & Calvert & MCP

 

(Just a starting point, but I wouldn't be asking if I already knew, KWIM? For example, I have no idea if Horizons would be more advanced than SM. However, I read here recently that Horizons is 18 months ahead of ps so I put it first. I put R & S below CLE based on MIch elle's post.)

[Melissa in CA]

oops..double post

Edited May 26, 2009 by Melissa in CA

[Melissa in CA]

Well, each math program has it's own scope and sequence. I think it would be really hard to compare them on a whole. :confused: If one program does not introduce something in the same year or at the same depth than another, that doesn't mean that program will not eventually do so.

 

For example, when we decided to switch from Abeka in 3rd grade, I had my son take the Saxon test just to see where he would fit. With Saxon he would have been able to skip ahead a grade level due to Abeka introducing some concepts earlier. Yet, he would have had to jump back a level or two with Singapore due to their somewhat nontraditional S&S where they seem to introduce concepts early, but not always with great depth. But, each of these programs would have eventually taught all the varied math concepts.

 

So, by advanced, do you mean a program that introduces concepts early, or a program that is just academically more difficult on a whole? Hmmmm, even in that there is discrepancies. BJU keeps elementary math slow and steady, but ramps up considerably in high school. Abeka seems to move quickly in elementary and yet their high school texts don't seem to be as difficult as some. Saxon's early elementary seems somewhat easy, yet their late elementary and high school ramp up into the more difficult range (with their incremental methodology causing it to be even more difficult than needs be IMHO).

 

Also, whether they imply advanced or not in their descriptions, every math company is going to claim to have a great curriculum. ;) And each of us have our favorites.

 

Are you worried about keeping up with the ps in case your dc have to enroll? If that is the case, pick a school-type curriculum: Saxon, BJU, Abeka, etc.. These curricula are actually being used in many, many schools. I would steer clear of MUS...but that is not even on your list. Not that it isn't good, but because the S&S is extremely different than the norm.

 

Anyhow, I really don't know what I am talking about! :lol: These are just my rambling two-cent thoughts on the matter. :tongue_smilie:

[Brindee]

We didn't like A Beka after 3rd grade, I wouldn't put it above Singapore or R&S! Just like their English, R&S math seems fairly advanced to me, they introduce things in a different way, but I never thought they were behind other programs.

 

If you're talking sticking with one program all the way through, well, I think most of them end up introducing and working with all the concepts, just in different orderss and in different ways. That may make some more traditional and less traditional, but not neccessarily better or worse. With that statement I just made, you could include TT and LoF, which some people "poo-poo" because they're not traditional, but they're still good programs. Saxon isn't traditional, in that it incorporates the Geometry in with other things, so there's no separate Geometry course.

 

So, really, there are too many variables, I'd say. This is just my rambling 2 cents worth now! (I feel like I follow Melissa around wherever she goes! :D)

[Tabrett]

How do you think RS would compare grade wise?

[dsacco]

We tried R&S for math last year and my daughter (who was in 3rd at the time) thought it was too easy and honestly was bored with it. We went back to LifePacs (Alpha Omega) and she continued there. With my son it was the same thing (7th grade math) and we went back to LifePacs. This year - I am now switching to Saxon 5/4 and Algebra I which is where they both tested.

[profmom]

 

Anyhow, I really don't know what I am talking about! :lol: :tongue_smilie:

 

:tongue_smilie::lol: Me either!

 

Thanks for your ramblings though! I'm not sure exactly what I'm asking, except that I'm wanting to find the program that is "just right" for my upcoming 5th grader. The thinking required in SM has been tough for him at times -- thinking through the steps for SM word problems, for example. (He often thinks it's a one-step problem, when it's more.)

 

Some of his problem has been that he needs more practice solving problems and paying attention to details. (Thanks, Heather/Siloam.) I don't think he's behind in math though.

 

So, I'm trying to figure out what program will:

 

~ Keep him at least at grade level so that he can take Algebra 1 in either 8th or 9th grade (depending on how the next few years go) -- and ready to go into any Algebra I program, not just that same company's.)

 

~ Not require leaps in application as big as SM does, but still include some mathematical thinking (Although, maybe I can make up for this in a program by using SM CWP with him?)

 

~ Move at a good steady pace -- not dragging, but not taking off and leaving him either. (Yeah...pretty vague, huh?)

 

~ I'd love the program to also cover what is tested on the Stanford so I won't feel compelled to supplement with something to be sure he is exposed to the types of problems included. (I want the test results to be useful to us and not have to explain to dh that he's doing fine but SM doesn't teach some of the concepts that are tested.)

 

 

So far, our only math experiences have been with SM and a little with R & S. The last time we tried R & S, he thought it was too easy and repetitive (but I tried to explain that it was review at the beginning....) He hated copying the math facts, but the 5th grade R & S probably wouldn't do this. I'm not sure if R & S fits what I'm looking for. (Maybe?) I'm open to suggestions!!

[Karen in CO]

It sounds like you are looking kind of for the same things that I use BJU for. I use it to make sure things are covered for the standardized tests, and to give practice or a different p.o.v. on a topic after it is covered in Singapore. I typically use BJU either at the same level as Singapore or a level ahead. It introduces multiple ways of solving problems which I like since my dd either loves to play with the numbers in her head or gets stuck mentally imagining that there is only one way to solve a problem. BJU flows somewhat topically like Singapore does, getting increasing more complex as it goes. I have found that they work well together for me because of that flow.

[MIch elle]

We only used Calvert math 4 for a short time but then went back to R&S math 4 for older ds because Calvert 4 didn't have enough continuous review. But in grades 5 & up Calvert is more advanced than R&S, imho.

Edited May 26, 2009 by MIch elle

[profmom]

It sounds like you are looking kind of for the same things that I use BJU for. I use it to make sure things are covered for the standardized tests, and to give practice or a different p.o.v. on a topic after it is covered in Singapore. I typically use BJU either at the same level as Singapore or a level ahead. It introduces multiple ways of solving problems which I like since my dd either loves to play with the numbers in her head or gets stuck mentally imagining that there is only one way to solve a problem. BJU flows somewhat topically like Singapore does, getting increasing more complex as it goes. I have found that they work well together for me because of that flow.

 

You don't feel like BJU is enough on it's own? Do you use both programs in their entirety?

[Karen in CO]

I love the CWP in Singapore and many other things about it, but sometimes it goes too fast. I like BJU and have used it almost on its own for a several time. It does a great job, but sometimes it goes too slow on topics, and after Singapore, I think its word problems are a bit shallow. I tend to go back and forth between them depending on how my dd is learning a topic. I'll use Singapore until I start to get the feeling that she is getting lost or its going too fast, then I'll switch to BJU until I feel like she is getting bored or is ready for the more challenging SIngapore problems. No matter what, we still do CWP every week.

 

Just to complicate things, I've been playing with MEP for the past month or so. It has a good variety of puzzle type problems that my dd enjoys - these are like the problems found in the Singapore Intensive Practice books , but again the MEP word problems are weak.

 

 

I think the BJU could be used fine on its own with the addition of CWPs, but I just haven't been willing to give up Singapore. Of course, I keep ordering the next level of BJU too. I even ordered the K book for the youngest. She's all set to start K next fall with at least 3 math programs.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Karen in CO

[Spock]

 

Also, which of these cover the material that is covered on typical end of year achievement tests when the grade level on the book matches the grade the child is in? (I don't live in a state that requires testing, but I would like be able to use the test results and not feel I have to discount any low score because our math program covers things in a different order.)

 

BJU materials in all subjects match the Iowa Test of Basic Skills almost exactly. (Maybe they based their curriculum on the test?)

 

Singapore is ahead of BJU in most areas starting with 4A/4B (and in a few areas before that). Some concepts in PM 4A/4B are typically not taught here before Algebra 1 or Geometry. However, Singapore teaches negative numbers much later than the US (not until 7th grade/NEM 1). US courses also emphasize estimation and probability very strongly, while Singapore touches on them much more lightly. Singapore also does not use the > < signs until NEM, so American students who will be tested need to be introduced to those symbols.

 

From my observations of Abeka math, they use bigger numbers than other courses, but do not cover more difficult concepts at the same level. I have only looked over their books, however. I have not used them. They appear to be at more or less the same level as BJU.

 

Saxon seems to be either on grade level or slightly below, depending on where you live. (Meaning that Saxon 65 is either at a 4th or 5th grade level, depending on your local schools. It seems to cover the topics on a 5th grade test, though.) I only used Saxon 65 and part of 76.

 

I have used Miquon (all), Singapore (1A-NEM 2 with various children), BJU (K, 1, 3, 7, PreAlgebra, parts of Algebra 1 and Geometry), MUS (Primer, Beta, Epsilon, Zeta, PreAlgebra, Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2), and Making Math Meaningful (either 2 or 3, I don't remember which). My brother used Abeka 7 and 8, so I have seen those, also.

[Melissa in CA]

I'm going to agree with Karen. I think BJU with Singapore CWP is a good combo. I personally don't care for Singapore's math as our main math program, and wouldn't like to use both full programs as Karen does, but I think their Challenging Word Problem books are wonderful, wonderful supplements to any math program.

 

When my youngest was younger, I used to use at least two math programs with him every year. I found that we could not finish them both though and I began to feel a bit guilty about spending so much money on one subject. It would also invariably put us behind in our main math and we'd be always finishing his math book the next year. This was fine then, but now that my son is older, I feel he REALLY needs to complete his 6th grade math book before 7th grade begins, and I will insist he finish his 7th grade book next year in preparation for 8th. This is hard to accomplish with two full math programs going. Adding in Singapore's CWP is an easy add-on though. My son knows he has his BJU math to be completed each day, along with a page of CWP. It works for us. :D

 

On the other hand, if he were a math lover, and I could actually get him to complete two full math programs in a year...I would do it. Just for the variety of instruction. ;)

[Renee in NC]

We only used Calvert math 4 for a short time but then went back to R&S math 4 for older ds because Calvert 4 didn't have enough continuous review. But in grades 5 & up Calvert is more advanced than R&S, imho.

 

I compared the table of contents of the fifth grade books and R & S covered things with bigger numbers - that's why I said it was more advanced.

[skaterbabs]

We're using a grade 6 public school math text this year with Yacko; next year we're switching to CLE. The work he's doing is essentially what CLE does in the level 400 books.

[FlockOfSillies]

However, Singapore teaches negative numbers much later than the US (not until 7th grade/NEM 1). ... Singapore also does not use the > < signs until NEM, so American students who will be tested need to be introduced to those symbols.

 

This is no longer true with the new Standards Edition of SM. My dd is in 4A of the Standards Ed. and she has been introduced to negative numbers.

 

My son is in SM 2B of the Standards Ed. and he has already seen the < > symbols.

[MIch elle]

I compared the table of contents of the fifth grade books and R & S covered things with bigger numbers - that's why I said it was more advanced.

 

R&S math 5 doesn't cover integers nor order of operations as does Calvert math 5.

[FlockOfSillies]

We haven't covered integers yet, but SM 4A Standards Ed. starts covering order of operations.

[Karen in CO]

R&S math 5 doesn't cover integers nor order of operations as does Calvert math 5.

 

MEP covers integers and order of operations in 2. We worked the problems, but I'm not sure they are in the TOC. :D

 

 

I stand by my original assertion that you just can't compare math programs like this. They are too different in breadth, depth, and complexity.

[Matryoshka]

Singapore also does not use the > < signs until NEM, so American students who will be tested need to be introduced to those symbols.

 

:confused::confused::confused: Singapore US Edition (that's the old one, not even the new Standards), introduces the <> signs on page 10 of 2a (with Bill Spy Car's nemesis the alligator, no less), and they are reviewed again (sans alligator) every year through Primary Math.

[Renee in NC]

R&S math 5 doesn't cover integers nor order of operations as does Calvert math 5.

 

Ahh...I didn't see those in Calvert 5. I must have missed them.

[MIch elle]

MEP covers integers and order of operations in 2. We worked the problems, but I'm not sure they are in the TOC. :D

 

 

I stand by my original assertion that you just can't compare math programs like this. They are too different in breadth, depth, and complexity.

 

I wish I had done it a LONG time ago. I'm glad I switched my younger ds to CLE math because I did compare math TOC's.

 

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is NOT my policy!

[RootAnn]

I stand by my original assertion that you just can't compare math programs like this. They are too different in breadth, depth, and complexity.

:iagree: We use A Beka as our main math program & I find that my oldest is about six months to a year ahead of the local ps kids. BUT, ps here isn't necessarily the same as ps wherever you live!

 

We've used Singapore (1A/1B for summer 'review' & Earlybird 1B/2A for K with #2) and Horizons K (book 1 for K with #2 after doing Earlybird). I'm strange and give other math curriculum placement tests at the end of the year as kind of an assessment of where the kid is at. The fact that some programs teach different things at different times really makes comparisions of level difficult!!

 

Horizons is definitely "ahead" at the lower levels we've looked at. However, except for geometrical figures (which A Beka really doesn't cover at the lower levels), my 7 yr old DD placed into Horizons 3 with no issue after completing A Beka 2.

 

Saxon at the lower levels (up to Saxon 3) is "behind" most of the others, in general. I.e., I'd use Saxon 1 for K, Saxon 2 for 1st, etc.

 

Singapore is 'advanced' in many ways, but like MUS (even though they are completely different types of programs), requires different math "thinking." I have a friend who used Singapore with her #2 from the beginning and would like to use it with her #1 child but didn't start homeschooling until 3rd grade and she thought it was "too late" to switch over because of the different way Singapore teaches. (I'm not saying it is, just passing on her opinion).

 

Good luck with your decision!

[Karen in CO]

I wish I had done it a LONG time ago. I'm glad I switched my younger ds to CLE math because I did compare math TOC's.

 

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is NOT my policy!

 

I hear you. I am currently using at least three math programs, but my dd has turned from hating math to wanting to be a mathematician when she grows up.

 

I think early math teaching is very important, and I have learned that I am terrible at teaching math (but improving). Having a good program or three and confidence in some sort of sequence of learning is important.

[Whereneverever]

I just read this whole thread- what a help! I'm trying to decide where to go after Singapore Earlybird and now I have some ideas. Maybe too many ideas. :lol:

[KarenNC]

Singapore is ahead of BJU in most areas starting with 4A/4B (and in a few areas before that). Some concepts in PM 4A/4B are typically not taught here before Algebra 1 or Geometry. However, Singapore teaches negative numbers much later than the US (not until 7th grade/NEM 1). US courses also emphasize estimation and probability very strongly, while Singapore touches on them much more lightly. Singapore also does not use the > < signs until NEM, so American students who will be tested need to be introduced to those symbols.

 

The Standards edition of Singapore has quite a few changes compared to the US edition in terms of level at which concepts start, as well as including more on estimation, probability, data analysis, negative numbers, etc. Here's the best chart I have found to compare the changes:

http://www.singaporemath.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/SSUSandSTD2008.pdf

 

Also, fyi in case those who are interested in them do not know, CWP is going out of print and Jenny at the Singapore Math.com forums says she doesn't know if they will be able to get them past this year. I went ahead and bought the remaining levels we needed.

[Mom22ns]

My daughter just finished ps 4th grade. She is an A student, but math is her worst subject. Her district is considered excellent, but they are behind some of the others at this age. Here is how she tested on some of the placements, just for comparison...

 

Singapore, she tested into 4B.

Horizons, she tested into 5, but it was a bit challenging.

BJU, we have 5th & 6th, and she is over half way through 5.

MUS she would be in Epsilon (fractions)

CLE, she refused to take another placement and it didn't seem to match up well, I'm not sure but I think she would have come out slightly behind.

Saxon 6/5 was pretty close.

 

I found the only one that had really introduced a lot of concepts she hadn't seen as Singapore. I think CLE was ahead too though. Horizons was probably the next most challenging. The others we tried or looked at were at or below the level of her public school. I did not look at Abeka or Rod and Staff at all.

[tmkclscroggins]

We use 'R&S math and I find that it covers the basics so well that I would never go back to a different program and believe me, we've tried a bunch of them! We do work 2 grades ahead with no problem though.

 

As far as advanced programs, Horizons would be my pick if I wanted a grade level program that introduces concepts early. This was fine with one child but R&S works much better for the other one.

 

 

melissa

[hmschooling]

 

~ Abeka 4th grade (equivalent to ps 5th grade?)

 

~ Horizons 4 5th grade

 

~ Rod & Staff 4 I hear lower levels are ahead, and upper levels are behind

 

~ BJU 4 I hear it's about the same

 

~ CLE 4

 

~ Singapore 3B/4A (sequence recommended by MFW for 4th grade) covers things found in ps math from about 3rd-6th grade

 

~ Singapore 4A/4B covers things found in ps math from about 4th-6th (varies so much b/c they introduce things in a different sequence, but SM is certainly ahead)

 

~ ACE Paces

Teaching Textbooks- behind...you need the level up to remedy this. They also don't cover all needed algebra topics in time for high school science until their pre-cal couse. They DO cover it though and it's a great program. It's great to add the 8week math course from Beginning Publishing called Bridge Math after 8th grade if using TT, so you'll be ready for hs science.

 

VidoeText- Ahead b/c they cover all of Pre-Alg to Alg. 2 in 1 to 2 years. And all of Geometry and Trig. I believe in about 1 year as well. My top pick for high school!

 

 

.

[Spock]

:confused::confused::confused: Singapore US Edition (that's the old one, not even the new Standards), introduces the <> signs on page 10 of 2a (with Bill Spy Car's nemesis the alligator, no less), and they are reviewed again (sans alligator) every year through Primary Math.

 

I am using the 3rd edition textbooks for 3A-6B (because I had them leftover from my older children, before the other versions existed) with the US workbooks, along with Miquon. I do have the US version of 1A-2B, though.

 

My daughter was using MUS Beta alongside PM 2 and Miquon Blue/Green, however, and skipped many sections of the various books because she had mastered the topic in one of the other books. That must be why I missed the new <> symbols. I told my daughter to go ahead and use them in 3A, even when the book/workbook didn't request it, because the 3rd edition doesn't include these symbols. [she hated Beta because the worksheets had the same format every day, and because she liked the variety of topics in PM/Miquon that she had used in first grade. That's why I ended up adding both books back in alongside Beta. We eventually dropped Beta very close to the end of the book.]

[sagira]

Originally Posted by profmom

 

~ Abeka 4th grade (equivalent to ps 5th grade?)

 

~ Horizons 4 5th grade

 

~ Rod & Staff 4 I hear lower levels are ahead, and upper levels are behind

 

~ BJU 4 I hear it's about the same

 

~ CLE 4

 

~ Singapore 3B/4A (sequence recommended by MFW for 4th grade) covers things found in ps math from about 3rd-6th grade

 

~ Singapore 4A/4B covers things found in ps math from about 4th-6th (varies so much b/c they introduce things in a different sequence, but SM is certainly ahead)

 

~ ACE Paces

Teaching Textbooks- behind...you need the level up to remedy this. They also don't cover all needed algebra topics in time for high school science until their pre-cal couse. They DO cover it though and it's a great program. It's great to add the 8week math course from Beginning Publishing called Bridge Math after 8th grade if using TT, so you'll be ready for hs science.

 

VidoeText- Ahead b/c they cover all of Pre-Alg to Alg. 2 in 1 to 2 years. And all of Geometry and Trig. I believe in about 1 year as well. My top pick for high school!

 

Where do MCP and Miquon fit into all this?

Edited June 6, 2009 by sagira

[Orthodox6]

MCP, Calvert, and ACE seem to be on about the same level.

 

R & S is a year ahead of those (the 4th grade is roughly equiv. to the 5th grade of the above from what I can see.)

 

I would place Saxon math "down there" with Calvert and MCP in terms of rigour. Never have seen ACE, but have a friend who worked for the company, and insists their materials are very poor.

 

Teaching Textbooks is the weakest (for grade level claims) that I have seen yet. BUT the teaching methodology is working wonderfully for my dd. We just scoot through as fast as she is able to do well.

 

ABeka was all computation and scarcely any understanding of what one was manipulating. This, at least, for their grade 7 math which we tried.

 

BJUP seemed all right. We used it some, but just got tired of all the sermons.

 

Horizons still garners my vote for best all-around K-6 program. Spiral-method, reasonable-length lessons, scope-and-sequence. Just may be too fast-paced for some students. (I had to set it aside because dd has math disabilities.)

Edited June 6, 2009 by Orthodox6

[sagira]

I would place Saxon math "down there" with Calvert and MCP in terms of rigour. Never have seen ACE, but have a friend who worked for the company, and insists their materials are very poor.

 

I'm assuming you mean MCP is quite rigorous, which I'm glad to hear. SWB recommends Calvert Math too. MCP is a great fit for us so far, and I wouldn't switch even if I heard it was less rigorous (but I would be disappointed of course).

[Orthodox6]

Oops, if I have stepped on a toe. No, I don't think of MCP as rigorous. Just straightforward math; no bells nor whistles. To be fair, though, I have not used it in may years, so perhaps MCP has changed. It was the very first math program that we used, fourteen years ago.

 

We found Calvert pedestrian, and Saxon worthless (worthless for our family's preferences and needs, that is).

 

I'm quick to admit that, once I discovered Horizon's math, nothing else can match its excellence.

 

As is a foundational platform for everyone around here, though, there is NO "one size fits all" program or product for math, nor for any other subject.

 

I'm assuming you mean MCP is quite rigorous, which I'm glad to hear. SWB recommends Calvert Math too. MCP is a great fit for us so far, and I wouldn't switch even if I heard it was less rigorous (but I would be disappointed of course).

[zaichiki]

Singapore also does not use the > < signs until NEM, so American students who will be tested need to be introduced to those symbols.

 

This is not true. Dd is using Singapore Primary Math 2A right now and has been taught the greater than/less than symbols. It comes up in the reviews every once in a while, too.

[sagira]

Oops, if I have stepped on a toe. No, I don't think of MCP as rigorous. Just straightforward math; no bells nor whistles. To be fair, though, I have not used it in may years, so perhaps MCP has changed. It was the very first math program that we used, fourteen years ago.

 

We found Calvert pedestrian, and Saxon worthless (worthless for our family's preferences and needs, that is).

 

Oh, no problem. You are kind and polite :) I'm not a mathy person, and ds is doing well with a combo of MCP and Miquon. I think Miquon adds that extra dimension which adds to it. I'm using the 2005 version. I don't like Saxon either. Someone gave a Saxon K set. Not for me (the teacher).

[Lovedtodeath]

I would place Saxon math "down there" with Calvert and MCP in terms of rigour. Never have seen ACE, but have a friend who worked for the company, and insists their materials are very poor.

 

Teaching Textbooks is the weakest (for grade level claims) that I have seen yet. BUT the teaching methodology is working wonderfully for my dd. We just scoot through as fast as she is able to do well.

 

ABeka was all computation and scarcely any understanding of what one was manipulating. This, at least, for their grade 7 math which we tried.

 

BJUP seemed all right. We used it some, but just got tired of all the sermons.

 

Horizons still garners my vote for best all-around K-6 program. Spiral-method, reasonable-length lessons, scope-and-sequence. Just may be too fast-paced for some students. (I had to set it aside because dd has math disabilities.)

BJU math cannot be used secularly? If so, I might need to shop around again.

[Testimony]

I have used Singapore Math exclusively since second grade. I have my sons take the IOWAs every year and they do well in math. They have always tested either on or above grade level in math. So, I feel that the program is a good if my children are testing well. Also, I think that a math curriculum is good if it prepares the child well for advanced math.

 

I did use Christian Liberty Math for my older son in first grade before we discovered Singapore. My younger son did A Beka. I thought that Christian Liberty taught carrying and borrowing sooner than A Beka. I only used Christian Liberty for first grade for my older son, but I used A Beka for first and second for my younger son.

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey.

 

Sincerely,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Orthodox6]

I mean no disrespect. It just was not a good "fit" for us, who are not Protestant.

For example -- (I pulled a couple of BJUP math texts out of our school closet in order to reply) -- Before a section on "How to Attack Word Problems", one reads a reminder that "A Christian must always be prepared, especially against the craftiness of the Devil." (There are two paragraphs to underscore the point.) Then a comparison is drawn that one needs, also, to have a plan of attack for math word problems. . . . Later in the same book (this is the Algebra I textbook), before learning how to "Multiply by a Monomial", I am reminded that "The Christian must apply the Biblical principles learned on Sunday to life during the week as well."

 

The math instruction itself seemed quite sound. We just could not appreciate the ever-present inclusions as would members of a different faith group.

 

I want a math book to be a math book solely.

 

 

 

BJU math cannot be used secularly? If so, I might need to shop around again.

[Orthodox6]

You are a far smarter woman than I, then ! A friend hammered me into trying Miquon, and I quickly established that I had "a negative IQ", so could not possibly use the program !

 

Oh, no problem. You are kind and polite :) I'm not a mathy person, and ds is doing well with a combo of MCP and Miquon. I think Miquon adds that extra dimension which adds to it. I'm using the 2005 version. I don't like Saxon either. Someone gave a Saxon K set. Not for me (the teacher).

[kamom]

IMO you're listing CLE to far down. It is a rigorous program .I think CLE is at least a grade ahead in 4th grade. My DS tested between 5th and 6th grade after doing it this year and we didn't even finish it. He's young and it was hard for him.

I got Saxon 56 for him to do next year and he would be reviewing, or repeating for most the book. I've studied it for a long time, but still haven't decided how to proceed.

Someone metioned her children were working two years ahead in R & S math. Either she has very smart mathy kids or that program is behind! I have compared CLE and R&S in lower grades and R &S did not come close to CLE in rigor!

[Lovedtodeath]

I mean no disrespect. It just was not a good "fit" for us, who are not Protestant.

For example -- (I pulled a couple of BJUP math texts out of our school closet in order to reply) -- Before a section on "How to Attack Word Problems", one reads a reminder that "A Christian must always be prepared, especially against the craftiness of the Devil." (There are two paragraphs to underscore the point.) Then a comparison is drawn that one needs, also, to have a plan of attack for math word problems. . . . Later in the same book (this is the Algebra I textbook), before learning how to "Multiply by a Monomial", I am reminded that "The Christian must apply the Biblical principles learned on Sunday to life during the week as well."

 

The math instruction itself seemed quite sound. We just could not appreciate the ever-present inclusions as would members of a different faith group.

 

I want a math book to be a math book solely.

Ugh! I might not be able to use it. :sigh and I was all set to switch. No one mentions that stuff in the reviews. What did you use besides Horizons?

[TC5]

The Standards edition of Singapore has quite a few changes compared to the US edition in terms of level at which concepts start, as well as including more on estimation, probability, data analysis, negative numbers, etc. Here's the best chart I have found to compare the changes:

http://www.singaporemath.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/SSUSandSTD2008.pdf

 

 

Thank you for this chart! My sister and I were just talking earlier today about finding a scope and sequence for Singapore Math. This is very helpful.

Teonei

[chiguirre]

Ugh! I might not be able to use it. :sigh and I was all set to switch. No one mentions that stuff in the reviews. What did you use besides Horizons?

 

I'm using BJU now with ds to review subtraction. I have the 2nd edition 1st and 2nd grades. All of the religion is in the TM, but there is a pretty heavy dose of it compared to R&S, for example. I think you'd be fine as long as there isn't a lot of text on the student work pages. There are some worksheets based on Bible stories, but they are math worksheets, it's just that the pictures are cartoon OT types. I'm not sure at what grade they start directing the instruction to the student instead of the teacher, but that's the point where it probably becomes unusable if you're not of the BJU persuasion. My best guess is that that point is 5th grade when they do away with the workbook, but it might be earlier. FWIW, Horizons also has some worksheets based on religious themes but I've only seen K and 1st.

 

Good luck finding something you like!