Does anyone here NOT like CLE Math?

[naturally]

I am looking at CLE Math for 1st grade next year. Right now it's my top pick (with R&S close behind).

With all the great reviews, I just wonder if there is anyone who didn't like it. If so, why?

[Spy Car]

I've never used it, but in reviewing every one of the extensive samples from every year and every level, I came away shaking my head in bewilderment.

 

I didn't see a single example that promoted mathematical reasoning, critical thinking, or logic-building problems beyond the irreducible minimum.

 

Bill

Edited April 4, 2010 by Spy Car

[usetoschool]

Depends on the child. I am a big fan of Singapore and love to play with math and manipulatives and talk about why why why BUT...I have a girl I am teaching who just doesn't get it, doesn't think that way. We got halfway through Singapore 3 with her and she began to flounder. We switched over to CLE and she really blossomed. She just doesn't care or understand the why and just likes to learn how to do the math and CLE is my favorite program for just teaching basic math in a thorough and happy way.

 

So, I guess it depends on the child and what you are after - what your goals and abilities are. I wouldn't use CLE for my other kids but for this girl it is just the ticket.

[Tree House Academy]

I use CLE, but I supplement. My younger son is not "mathy" and he got lost in the speed with which CLE introduced and used subtraction.

[Spy Car]

Depends on the child. I am a big fan of Singapore and love to play with math and manipulatives and talk about why why why BUT...I have a girl I am teaching who just doesn't get it, doesn't think that way. We got halfway through Singapore 3 with her and she began to flounder. We switched over to CLE and she really blossomed. She just doesn't care or understand the why and just likes to learn how to do the math and CLE is my favorite program for just teaching basic math in a thorough and happy way.

 

So, I guess it depends on the child and what you are after - what your goals and abilities are. I wouldn't use CLE for my other kids but for this girl it is just the ticket.

 

It seems very sad to me to reach the conclusion that a child is incapable of understanding mathematical reasoning and is only capable of doing "procedural" mathematics. That may be the case with some children. I don't know. In the case of this girl perhaps that's the case.

 

Still, why "write-off" a child before they have a chance? Using something like CLE from the outset removes any chance they will have a deep math education, one that explores the "whys" of math (which really is the point) rather than just treating math as a series of math facts and procedures to be plugged in and/or memorized.

 

Bill

Edited April 4, 2010 by Spy Car

[Guest mrsjamiesouth]

I don't see how CLE doesn't explain how to do math? We have used Singapore, Horizons, Saxon and CLE. I think it explains just as well.

[chadzwife]

I am a older HSler (middle-aged mom). I hve taught my older kids all thru high school math. I used MUS even for most. (my intuit-math boy basically taught himself once he got to Jacobs Alg, Geom and Forster's Interm Alg/Trig) We used Miquon for earlier grades. I learned T O N S I never learned in school and yep, I went thru Trig myself ---hating every second of it YUCK.

I wouldn't have liked to do math the way I taught my own tho, truth be told--give me the CLE-type math I would have said, given a choice. I didn't care 'why', still don't care a great deal why. Math is more beautiful yes, but still not great to me.

I have progressed a great way in college-level science; but not physics, nope lol. I enjoy the human biologies tho. Chemistry's not 2 bad either.

So, while it might seem like writing me off to give me only the rudiments of functional math...parents shouldnt feel bad when they figure out, that IS right for THEIR child. I would say, generally, that student is excelling elsewhere. From what I've seen at my advanced age ;) and wide experience with children and reading of their experiences .

[Mom0012]

It seems very sad to me to reach the conclusion that a child is incapable of understanding mathematical reasoning and is only capable of doing "procedural" mathematics. That may be the case with some children. I don't know. In the case of this girl perhaps that's the case.

 

Still, why "write-off" a child before they have a chance? Using something like CLE from the outset removes any chance they will have a deep math education, one that explores the "whys" of math (which really is the point) rather than just treating math as a series of math facts and procedures to be plugged in and/or memorized.

 

Bill

 

 

Goodness! I doubt she feels like she's "writing off" her daughter. She's switched from Singapore to another excellent math program. It may not be your cup of tea, but there are other programs besides Singapore that can do a good job.

 

Some children need to learn the mechanics first and then the understanding follows.

 

Lisa

[chadzwife]

...2 say:

Just as some ppl are good at art and shucks, wouldn't we all like to know how to draw even; some ppl are going to be the high-level scientists or math theorists.

It's nice to imagine that all kids would be this way, like "all kids can learn to read at age 4, barring organic brain damage". Well, if my kid can't, it's ok. Maybe he's never gonna read well. Maybe. Makes me shudder---I made my math-TEACHER-mom want a valium when she would try to help me at math. (but then again, by age 10, she asked *me* to clarify spelling of words occasionally lol)

So while I love the standards the classical method sets, I know they're not always realistic. I don't throw the baby out w/the bathwater, I just adjust the temp if necessary. :)

[Brindee]

We tried CLE math this year and it did not work for us. It seemed that it jumped around too much, and just didn't "click" with dd. So, we're moving to something else.

 

HOWEVER, you can find multiple threads on here about CLE math and how it has helped children really catch on to the concepts, enjoy doing math more, and understand what they're doing! So, it's what works for your child that is important! NONE of the parents who are thrilled with CLE math would consider themselves "writing off" their children and their math needs! On the contrary, they are thrilled because it IS working, and their kids ARE understanding. Personally, I think it's wrong for people who have never used the program, and have never gone through what each child using it has experienced, and doesn't know what the parents have tried for their children, and how much they've agonized over getting the right program, to say it's not a good program! There are a lot of angles to look at, and as a pp said, Singapore and Miquon, and some of the other math programs just don't work for some kids!

 

I feel that what's important is to find a curriculum that helps your child catch on to math and it's concepts in the best way, and go with it!

[Spy Car]

Goodness! I doubt she feels like she's "writing off" her daughter.

 

First, I didn't suggest Jcooperetc was in any way failing this child (who is not her daughter). She tried Singapore and it didn't work for this child. So she went with a program that she felt matched the girl's intellectual capacity better than Singapore did. Nothing wrong with that.

 

She's switched from Singapore to another excellent math program. It may not be your cup of tea, but there are other programs besides Singapore that can do a good job.

 

Singapore is certainly not the only "excellent" math program. But CLE doesn't come close to winning a rating of "excellent" in my estimation. Far from it.

 

Bill

Edited April 5, 2010 by Spy Car

[Tree House Academy]

Wow...my dh is an engineer who uses math every.single.day in lots of ways as part of his job and he gives CLE rave reviews as far as teaching math. I also have a very naturally gifted mathy child (older ds) and CLE has taught him well. He has a great foundation as well as an UNDERSTANDING of "why."

 

Out of curiousity, if you have never actually used CLE, how can you really judge it? I have a degree in English and I admit, when I first saw R&S, I wrote it off to being too textbooky, boring, blah. After going through about every other grammar program out there, I decided to give R&S an actual shot. When I did, I found it to be, honestly, one of the BEST out there. I can't believe I poo-poo'd it so much before I had even tried it. Perhaps the situation is similar with you and CLE. I know you are not Christian, so I can't imagine you actually using the curriculum, but I also can't imagine forming a whole opinion based on some two page samples online.

[mystika1]

 

I didn't see a single example that promoted mathematical reasoning, critical thinking, or logic-building problems beyond the irreducible minimum.

 

Bill

:iagree:

 

We tried CLE math this year and it did not work for us. It seemed that it jumped around too much, and just didn't "click" with dd. So, we're moving to something else.

 

HOWEVER, you can find multiple threads on here about CLE math and how it has helped children really catch on to the concepts, enjoy doing math more, and understand what they're doing! So, it's what works for your child that is important!

:iagree:

[i.love.lucy]

My experience with CLE has been very positive and I don't feel like I am writing off my dd as unmathy or incapable of learning mathematical reasoning at all. I pulled her from ps mid-3rd grade. She had been doing Everyday Math and drill, drill, drill. She hated math and felf very stupid. We went straight into Singapore as that's what I thought was the "best" math program, and she foundered miserably, and so did I. As a new homeschooler I didn't (still don't) have much confidence in teaching math and when she failed miserably with Singapore I freaked out. I turned to CLE as an option simply because of the spiral approach. DD has thrived. So much so that she tries now to beat her own time with speed drills, and gets very disappointed with anything less than a 95 on her quizzes and tests. Her confidence with math has blossomed and she no longer feels like a dummy in math. No more tears and groaning!

 

Now I have purchased MM and I plan to add in MM 50/50 with CLE this fall. It's my hope that it's easier to teach and learn from (than Singapore was for this dd), and will give us that foundation in math reasoning and conceptualizing that I would have hoped for. My son will start math day 1 with Miquon and MM. Not because he's a boy or I have any assurance he will do well with these approaches, but I will not be "undoing" some damage to self confidence and poor learning style like I did with my dd. If Miquon and MM don't work well for him, I will do whatever I can to find what does.

 

Bill, I am disappointed that you would come here and make people who have selected CLE as a good fit to be inferior because of their choice. My dd is retaining math concepts, is advancing nicely, and now has the confidence to attempt something like CWP and new ideas because of the help I got from CLE.

Edited April 4, 2010 by i.love.lucy

[MIch elle]

Out of curiousity, if you have never actually used CLE, how can you really judge it? ... I know you are not Christian, so I can't imagine you actually using the curriculum, but I also can't imagine forming a whole opinion based on some two page samples online.

 

:iagree:

 

Because your opinion (Spycar) is not based on usage of the curricula!

Edited April 4, 2010 by MIch elle

[usetoschool]

It seems very sad to me to reach the conclusion that a child is incapable of understanding mathematical reasoning and is only capable of doing "procedural" mathematics. That may be the case with some children. I don't know. In the case of this girl perhaps that's the case.

 

Still, why "write-off" a child before they have a chance? Using something like CLE from the outset removes any chance they will have a deep math education, one that explores the "whys" of math (which really is the point) rather than just treating math as a series of math facts and procedures to be plugged in and/or memorized.

 

Bill

 

I think I may not have explained the situation very well - I did do Singapore with her, beginning with Level 1. We got about 3/4 of the way through 3A when we decided it was time for a change. She isn't my daughter so I don't want to go into personal information about her or her life but for her it really was the best choice. She needs a more solid fact based foundation for right now. When she has those skills down we may go back to Singapore or some other program like it but for now she was just getting overwhelmed and we needed to keep moving and this was the best way to do it.

 

I think it is possible to be more theory based even while using a more algorithm based program by using manipulatives and such to demonstrate the ideas. And I would love for every child to be excited about the wonders of math - for her and some other kids I think that wonder and good feeling comes as much from being able to do it and just seeing how it works and being excited to understand how to do the math and how it applies to their everyday life - a much more practical understanding I guess.

 

I have to add, since my kids are all very bright and understand the why of most things fairly easily that it was an eye opening and humbling experience to realize that not every kid is that way. I think if you (in the generic sense of the word) had a child from birth and worked well with them on a consistant basis that many more kids could understand better than they do but there are all kinds of kids in the world and even with the best education some just won't be able to do or won't be interested in deeper math - some dance, some sing, some write, some think, some calculate and on and on.

 

((I feel like I need to put in a disclaimer - this isn't directed at anyone, don't think anyone thinks otherwise of children, just trying to clarify our situation and why I said what I did - that on the whole I don't necessarily find CLE exciting but there are some situations where I can absolutely see it beeing the best choice))

Edited April 4, 2010 by jcooperetc

[mystika1]

I have decided to give CLE up. Yes, the TM is wonderfully easy and my daughter likes the workbooks, but she can't put the material to use in other situations. She gets all of the answers correct in her LU workbook and on LU tests but it takes forever when faced with the same problems in real life or even in another workbook!. Yes, it is cheap but if I have to stack up several other math curriculum to make up the missing elements it becomes way more expensive in the long run.:)

 

I started using MM with her and she said, "Mom, this is much better than guessing.:eek: I like Math Mammoth." Wow, that really openned my eyes and made me glad I switched!

 

I am not downing CLE. I just wanted to tell my story.

 

Thanks,

 

Penny

[ondreeuh]

.

Edited April 4, 2010 by ondreeuh

[ondreeuh]

I suggest anyone interested in CLE actually order a LU from the company (I believe they will send you one for free) and do the whole thing to get a real taste of it. It is unfair to judge a curriculum without seeing how the pieces fit together and how the lessons build on each other.

Edited April 4, 2010 by ondreeuh

[SophiaH]

Some children need to learn the mechanics first and then the understanding follows.

 

Lisa

 

This is a really interesting concept that I must shamefully admit have only recently begun to think about. I listened to an interview with Dr. Art Robinson (creator of the Robinson Curriculum), who has a Ph.D in Chemistry and used Saxon (gasp!;)) with his six children. They all eventually finished Calculus anywhere from age 14-17, and many went on to get Ph.D.s in math and science fields. I don't think anyone can say that they do not understand how the math works. Anyway, in this interview, Dr. Robinson talks about how in the scientific world, it is a very prominent concept--that sometimes one must do something over and over, and eventually the understanding comes. I assume this would be true with more difficult concepts rather than basic things like what adding 2+2 means, but anyhow...it's something I've been mulling over due to that interview and the thread a few weeks ago about "overlearning" concepts. So, I guess I'll admit that I've been convinced that "rote" doesn't always have to be bad. :tongue_smilie:

 

FWIW, I started out using RightStart and Singapore because I had a strong desire for my dc to understand the "whys" of math. However, my dd had a different idea. ;) She just does better with the spiral method of CLE, and needed the daily speed drills and flashcard work in order to remember those math facts--RS games just weren't cutting it. She finally(!) has excelled at quickly recalling math facts, while continuing to pick up new concepts intuitively. Moreover, she loves to work independently. I was actually holding her back by my insistence to be right there, making her use manipulatives, in order to know that she was "understanding" the math. (In fact, as another viewpoint, Dr. Robinson suggests that self-teaching is actually the best way to teach your children to "think." His children all use Saxon without any help from him, and he believes that the thinking skills developed through self-teaching is what allowed them to excel in higher math and science. They do every problem in every book from 5/4 through Calculus (not skipping 8/7 or Alg 1/2).)

 

I do not in any way feel I'm writing dd off or that her math education will be shallow. I continue to use Singapore IP & CWP for the word problems and to keep dd busy :D, but I don't think CLE (or Saxon or any program) is necessarily going to force children into missing out on an "excellent" math education, especially in the early years of arithmetic. How many ways can we say it--it depends on the child. :)

 

Just my humble opinion and thoughts, as my dd is still young, and I readily admit I don't know what I'm talking about! :D

 

Apologies to the OP for the off-topic remarks...BTW, we love CLE! :D

[i.love.lucy]

Hmmmmm...Now that I think about it, the OP did ask "who DOES NOT like CLE?". So those of us defending it should have probably kept our opinions to ourselves as there are plenty of *we love CLE math* threads already, huh?:tongue_smilie:

 

OP, I hope you do find the answers you are looking for. I'd rather have teeth pulled than agonize over more math curriculum choices!;)

[SophiaH]

DD has thrived. So much so that she tries now to beat her own time with speed drills, and gets very disappointed with anything less than a 95 on her quizzes and tests. Her confidence with math has blossomed and she no longer feels like a dummy in math. No more tears and groaning!

 

 

 

:iagree: And may I add, no more frustrations from mom because dd can't make the logical leaps required of her that she was not ready for!

[SophiaH]

Hmmmmm...Now that I think about it, the OP did ask "who DOES NOT like CLE?". So those of us defending it should have probably kept our opinions to ourselves as there are plenty of *we love CLE math* threads already, huh?:tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

:leaving:

 

:lol:

[ondreeuh]

Wow...my dh is an engineer who uses math every.single.day in lots of ways as part of his job and he gives CLE rave reviews as far as teaching math. I also have a very naturally gifted mathy child (older ds) and CLE has taught him well. He has a great foundation as well as an UNDERSTANDING of "why."

 

Out of curiousity, if you have never actually used CLE, how can you really judge it? I have a degree in English and I admit, when I first saw R&S, I wrote it off to being too textbooky, boring, blah. After going through about every other grammar program out there, I decided to give R&S an actual shot. When I did, I found it to be, honestly, one of the BEST out there. I can't believe I poo-poo'd it so much before I had even tried it. Perhaps the situation is similar with you and CLE. I know you are not Christian, so I can't imagine you actually using the curriculum, but I also can't imagine forming a whole opinion based on some two page samples online.

 

My MIL is a teacher and has taught Talented and Gifted classes for over 25 years, plus run decades of summer camps for gifted kids. She teaches a weekly math enrichment class for very gifted elementary students so I trust her opinion. She *really* likes CLE. She has spent time going through the Light Units and seeing how concepts are taught, and she has done a lesson with my son when she watched him during a school day. She loves that fractions, decimals, and measurement are all taught together so that the relationships are understood (one out of ten pieces is a tenth, written 1/10 or 0.1; a millimeter is a tenth of a centimeter so 43 mm is 4.3 cm or 4 and 3/10, etc.). Every single lesson relates math to real life, including questions about which unit would be a more appropriate measurement. This is a huge strength of CLE, and not what I saw in Singapore or Horizons.

[naturally]

Hmmmmm...Now that I think about it, the OP did ask "who DOES NOT like CLE?". So those of us defending it should have probably kept our opinions to ourselves as there are plenty of *we love CLE math* threads already, huh?:tongue_smilie:

 

OP, I hope you do find the answers you are looking for. I'd rather have teeth pulled than agonize over more math curriculum choices!;)

 

:001_smile: It's ok. Thank you though.

It's been an interesting thread for sure. I never meant to start "drama".

 

I am just really worried about getting DS started off on the right foot. I'm so afraid I will choose one curric and then find out later on I should have used another. KWIM?

[MIch elle]

It is unfair to judge a curriculum without seeing how the pieces fit together and how the lessons build on each other.

 

I've learned the hard way that you need to look MANY years ahead when choosing a math curricula. Even though using it for one year may work for your dc, it may not be the best program over many years. LOOK to where that program leads to and what skills are learned along the way to get to the goal. :001_smile:

 

I purchased CLE math 5 -7 before I chose to switch to it for my younger ds. He's now almost done with those 3 levels, and I've been VERY happy with CLE math!

 

YES, there is a TON of repetition in CLE math and it's NOT for every dc. But you can also skip lessons and make the curricula work for you if you like it.

Edited April 5, 2010 by MIch elle

[SnowWhite]

(timidly holding up my hand). I do NOT like CLE math. When I was a student, my parents used CLE. I had planned to use CLE all the way through for all subjects for my dc. My sisters in law use CLE math for all of their kids. Then I experienced first grade CLE math for myself and watched it turn a math-loving, gifted ds into a math-hating, low self-confidence, daily-crying math student. We switched to Singapore within six weeks. (now we're using BJU Math)

 

IMO, at least at first grade level, CLE features drill and kill drudgery.

 

My girlfriend has taken her ds out of public school and he is thriving in CLE math. My ds is wanting to switch to CLE to be like his buddy. I told him at fifth grade if he still wants to switch I will let him, because I believe by then he will have a good foundation in the math concepts for all four operations, fractions and decimals from BJU. I love the way he solves word problems like falling off a log, understanding the processes inside and out so that there is never any question about what he should do with the numbers in the problem. Had we not had the visually rich, hands on, conceptual approach to math for the last 3 years I do not believe he would have such a great grasp of real life math.

[EKS]

I've never used it, but in reviewing every one of the extensive samples from every year and every level, I came away shaking my head in bewilderment.

 

I didn't see a single example that promoted mathematical reasoning, critical thinking, or logic-building problems beyond the irreducible minimum.

 

Bill

 

I just did the same thing and I have to say that I'm with Bill on this one. What was truly frightening is that the notes in the teacher's materials seem to assume that the teacher also has nothing beyond a procedural understanding of math.

 

Of course, many people think that procedural knowledge is all there is to math and that the process of facilitating true conceptual understanding is nonsense and completely unnecessary.

[ondreeuh]

I just did the same thing and I have to say that I'm with Bill on this one. What was truly frightening is that the notes in the teacher's materials seem to assume that the teacher also has nothing beyond a procedural understanding of math.

 

Of course, many people think that procedural knowledge is all there is to math and that the process of facilitating true conceptual understanding is nonsense and completely unnecessary.

 

So talking about primary math, what are specific examples of what you saw were missing? I just don't understand the criticism that CLE is all procedural because I see all sorts of conceptual work. Please share with me the instruction and types of problems that would give the conceptual understanding you don't see in CLE. I am honestly curious.

[MrsMe]

I've never used it, but in reviewing every one of the extensive samples from every year and every level, I came away shaking my head in bewilderment.

 

I didn't see a single example that promoted mathematical reasoning, critical thinking, or logic-building problems beyond the irreducible minimum.

 

Bill

 

 

I use BJU and we love it, thanks to Snowhite!

 

But I can't help but ask what are some of your suggestions for programs (mid elementary and up) for math programs? I'm not mathy myself and use anything that gives all the help I can get teaching it. But I wouldn't have a clue to know what a math program is or is not missing.

[Daisy]

My children hated it. REALLY hated it. It is just entirely too much work. Four pages a day in first grade? That's crazy, imo. Also frustrating to have a new concept introduced every single day. They just couldn't keep up with new concepts and there was so little explanation. We prefer Singapore Math though.

[Snickerdoodle]

My children hated it. REALLY hated it. It is just entirely too much work.

 

That's interesting. When I looked at the 3rd grade samples, it looks to me like entirely not enough work compared to what we are doing now. Are they designed to be used one lesson per day?

[m0mmaBuck]

That's interesting. When I looked at the 3rd grade samples, it looks to me like entirely not enough work compared to what we are doing now. Are they designed to be used one lesson per day?

 

and we average 2 lessons/day. Math takes DS about 30 minutes most days, 45 mins if he is dawdling.

[Snickerdoodle]

Math takes DS about 30 minutes most days, 45 mins if he is dawdling.

 

Well, this pretty much confirms that I must be the meanest mommy around. :001_huh:

[TracyR]

It seems very sad to me to reach the conclusion that a child is incapable of understanding mathematical reasoning and is only capable of doing "procedural" mathematics. That may be the case with some children. I don't know. In the case of this girl perhaps that's the case.

 

Still, why "write-off" a child before they have a chance? Using something like CLE from the outset removes any chance they will have a deep math education, one that explores the "whys" of math (which really is the point) rather than just treating math as a series of math facts and procedures to be plugged in and/or memorized.

 

Bill

 

Bill, there ARE children like that. My oldest thrives off of math programs like Bob Jones and Singapore and such. She has the ability to look at math from various angles and understands it.

 

My 2nd daughter cannot learn this way. I tried many, many times with her. I tried Singapore, Miquon , and Calvert with her and it all sent her into tears. She just could not get it no matter what I did. If I threw to many concepts at her she just would break into tears and had this look like her head was going to explode.

My third daughter is this way as well. They just want to know how to do it and how to come up with the answer in one way only. So they basically want to know that 2+2=4 and that's it. If I throw in number lines , and manuipulatives and you can add it this way and that way to get the same answer they just break into tears, run the other way and tell me they are stupid. This is not the affect I am going for just to give them a deeper understanding of math. They just don't think that way. Period. They are very good in the Reading department where as my 'mathy' oldest child is mathematical minded. Besides now that I used those other math programs I have to play catch up because my daughters just didn't get math.

 

I am very much like my younger two. Growing up in school I dealt with mastery math programs. I HATED math , thought I was stupid in math and just did not understand math. Even while teaching my oldest I had a tough time seeing the point of these deeper mathematical exercises. Once I began teaching my 2nd daughter with Saxon it wasn't until then that I finally for the first time in my own life I understood math. Actually I feel confident teaching with math programs like CLE and Saxon.

I will admit that I gained some understanding from math programs like Singapore, Calvert, Bob Jones.. that I taught. But it took me until my adult years to understand some of them. I think teaching deeper mathematical reasoning should be set aside for adults anyways. You need to grasps the basics before ever having an appreciation for deeper mathematical understanding. Yes, there are some kids out there who get it, but there are far to many that don't.

 

Using the best program to get your point across is the main goal, and if it takes using Saxon or CLE to get the point across and then maybe adding in math programs link Singapore later on can be a good thing for children who are not mathematically minded.

[TracyR]

Wow...my dh is an engineer who uses math every.single.day in lots of ways as part of his job and he gives CLE rave reviews as far as teaching math. I also have a very naturally gifted mathy child (older ds) and CLE has taught him well. He has a great foundation as well as an UNDERSTANDING of "why."

 

Out of curiousity, if you have never actually used CLE, how can you really judge it? I have a degree in English and I admit, when I first saw R&S, I wrote it off to being too textbooky, boring, blah. After going through about every other grammar program out there, I decided to give R&S an actual shot. When I did, I found it to be, honestly, one of the BEST out there. I can't believe I poo-poo'd it so much before I had even tried it. Perhaps the situation is similar with you and CLE. I know you are not Christian, so I can't imagine you actually using the curriculum, but I also can't imagine forming a whole opinion based on some two page samples online.

:iagree:

I absolutely agree. Unless you've gone through the program you can't judge it by looking at a few samples online. I've used quite a few math programs and by far CLE is my #1 pick.

I also do not get the " there is no conceptual math" in CLE. By far there are many similarities to the mastery math programs I've used, and their math word problems using real life circumstances.

 

I know this is a Do not like CLE thread but unless your child thrives off of mastery math that is the only reason I see NOT to use CLE ( and of course if your not Christian). Even with my math minded 12 year old , using CLE for less than one year helped her understand some math that she didn't previously with her Calvert and BJU math programs. Plus her standardized testing scores improved, like a LOT!

Edited April 4, 2010 by TracyR

[m0mmaBuck]

Well, this pretty much confirms that I must be the meanest mommy around. :001_huh:

 

He's a whiz at Math... He can breeze through 2-CLE lessons in 30-45 minutes (doing the speed drills for both lessons and one trip through the flash cards as well). He loves Math.

 

It's LA's that takes F-O-R-E-V-E-R. Listening to him read makes me want to drill a pencil through my eardrum. And I am horrible because I make him write legibly, follow the directions, and correct his mistakes! HORRIBLE PERSON!!!! :D

[Snickerdoodle]

He can breeze through 2-CLE lessons in 30-45 minutes

 

To me' date=' and I'm only saying this as [i']my opinion[/i], this would mean that my kid was not working at the appropriate level. I've gotta see the gears grinding a bit for it to be considered a good day's work.

 

Different strokes for different folks and all other disclaimers.

[m0mmaBuck]

To me, and I'm only saying this as my opinion, this would mean that my kid was not working at the appropriate level. I've gotta see the gears grinding a bit for it to be considered a good day's work.

 

Different strokes for different folks and all other disclaimers.

 

I would normally agree wholeheartedly but since I pulled him out of PS at Christmas I have been trying to bolster his confidence. If that means he breezes through the 200 level and feels like a genius, all the better.

 

His gears grind so much during LA that smoke should be coming out of his head. I will let him have his math 'moment.'

[Snickerdoodle]

I would normally agree wholeheartedly but since I pulled him out of PS at Christmas I have been trying to bolster his confidence. If that means he breezes through the 200 level and feels like a genius, all the better.

 

 

I think this is a great example of why something works great for one family and not for another. We all have different starting points, different goals and children with different needs.

[Homeschooling6]

All of these programs are great but they are not one size fits all IMHO.

 

Edited April 5, 2010 by Homeschooling6

[Daisy]

That's interesting. When I looked at the 3rd grade samples, it looks to me like entirely not enough work compared to what we are doing now. Are they designed to be used one lesson per day?

 

4+ pages of written math problems a day was sheer torture for my first grade son. Just the physical writing took forever. When we did CLE math, it took us well over an hour, not 30 minutes. Plus I had to add more drill because they still weren't memorizing the facts.

 

I don't think CLE is *bad* by any means. It just didn't work for us. I wish it had, because that is more my personality.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Daisy

[G5052]

Any other old-timers remember the math wars? On the old board, it used to get really firely at times Singapore versus Saxon and then it was Calvert versus Rightstart versus Singapore versus Saxon. And then it was...

 

SWB used to break in and stop it, threads were deleted, etc. etc.

 

And as I've periodically said here before, remember that curriculum is only part of the equation. A lot depends on HOW you use it and what you expect in terms of probing their understanding and how closely you check their work and adjust.

 

I loved CLE for 3rd-6th, but it wouldn't fly in our house for those early grades. Too much repetition.

[ondreeuh]

I am not Christian, but I love CLE. The only religious references I have seen are in our current LU (308) which is about missionaries and has some story problems that reference handing out Bibles. There is definitely not an abundance of religious content.

[jazzyfizzle]

LOL I should keep quiet...my *slow* son and I, but I can't resist. :D

 

 

I have positives to say about the program, realizing this is a 'do not like' thread.

My son came out of PS going on 3 grades behind in math. Our first year home we tried a charter school and found that was not what we were looking for.

This year we are doing it 'on our own' for the first time and am thankful to have found CLE that works in a way that works for him. I am not brainy and there is no pretence here. ;)

My son came home so we could help him, he was truly being the child left behind and no one at the PS gave a crap.

After reading some of the thread, for a moment I felt degraded for my choice, but I know the value of something that is really working and do not care one iota if we are viewed by some as less for it.

 

Best be quiet now... LOL

[naturally]

I am sorry that my thread has caused some emotions. I guess I didn't express well enough what I was looking for.

I know every curric will be different for every child. I was looking more for any "surface" dislikes - something about the TM layout or scripting, lack of pictures to depict addition/subtraction problems, etc.

But I have definitely learned some new terminology that I will have to look up. For instance, I've heard of conceptual math but what does it really mean?

More reading to do, I guess! :blush:

[Honey Bee]

I am looking at CLE Math for 1st grade next year. Right now it's my top pick (with R&S close behind).

With all the great reviews, I just wonder if there is anyone who didn't like it. If so, why?

 

I just wanted to say, I'm sorry your thread got "broken." I've looked at the samples of CLE for my children and have come away wanting more, especially after I looked at something like Rightstart.

 

I'll take a stab at trying to define "conceptual" for you. Conceptual math is understanding math, instead of learning the procedure for math. They learn about math in a way that provokes critical and logical thinking skills. Some math curriculum has more of this than others. From my observation, some of the conceptual based maths, the child must "prove" the math. This shows his understanding. I know when my child hits a wall in Rightstart or Miquon, we can't move on because he can't complete the lesson. If he doesn't understand it, it shows up quick. I like these math programs because they engage both teacher and student.

 

I try to teach math and spelling from logical standpoints. I consider these their first lessons in logic.

 

I also wanted to add, that I think Bill is giving an honest answer to the OP's questions. I have come to appreciate Bill's academic passion, especially for math. I find Bill's posts on math very knowledgeable, perceptive, and insightful. Knowing why someone "disliked" a curriculum can be very helpful too. :D

[Spy Car]

For sake of example let me show a couple of problems in the Mathematics Enhancement Programme (MEP).

 

The first is from the first few pages of Level 1A. In the UK this is kindergarten level, it might be K or more likely 1st Grade level here.

 

The problem involves 6 identical sailboats, each of which has 3 component parts: A keel, a sail and a flag. The child is give 3 colors (green, yellow and red) and (using all 3 colors in each drawing) asked to color-in each ship in a way that is distinctly different than the rest.

 

To my mind this is a "do-able" problem for a child, but one that will demand they *think* logically to complete the task successfully.

 

The second is from the first page of Level 3A (2nd or 3rd grade level) and is a tough question for the first day back to school (not all level 3A is this hard).

 

These are just 2 examples of problems from a math program that from the very beginning seeks to promote mathematical reasoning, critical thinking, and logic-building

 

Bill

Edited April 5, 2010 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

Here is another problem. This is from the introductory level of Miquon (Orange).

 

A child would have had no previous exposure to the term "polygon" in Miquon, yet simply by looking at the examples of what "is" and "is not" a polygon, a young child can use their cognitive abilities to make the differentiation.

 

To me this type of early math promotes mathematical thinking.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

 

I'll take a stab at trying to define "conceptual" for you. Conceptual math is understanding math, instead of learning the procedure for math. They learn about math in a way that provokes critical and logical thinking skills. Some math curriculum has more of this than others. From my observation, some of the conceptual based maths, the child must "prove" the math. This shows his understanding. I know when my child hits a wall in Rightstart or Miquon, we can't move on because he can't complete the lesson. If he doesn't understand it, it shows up quick. I like these math programs because they engage both teacher and student.

 

I try to teach math and spelling from logical standpoints. I consider these their first lessons in logic.

 

This is extremely well put!

 

I too consider early math part of a child's first lessons in logic. I happen to believe than introducing a young child to math materials that provoke thought and reasoning from the outset is a way to help build a logical mind.

 

Limiting math to role-memorization or application of procedures, conversely, does little or nothing to promote reasoning skills.

 

I want my son to be able to know 2 + 2, but my primary concern is that he learns how to think, to reason, and to be logical. Those things take work, practice, and the full exercise of ones cognitive functions.

 

I also wanted to add, that I think Bill is giving an honest answer to the OP's questions. I have come to appreciate Bill's academic passion, especially for math. I find Bill's posts on math very knowledgeable, perceptive, and insightful. Knowing why someone "disliked" a curriculum can be very helpful too. :D

 

Thank you.

 

To everyone else, I'm sorry that some people are feeling disparaged (not my intention), or have their feeling hurt because I don't like what I've seen in the samples of CLE. The samples I've reviewed don't run to one or two pages. I'll give CLE credit for posting more extensive samples than any program I've ever seen.

 

And I've looked at every single one of them. Every problem in every Light Unit, for every year. Student books, Teacher books. Everything.

 

I find it "wanting." That is the plain-truth. If I haven't kept my opinion to myself, it's because the OP asked if anyone does NOT like CLE. And from what I've seen of it, I don't. Not a bit.

 

People have the right to have differences of opinion.

 

Anyway, I appreciate the kind words Honey Bee :001_smile:

 

Bill

Edited April 5, 2010 by Spy Car