Teaching Textbooks - Author Responds to Criticisms! Check it out!

[chessrascal]

Hello Ladies! My son has used TT for Pre-Alg. and Alg. 1 and we love it! He is very mathy (I am not, however). We did Singapore for Pre-k thru 6th and on to Pre-Alg. He's in 7th and finishing Alg. 1. I was becoming disturbed by some of the comments on the board and from friends looking at Public School Texts - so I wrote TT and asked some questions. Here's Greg Sabouri's response (author). By the way, he responded within a couple of hours. I am sticking with TT and will defend it all the way!

Janet M.

**********************************************************************

Thank you for allowing me to respond to this. Let me start by saying that the Teaching Textbooks series covers all of the major topics required by state standards. It's true that there are some differences between publishers as to which books contain which topics. For instance, Saxon Math doesn't have a separate Geometry book, so they mix Geometry with their Algebra and Advanced Math (Pre-Calculus) books. That means you won't get all of their Geometry lessons until you've finished Pre-Calculus. But generally, most publishers cover the same topics when you go through their complete series. TT does this as well.

 

What's unique about TT, I think, is that our books are written in a clear style that's easily understandable to a young student (a rarity in math texts!). Also, we introduce topics when we think the student is best able to truly comprehend the material. This gives students a chance to consolidate their understanding of basic concepts before moving on to more advanced material. In short, the TT series is designed to help students really learn math conceptually.

 

Equally important is that the TT books give a full explanation of every technique covered. There's nothing more frustrating for a math student than to be introduced to a new technique, but not receive any explanation of what that technique means, why it's important, what it's used for, and how it relates to what the student has already learned. It gives them the impression that math is just a bunch of meaningless techniques to be memorized but not understood. The public school textbooks are notorious for introducing techniques but leaving out the explanation. And it turns most students off of math long before they ever get through high school.

 

By the way, the reason public school textbooks cram so many topics in their books so early has nothing to do with sound teaching methods. It has to do with the publishers' commercial interests. Public school publishers want to sell one book nationally. But to do that they need to be approved by the textbook committees in all states. So they stuff their books with every topic that's required by all these state committees. If one state requires the topic of probability in 4th grade and another requires it in 5th grade, the publisher just puts probability in both its 4th grade and 5th grade books. The end result is a book that weighs a ton, is stuffed full of repetitive topics, but has no room for explanation.

 

In my view, the real issue that we face with math education is not what topics are being covered at what age. The real issue is that our students aren't learning the major math concepts that they need to know, ever! That's why 50% of college freshmen are required to take remedial arithmetic and algebra courses before being admitted to the college-level curriculum. Keep in mind that these are students who, for the most part, have used public school texts that cover lots of topics at early ages. And, even after their remedial courses, most of these students never gain mastery over basic math concepts. That's one of the reasons why we have so few Americans majoring in math, science, and engineering.

 

One interesting thing about the public schools, though, is that even they are starting to see the light on this issue. A recent Math Advisory Panel of U.S. experts, appointed by President Bush, concluded that the range of topics in U.S. math texts should be narrowed in order to improve test scores. They specifically called for shorter textbooks that concentrate on basic conceptual understanding. Math experts are realizing that there's not enough explanation in the books and that force-feeding hundreds of topics with no supporting instruction doesn't work. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why U.S. students rank so low in math internationally. By contrast, Asian countries have more narrowly-focused books, and are at the top of the international rankings.

 

Finally, I would ask those who are unsure about TT to have a little faith in us. We have years of experience teaching homeschoolers, and we designed all of our products from the ground up just for you. Rather than slavishly following every detail of the often misguided standards of the public school system, we created products that work. The TT series will teach your students what they need to know to be fully prepared for college and beyond. We are a relatively new curriculum, but because of our popularity there are already thousands of students who have used TT and are now succeeding in colleges and universities at all levels, from community college to the Ivy League. Thanks again for allowing me to comment.

 

Greg Sabouri

 

 

Teaching Textbooks

866-867-6284

 

 

[Dayle in Guatemala]

We, too, are very satisfied TT users. For the first time, my dd gets it. She doesn't dread math, she actually likes doing it. It's good to see the author's point of view.

[Pata]

Thanks for the post. I had been turned off to TT by some of the recent posts/reviews I have been reading. I will keep an open mind and be sure to check them out when we get there since I'm not sure we will continue Singapore after 6A/6B!

[GothicGyrl]

Keep in mind that everyone is entitled to their opinion about a product and if said product isn't working for someone, they are allowed to and inclined to speak on what it was that wasn't doing the trick.

 

See, let me example this for you: everything the producer of Teaching Textbooks claims is in his product, I've also found in Videotext Algebra. Why do you think most people compare those two more often than any other curriculums?

 

Personally, nothing he said dazzled me. Nothing at all. It sounds like your standard, rote, "this is what we do" letter. And to be quite honestly with you, I am kind of miffed that he felt the need to respond to people's opinions on his program (in an unkind manner). We are entitled to those opinions and should not be told we can't have them just because the producer of said curriculum disagrees with us. It also irks me that he launched into a "what's wrong with PS" speil instead of focusing soley on his product.

 

As for being "turned off" by TT because of recent comments--well see here's where a bit of searching comes in--both websites (TT and VT for example) have sample videos on their site showing you how each program works. In other words, if someone is dissing or praising a program, I am going to go to that program's website and see for myself. I'm not going to rely soley on the word of others.

 

For my kids, TT did not cut it and I thank the owner for not assuming I don't know what I am speaking about when I say this or assuming we haven't researched it enough. I have as have others and we are entitled to the opinion we've formed based on what we've seen. Having used Videotext, I can tell you that everything he said about TT, is also the same for VT, but to here him say it, I've not researched it enough and don't have a right to my opinion on the choice I made.

 

I am sure everyone will continue to do their own research. But his letter really did not prompt me to even think TT was better, and in fact, sort of made some of the recent posts/comments more true than before.

[Love2Smile]

This is our first year using TT, and it has saved us completely. My dd is not math smart and she is doing math all on her own this year and getting 90 to 100 percents. I could not be happier!

[ArwenA]

We really like TT too. :) But it's not for everyone. Some people think it's great and some people think it's terrible. We can all have our opinions, that's why there are so many math curricula around.:)

[kalanamak]

 

Personally, nothing he said dazzled me. Nothing at all. It sounds like your standard, rote, "this is what we do" letter. And to be quite honestly with you, I am kind of miffed that he felt the need to respond to people's opinions on his program (in an unkind manner). We are entitled to those opinions and should not be told we can't have them just because the producer of said curriculum disagrees with us. It also irks me that he launched into a "what's wrong with PS" speil instead of focusing soley on his product.

 

 

 

and posted his reply.

 

We don't know the questions she asked (although I can guess from his comments). Maybe he launched into "What's wrong with PS" in answer to a question we didn't see.

[GothicGyrl]

and posted his reply.

 

We don't know the questions she asked (although I can guess from his comments). Maybe he launched into "What's wrong with PS" in answer to a question we didn't see.

True. However, the OP did state that she wrote him out of becoming "disturbed by some of the comments on the board and from friends looking at Public School Texts". Now, while I agree with the publisher that PS texts are full of fluff in math(which is why I ultimately went with VT), I was more focused on her writing him out of concern because some voiced dissenting opinion on his product.

 

That he could have mentioned PS out of some unseen question, does not matter to me because the OP is praising his response to her as though to thumb a finger in the face of those who have dissenting opinions on his product and his response reflected this.

 

Now, while I don't truly believe the OP is doing that, his response does come as a bit of a finger in the face response due to some posting opinions (which were deemed criticisms) on his product. And as someone who left me positive rep said---this is an industry standard form letter, with a bit of his voice interjected within.

 

I've no problem with those you choose to use TT or VT or ABEKA or BJU or any other math program. ;) I only wanted to comment on the seemingly thumbed finger response made to those of us who posted opinions on his product based on our use of it. I mean, don't we all ask for opinions on a product? Why should his be any different?

[Charon]

This is mostly just empty vagaries that amount to little more than "our program is great". All the publishers say stuff like this.

 

Thank you for allowing me to respond to this. Let me start by saying that the Teaching Textbooks series covers all of the major topics required by state standards. It's true that there are some differences between publishers as to which books contain which topics. For instance, Saxon Math doesn't have a separate Geometry book, so they mix Geometry with their Algebra and Advanced Math (Pre-Calculus) books. That means you won't get all of their Geometry lessons until you've finished Pre-Calculus. But generally, most publishers cover the same topics when you go through their complete series. TT does this as well.

 

What's unique about TT, I think, is that our books are written in a clear style that's easily understandable to a young student (a rarity in math texts!). Also, we introduce topics when we think the student is best able to truly comprehend the material. This gives students a chance to consolidate their understanding of basic concepts before moving on to more advanced material. In short, the TT series is designed to help students really learn math conceptually.

 

 

Come on now... everyone is going to say this. Or, do you think that Houghton-Mifflin will say:

 

"We actually strive to introduce material when the student is ill-equipped to handle it in an effort to prevent them from acquiring any sort of conceptual understanding of the mathematics. We find that the best way to teach math is to sabotage the student at every step under the motto that 'what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger'. It is our Spartan way, actually."

 

Of course not. No one does. Everyone says that they cover everything, introduce material at just the right time and in just the right way, and that their students really learn math conceptually. About the most you can infer from this much of the response is that they attribute what appear to be charges that their program doesn't cover everything to sequencing differences. But, the charges aren't just "my favorite topic X isn't in your algebra Y book." Some folks have gotten on here and said their "Algebra II" is really "Algebra I" by most people's standards. That's different from Saxon. After three years of Saxon (Algebra I, Algebra II, and Advanced Math), you have apparently covered a lot more than three years of TT (Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II). That is a disturbing trend any way you look at it, and he is failing to respond to it properly. He is responding with one suggestive general comment about sequencing and a paragraph of a protracted sales pitch of vagaries about how he likes his program.

 

Equally important is that the TT books give a full explanation of every technique covered. There's nothing more frustrating for a math student than to be introduced to a new technique, but not receive any explanation of what that technique means, why it's important, what it's used for, and how it relates to what the student has already learned. It gives them the impression that math is just a bunch of meaningless techniques to be memorized but not understood. The public school textbooks are notorious for introducing techniques but leaving out the explanation. And it turns most students off of math long before they ever get through high school.

 

 

Again, so he says. The guys at Houghton Mifflin or Saxon or where ever beg to differ. Everybody says they explain what a technique means, why its important, what it's used for and how it relates to what the student has already learned.

 

By the way, the reason public school textbooks cram so many topics in their books so early has nothing to do with sound teaching methods. It has to do with the publishers' commercial interests. Public school publishers want to sell one book nationally. But to do that they need to be approved by the textbook committees in all states. So they stuff their books with every topic that's required by all these state committees. If one state requires the topic of probability in 4th grade and another requires it in 5th grade, the publisher just puts probability in both its 4th grade and 5th grade books. The end result is a book that weighs a ton, is stuffed full of repetitive topics, but has no room for explanation.

 

 

This paragraph is largely a non sequitur slur against public school textbooks. So, does he or doesn't he, though, cover the very same things. He sounds like he has just followed suit based on his opening remarks. And, at any rate, he wants to sell one book nationally, as well. He just doesn't want to go to all the trouble of getting it approved by school boards.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with his lack of concern for some bureaucratic accomplishment like that, but he has largely just followed the same old paradigm. There is nothing special about the content of his program that causes him to really digress from Saxon, say. As he says -- they all cover the same content in the long run, anyway, right? It just takes him longer, apparently.

 

In my view, the real issue that we face with math education is not what topics are being covered at what age. The real issue is that our students aren't learning the major math concepts that they need to know, ever! That's why 50% of college freshmen are required to take remedial arithmetic and algebra courses before being admitted to the college-level curriculum. Keep in mind that these are students who, for the most part, have used public school texts that cover lots of topics at early ages. And, even after their remedial courses, most of these students never gain mastery over basic math concepts. That's one of the reasons why we have so few Americans majoring in math, science, and engineering.

 

 

Well, he's right about that, but his program is not even remotely any kind of a panacea for that. It is hard to appreciate this completely separate matter going on in K-14 math ed if you don't have a BS in math. In fact, it may even be hard to appreciate for someone with a BS. What the fields of math are -- what constitutes mainstream math -- is really not a very contentious matter at all. And, what the nature of the fields are is even less contentious. I've said before that the three main fields of math are abstract algebra, analysis and topology. In fact, you might even be able to kind of narrow it down to abstract algebra and real analysis as far a people just being introduced to the subject are concerned. Most people outside of the field don't even know what these subjects are. And, that is precisely because "our students aren't learning the major math concepts that they need to know, ever!" But, it probably isn't at all what Sabouri has in mind. We just don't teach math. What we teach are the mathematical methods of engineering, business and science. And, Sabouri is most certainly doing just that in his program. He is not at all breaking away from that paradigm.

 

Finally, I would ask those who are unsure about TT to have a little faith in us. We have years of experience teaching homeschoolers, and we designed all of our products from the ground up just for you. Rather than slavishly following every detail of the often misguided standards of the public school system, we created products that work. The TT series will teach your students what they need to know to be fully prepared for college and beyond. We are a relatively new curriculum, but because of our popularity there are already thousands of students who have used TT and are now succeeding in colleges and universities at all levels, from community college to the Ivy League. Thanks again for allowing me to comment.

 

 

He contradicts his opening remarks. So, he doesn't cover everything, then...? Every program has someone that went to Harvard on it and someone that became an eighth grade drop out on it. The simple fact is that there is a strong objective difference between the difficulty of TT and its peer. A lot of people have really tried it and regretted it (apparently). You cannot respond to that kind of an issue with "trust us!"

 

Greg Sabouri

 

 

Teaching Textbooks

866-867-6284

 

 

 

Complete with the 800 number and all!

 

Don't get me wrong. I do not disparage choosing TT. I just dispute that it is a great program for really mathy kids. I would take Saxon over TT any day just based on what the students seem to be able to do at any given stage in the program. And, I would take Singapore's NEM over Saxon any day. I would take almost any mainstream program over TT: Foerster, Dolciani (though, I've only seen the old texts), Saxon, Singapore (which would be my top pick of such programs), Jacobs.

 

You guys need to start coming to terms with the possibility that maybe your kid "gets math" now just because it is a whole lot easier than the math he would be presented with in other programs. Especially if you are not very mathy, yourself, and you look over your kids shoulder and you "get it", too, does that not really prove that this is the case?? I mean you know how much you don't know and if Saxon has a whole lot of that kind of stuff in it but TT doesn't, doesn't that strongly indicate an immediate lack of content?

[Charon]

True. However, the OP did state that she wrote him out of becoming "disturbed by some of the comments on the board and from friends looking at Public School Texts". Now, while I agree with the publisher that PS texts are full of fluff in math(which is why I ultimately went with VT), I was more focused on her writing him out of concern because some voiced dissenting opinion on his product.

 

That he could have mentioned PS out of some unseen question, does not matter to me because the OP is praising his response to her as though to thumb a finger in the face of those who have dissenting opinions on his product and his response reflected this.

 

Now, while I don't truly believe the OP is doing that, his response does come as a bit of a finger in the face response due to some posting opinions (which were deemed criticisms) on his product. And as someone who left me positive rep said---this is an industry standard form letter, with a bit of his voice interjected within.

 

I've no problem with those you choose to use TT or VT or ABEKA or BJU or any other math program. ;) I only wanted to comment on the seemingly thumbed finger response made to those of us who posted opinions on his product based on our use of it. I mean, don't we all ask for opinions on a product? Why should his be any different?

 

 

I think most of that "and PS texts cram a bunch of BS in there just to get approved" was more of a hedge to make you feel less concerned about the possibility that his program doesn't cover enough. It seems to contradict via tone and/or insinuation is very strong and unequivocal opening remarks that his program is just like all the rest in terms of scope and content.

 

(That alone, frankly, is enough to get me to not buy it right there, but I will admit that I am somewhat eccentric in my math choices....)

[TracyR]

One thing is for sure there is no perfect math program . What works for one family doesn't always work for the next . I'm not familiar with Teaching Textbooks so I don't know .

I really think that some of the comments on here are awfully harsh on this though . Okay ., so it doesn't work for you and your family . Great .

 

But for those that it works for that's wonderful . I personally think that trying to cram higher thinking in math in a child that isn't ready for it is pointless . I agree PS math books are full of fluff. They don't work on the basic math facts like they should in the beginning . They try to cram 100 differnet ways to solve a problem and a whole bunch of facts into children who aren't ready for that type of higher thinking . ( this is coming from experience and I'm not going to debate it ) .

 

Even on the National News about a month ago they admitted that we need to go back to the basics with children . That children are behind in math because they aren't grasping math because of lack of knowledge of the basics . What we need is math with both mastering and spiraling . But since math companies only go with one or the other its going to stay that way .

 

As for this guy's letter. He has a right to defend himself that's for sure . To nit pick every little thing he says is just wrong . He is probably trying to tell you all that he feels his product is better then what you would get in a public school anyday . And it could be . And I didn't pick up on and finger pointing in his letter at all . I didn't see him say " you need to use my product or you are inferior . " He just wanted to compare his product to the others and that was what he felt about it .

I mean really ladies . With as many math programs there are out there . We could nit pick all day about what was wrong with each and everyone of them .

[GothicGyrl]

I mean really ladies . With as many math programs there are out there . We could nit pick all day about what was wrong with each and everyone of them .

 

And we do, we ALL do. Everyone on this board has, at some point in time, nitpicked a curriculum. Even WTM isn't immune to this, yet you do not see SWB calling for people to stop complaining about the product or calling our opinion of her product "harsh criticism" do you?

 

If I ask "gimme your best french program"--I am going to get 10 posts with 10 different answers. Some may agree with a previous poster, but then say "it didn't work for us and here is why". And some may say "steer clear and here is why" and ALL would be valid opinions on that program because all 10 of those posters have had experiences that gave them their viewpoint.

 

So calling it "harsh criticism" when we are just (in most cases) answering an OP's question about a particular product is unfair. We are entitled to our opinions--good or bad--and I would hope that I'd get both when I question a curriculum. I WANT both and most here do.

 

So this guy was out of line for saying we didn't know what we speak of by giving our opinion on his product. It's quite clear that is what he means even if he didn't spell it out.

[rwalizer]

then what's a mom to do when she is math challenged? I went through school feeling like I was being dragged behind a team of horses during math. I just could not understand any of it. Now, I have to try to help ds learn it. I have read the comments saying that TT is not rigorous enough, but what choice do I have? It really isn't practical to think we can go with a tougher course and try to find a friend who can tutor (which would actually mean she would have to teach him) or worse, hire a tutor. At least TT teaches us the concepts in an understandable way. Sure, I worry that it may not be tough enough, but what else can I do?

[GothicGyrl]

then what's a mom to do when she is math challenged? I went through school feeling like I was being dragged behind a team of horses during math. I just could not understand any of it. Now, I have to try to help ds learn it. I have read the comments saying that TT is not rigorous enough, but what choice do I have? It really isn't practical to think we can go with a tougher course and try to find a friend who can tutor (which would actually mean she would have to teach him) or worse, hire a tutor. At least TT teaches us the concepts in an understandable way. Sure, I worry that it may not be tough enough, but what else can I do?

Well, I'll answer your question with a question: have you checked out other math sites and looked at any available demos they might have?

 

Even though I stand by my comments about TT and Videotext, I have to say that Videotext is a bit more rigerous than TT. If you go to their site: www. videotext.com and click on "homeschool", you have the option of watching demonstration videos.

 

I am of the opinion that if I am paying for a video tutor (or disk tutor like TT) or DVD tutor or something like that, there should not be a need for an outside tutor. The instructors explain it well enough or they don't.

 

Personally, I've tried abeka, saxon, BJU and Videotext algebra. Out of all of them, only VT actually "taught" my kids. Now some feel this way about TT. But go to both websites and see the sample lessons--do the sample lesson along with the video, that's the best way to gauge whether or not the kid will get it.

 

Or, be satistfied with what you are doing. ;) Either way, I am firm believer that the best way a kid learns is when they are happy and content. If your child is happy and content with TT and you feel he is learning, then so be it. Don't change that. And don't worry if some feel it isn't rigorous enough. That's the beauty of homeschooling--you do what is best for your kid.

[Kimber]

I plan to use Dolciani. I have 1960's and 70's texts coming, solution manuals and teaching editions. However, in addition to that, I plan to use Life of Fred. I know many people think its too wordy. But it is a self teaching program and it really teaches math with understanding.

 

For example, here is how Life of Fred Algebra teaches why a negative times a negative equal a positive.

 

Here goes.

 

First: Any # or expression is equal to itself. It's called the reflexive property of equality: a=a.

 

Second: Zero times anything is zero.

 

Third: a(b+c) = ab + ac distributive property

 

Then he goes on to prove that (-7)(-8) = +56

 

He breaks it down into steps that say--

7(8) + 7(-8) + (-7)(-8) = 7(8) + 7(-8)+ (-7)(-8)

and via the distributive property

 

7(8-8)+(-7)(-8) = 7(8)+ (-8)(7-7)

 

He uses many more words to say this, I didn't want to write all down. (I left out a couple of the steps above, but I think it still shows how he teaches.) But then he also simplifies it and rewrites it in a straightforward non wordy proof.

 

 

The author of the Fred books has a PhD in math, and while he teaches a more modern version of math than the 1960's books, he really teaches the material. But even if you don't take my word for it, the books are only about 20.00 and worth the time.

 

And some of the problems he presents are really there to make students think. Like this one for instance---

 

Now if a is any number, is it always true that a<aa?

 

Also, the books are designed to be self teaching. And when students have problems he says to email him for help.

[chessrascal]

Wow - didn't mean to cause an uproar. Yes, I did talk to him specifically about some public school texts that friends of mine were comparing to TT, that's why he responded as he did. I just thought some might be interested in what these authors had to say, but if you're not interested, please don't worry about it. Thanks for checking the post :) Janet M.

[Charon]

One thing is for sure there is no perfect math program . What works for one family doesn't always work for the next . I'm not familiar with Teaching Textbooks so I don't know .

I really think that some of the comments on here are awfully harsh on this though . Okay ., so it doesn't work for you and your family . Great .

 

But for those that it works for that's wonderful . I personally think that trying to cram higher thinking in math in a child that isn't ready for it is pointless . I agree PS math books are full of fluff. They don't work on the basic math facts like they should in the beginning . They try to cram 100 differnet ways to solve a problem and a whole bunch of facts into children who aren't ready for that type of higher thinking . ( this is coming from experience and I'm not going to debate it ) .

 

Even on the National News about a month ago they admitted that we need to go back to the basics with children . That children are behind in math because they aren't grasping math because of lack of knowledge of the basics . What we need is math with both mastering and spiraling . But since math companies only go with one or the other its going to stay that way .

 

As for this guy's letter. He has a right to defend himself that's for sure . To nit pick every little thing he says is just wrong . He is probably trying to tell you all that he feels his product is better then what you would get in a public school anyday . And it could be . And I didn't pick up on and finger pointing in his letter at all . I didn't see him say " you need to use my product or you are inferior . " He just wanted to compare his product to the others and that was what he felt about it .

I mean really ladies . With as many math programs there are out there . We could nit pick all day about what was wrong with each and everyone of them .

 

You are confusing the sensitivity of a lot of the people that use the program with actual harshness of the comments made about it. This is not subjective. It is a simple matter of fact as to whether or not a student of TT can do the same kind of problems as a student of Saxon or Singapore. It seems almost certain that they can't. That's it. Maybe I'm wrong -- then prove it with problems. Show me the problems that students can do after TT. Show me something besides the vague assurances of its author or charges of antidiplomacy on my part.

 

And as far as what we need in math programs, what is wrong with math ed, at its root, has nothing to do with any of these things. It has nothing to do with pedagogical methods. It has nothing to do with conceptual understandings or any of that. Or even brainedness or some such. The problem is that we continually want to teach material that students aren't really ready for. We want a short cut to advanced material. And we want to do it with everyone, most of whom don't really care -- they don't care and their parents don't really care that much. This problem is as old as dirt. There is no royal road to geometry. If we did this the right way, it would all be about 10 times as hard as it is and most people wouldn't get through one onehundredth of the material they currently do because not everybody needs to do a lot of math. But, everyone should do the math that they do end up doing correctly. But, that's not what we do and that's not what TT does either.

 

So, fine. Just box check it and be done with it. TT is great for that. Don't come up with an infomertial email from the publisher and act like TT is a super good program. Not every program is "the best". On an ancient Simpsons episode where Homer and Barney undergo a grueling competition to see which one NASA will select as the token blue-collar slob on its next manned mission to space, a NASA official tells them "Gentlemen, you've both worked very hard and in a way, you're both winners. But in another more accurate way, Barney's the winner."

 

I know people say it a lot -- "Everybody's a winner". But, I am afraid it just isn't true. In most of the important ways but one, TT loses to its competition. It does seem to provide the most eshaustive and thorough video explanations of any program and it is the easiest and so most doable. But, it seems a near certainty that it just doesn't have as good of problems and the students coming out of it are less equipped to work hard problems than they are coming out of most of the other programs. That is not a matter of opinion nor is it a matter of student or parental preference. It is a simple matter of fact. It is much better to know this and accept it and plan around it than to talk yourself into thinking that TT is going to produce students that can really solve problems the way programs like Singapore or supplements like Gelfand do.

[Charon]

then what's a mom to do when she is math challenged? I went through school feeling like I was being dragged behind a team of horses during math. I just could not understand any of it. Now, I have to try to help ds learn it. I have read the comments saying that TT is not rigorous enough, but what choice do I have? It really isn't practical to think we can go with a tougher course and try to find a friend who can tutor (which would actually mean she would have to teach him) or worse, hire a tutor. At least TT teaches us the concepts in an understandable way. Sure, I worry that it may not be tough enough, but what else can I do?

 

 

You do TT and be done with it. Or, you decide, like Myrtle did, that you want to do math now and really learn you some math and teach it to your kids. Math is just a subject. Just one subject. Now, I do, personally, think it is a very important one. It took Myrtle, who never made it beyond Trig, to really renew my interest in the subject for its own sake. And so, we do it beyond most any homeschoolers that I know of. And, yet we don't really do a lot of Engineering Math, so I am not even altogether certain just how much this will all necessarily translate even to SAT scores.

 

However, was Albert Jay Nock really good at math? Or, for that matter were any of the Roman emperors? (I bet even Marcus Aurelius wasn't that good at math.) It's not like you can't be a man of letters and not be able to barely do arithmetic. There's plenty of room in the world for people that have trouble so much as balancing their check book. (Actually, in an ironic twist of fate, a lot of mathematicians figure into that category.) I still think you are missing out on something special and unique if you don't do math, but you are missing out on that whether you do TT or Singapore, actually. (You really have to do something different to get what I'm thinking of.)

 

I'm just saying that you should know the limitations of what you are doing. TT probably does "cover everything" if you go all the way through to the end. You've probably gotten at least as far as most programs' Algebra II which is probably as far as you need to get for someone who doesn't like math and intends to go on to college and major in the classics or in English or something.

[mom2abcd]

Here are some "success stories" I've collected:

 

Posted on one of my email lists by Chelle:

My kids really love Teaching Textbooks, especially the new younger series (5th-7th grades..because of the immediate feedback). My oldest two children who went through the Teaching Textbooks series (only through Geometry) both scored high on their ACT (28 and 34). Math is not their "thing". They are both very drama, poetry, writing oriented. So, I was very pleased. They got perfect scores in the other three sections, so their math didn't hold them down much. Best of all, they liked math with TT.

--

 

This program is awesome!! We have used Pre-Algebra, Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Geometry. The things my children struggled with in another program, were cleared up with detailed explanations in this program. With the CDs you can see every single problem in the books explained step by step. This is such a tremendous help when going through the lessons. My 4 teenagers have been much happier with math since switching to this program. They have fewer questions as they go through the lessons because the lessons are explained so well. I have spent a lot less time in explaining, trying to figure out problems, trying to figure out how the textbook came up with a certain answer, etc. This program greatly reduces teacher time because of its well written lessons, and detailed, step by step answers. It is so great to have a math program written specifically for homeschoolers, written to the student!!

 

Renae

--

Sandy in Indy

My dd is a college junior and used TT Alg. 1 and 2...she's an English major, though! My ds, now a junior in high school headed for pharmacy school, has also done TT Alg. 1 and 2 and we plan to do TT pre-calc this summer. He did well on the math section of the PSAT (hasn't taken the SAT yet). I really feel that he'll be OK in the math required for pharmacy.

 

I know there's lots of discussion about how "rigorous" TT is and, honestly, I don't know that I'll use their earlier programs with my youngest. (My plan is to stick with Singapore through 6B as older ds did, then jump to Alg. 1.) BUT...here's my theory: I can't teach higher level maths. Can't afford a tutor. So I must find material that my dc can digest and learn from on their own. (That's asking a lot.) TT did that for me--and was affordable. The most "rigorous" material in the world does the student no good if it's not understood. I'd rather have a program that my dc understand and retain than one they struggle through and understand nothing.

 

Just my .02.

--

My oldest used TT for Algebra 1 and her math scores on the CAT just about doubled. Now, I don't think TT is that much better, but it made math doable for her, so the math anxiety left her, and she was able to comprehend more. TT is a great math program, IMO. I have 3 dc using it this year, and they are all doing great.

--

[cricket1178]

Thank you for allowing me to respond to this. Let me start by saying that the Teaching Textbooks series covers all of the major topics required by state standards. It's true that there are some differences between publishers as to which books contain which topics. For instance, Saxon Math doesn't have a separate Geometry book, so they mix Geometry with their Algebra and Advanced Math (Pre-Calculus) books. That means you won't get all of their Geometry lessons until you've finished Pre-Calculus. But generally, most publishers cover the same topics when you go through their complete series. TT does this as well.

 

What's unique about TT, I think, is that our books are written in a clear style that's easily understandable to a young student (a rarity in math texts!). Also, we introduce topics when we think the student is best able to truly comprehend the material. This gives students a chance to consolidate their understanding of basic concepts before moving on to more advanced material. In short, the TT series is designed to help students really learn math conceptually.

 

Equally important is that the TT books give a full explanation of every technique covered. There's nothing more frustrating for a math student than to be introduced to a new technique, but not receive any explanation of what that technique means, why it's important, what it's used for, and how it relates to what the student has already learned. It gives them the impression that math is just a bunch of meaningless techniques to be memorized but not understood. The public school textbooks are notorious for introducing techniques but leaving out the explanation. And it turns most students off of math long before they ever get through high school.

 

By the way, the reason public school textbooks cram so many topics in their books so early has nothing to do with sound teaching methods. It has to do with the publishers' commercial interests. Public school publishers want to sell one book nationally. But to do that they need to be approved by the textbook committees in all states. So they stuff their books with every topic that's required by all these state committees. If one state requires the topic of probability in 4th grade and another requires it in 5th grade, the publisher just puts probability in both its 4th grade and 5th grade books. The end result is a book that weighs a ton, is stuffed full of repetitive topics, but has no room for explanation.

 

In my view, the real issue that we face with math education is not what topics are being covered at what age. The real issue is that our students aren't learning the major math concepts that they need to know, ever! That's why 50% of college freshmen are required to take remedial arithmetic and algebra courses before being admitted to the college-level curriculum. Keep in mind that these are students who, for the most part, have used public school texts that cover lots of topics at early ages. And, even after their remedial courses, most of these students never gain mastery over basic math concepts. That's one of the reasons why we have so few Americans majoring in math, science, and engineering.

 

One interesting thing about the public schools, though, is that even they are starting to see the light on this issue. A recent Math Advisory Panel of U.S. experts, appointed by President Bush, concluded that the range of topics in U.S. math texts should be narrowed in order to improve test scores. They specifically called for shorter textbooks that concentrate on basic conceptual understanding. Math experts are realizing that there's not enough explanation in the books and that force-feeding hundreds of topics with no supporting instruction doesn't work. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why U.S. students rank so low in math internationally. By contrast, Asian countries have more narrowly-focused books, and are at the top of the international rankings.

 

Finally, I would ask those who are unsure about TT to have a little faith in us. We have years of experience teaching homeschoolers, and we designed all of our products from the ground up just for you. Rather than slavishly following every detail of the often misguided standards of the public school system, we created products that work. The TT series will teach your students what they need to know to be fully prepared for college and beyond. We are a relatively new curriculum, but because of our popularity there are already thousands of students who have used TT and are now succeeding in colleges and universities at all levels, from community college to the Ivy League. Thanks again for allowing me to comment.

 

Greg Sabouri

 

 

Teaching Textbooks

866-867-6284

 

 

 

 

Not to put another fly in the ointment, but I don't think this was an off the cuff response. I can't remember where, but I have read this response before. I have been looking into TT for my dd next year so maybe it was on their website in the FAQs.

 

It is still one of my top choices for math even if he does have a standard form letter in which to answer these kinds of questions.:)

[Kelli in TN]

then what's a mom to do when she is math challenged? I went through school feeling like I was being dragged behind a team of horses during math. I just could not understand any of it. Now, I have to try to help ds learn it. I have read the comments saying that TT is not rigorous enough, but what choice do I have? It really isn't practical to think we can go with a tougher course and try to find a friend who can tutor (which would actually mean she would have to teach him) or worse, hire a tutor. At least TT teaches us the concepts in an understandable way. Sure, I worry that it may not be tough enough, but what else can I do?

 

I don't know if this is going to work or not, but what I am doing with my 11th grader is combining TT with Aleks. She does a TT lesson every day and then she does 30 minutes of Aleks.

 

I am keeping my fingers crossed that it works out okay in the end. But she "gets" the TT lessons and then in turn she does well with the Aleks work. That's more than I can say for her older brother who went through Saxon with a mega expensive private tutor.

 

Ask me again in about 3 years whether or not it worked out, okay?

 

Oh, I have my 7th grader in TT (pre-algebra) as well. I don't have an Aleks subscription for him just yet, but we are working through MEP alongside TT. I will start him in Aleks when he starts Alg I. There again, I am crossing my fingers that this is going to work out in the end and that my kids will not be failures in college and life.

 

(Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect to Saxon or to anyone who uses it. It was not a good fit for our family. Just wanted to throw that out there, just in case.)

[ArwenA]

You guys need to start coming to terms with the possibility that maybe your kid "gets math" now just because it is a whole lot easier than the math he would be presented with in other programs. Especially if you are not very mathy, yourself, and you look over your kids shoulder and you "get it", too, does that not really prove that this is the case?? I mean you know how much you don't know and if Saxon has a whole lot of that kind of stuff in it but TT doesn't, doesn't that strongly indicate an immediate lack of content?

 

Well, I am a mathy mom and I think that TT is great. I also think that Saxon and Miquon are great. In fact, I think most math curricula around teach what you need to know.

I have chosen TT for my three eldest for different reasons. Both DD12 and DS10 were understanding Saxon, but they weren't enjoying it. But with TT they do like math, something I think is very important. DD12 is very sensitive about what grade level her books are on. If she feels she is getting at all behind she gets scared of getting "behind" and lets her terror dominate her, making her farther and farther "behind". She's not behind, she's doing algebra 1, a roughly 8th grade curriculum. She loves it, she loves math and she loves algebra. We've had more than on fun session of solving algebra problems together, complex ones that challenge me and easier ones for her to do.

DD9 will start pre-algebra next year. I have chosen TT for her because she is mentally ready for algebra and really wants to do it, but only nine. All the curriculum I've found slog through dull math problems and use a vocabulary beyond that of DD. TT doesn't, she finds the word problems fun and doesn't find the book to be written for high school students.

I've looked at the samples of the early TT levels and I firmly think that Saxon is a better fit for beginning math. TT is overly simple then, I had DD7 take the Math 5 test just for fun and she scored well enough to be ready for TT5. DD7 isn't brilliant at math, I have my doubts that TT5 is even a 4th grade curriculum.

You say " if Saxon has a whole lot of that kind of stuff in it but TT doesn't, doesn't that strongly indicate an immediate lack of content?"

Couldn't Saxon have too much content? I'm not saying it does, but since when has Saxon been called "the curriculum with the perfect amount of content"?

 

I stick to what I believe, TT works for us and we like it.

[Carmen_and_Company]

Well, I am a mathy mom and I think that TT is great. I also think that Saxon and Miquon are great. In fact, I think most math curricula around teach what you need to know.

I have chosen TT for my three eldest for different reasons. Both DD12 and DS10 were understanding Saxon, but they weren't enjoying it. But with TT they do like math, something I think is very important. DD12 is very sensitive about what grade level her books are on. If she feels she is getting at all behind she gets scared of getting "behind" and lets her terror dominate her, making her farther and farther "behind". She's not behind, she's doing algebra 1, a roughly 8th grade curriculum. She loves it, she loves math and she loves algebra. We've had more than on fun session of solving algebra problems together, complex ones that challenge me and easier ones for her to do.

DD9 will start pre-algebra next year. I have chosen TT for her because she is mentally ready for algebra and really wants to do it, but only nine. All the curriculum I've found slog through dull math problems and use a vocabulary beyond that of DD. TT doesn't, she finds the word problems fun and doesn't find the book to be written for high school students.

I've looked at the samples of the early TT levels and I firmly think that Saxon is a better fit for beginning math. TT is overly simple then, I had DD7 take the Math 5 test just for fun and she scored well enough to be ready for TT5. DD7 isn't brilliant at math, I have my doubts that TT5 is even a 4th grade curriculum.

You say " if Saxon has a whole lot of that kind of stuff in it but TT doesn't, doesn't that strongly indicate an immediate lack of content?"

Couldn't Saxon have too much content? I'm not saying it does, but since when has Saxon been called "the curriculum with the perfect amount of content"?

 

I stick to what I believe, TT works for us and we like it.

 

Arwena,

For the same reasons that you posted regarding your 9yo is one of the reasons I may buy TT Algebra II for Storm to use this coming fall for 6th grade. I think Storm needs another year before we jump into a rigorous algebra program like Dolciani or Foerster Algebra since these two programs cover topics most algebra texts don't touch until Algebra II. Storm's already years a head in math already. Thus, there's not one good reason I can think of for stressing an 11 yo child over Algebra I. After looking at TT Algebra I, Storm already mastered 90% of the lesson material per the TOC via SPM & Dolciani's Structure & Method Book 2. I need an algebra progam that teaches the basic nuts & bolts of algebra in a fun way, and TT does this wonderfully, and more so than the Key to Algebra series does via the little booklets, which is another option I have on the back burner.

 

To the others,

 

There are children who without TT may not ever have learned the basics of algebra, and although the problems in TT may not appear as rigorous as in other programs, a child that takes away full understanding of how to approach basic algebra, surely can figure out how to manipulate problems found in other texts such as Lial's, Dolciani's or even Foerster's algebra texts with a bit of help. The confidence some of these kids acquire after just a year of using TT should be commended. Once a child sees that they do understand mathematics on some level, they are more willing to tackle harder and or higher levels of math. I look at TT as being a year behind other programs. Thus, a student strong in mathematics would need to go up a level or even two. There's nothing wrong with such an arrangement--it just means a child may complete Algebra II twice, like in the case of my own DD. But for a child that struggles or is an average math student, I find TT a solid program, although TT needs to publish the solution manual/CDs for their pre-calculus program. I cannot for the life of me understand how the TT authors expect any sane parent to purchase a calculus product with just an answer key when so many other programs offer much more in support materials.

 

I know TT is better than the fuzy math programs (CMP2) my school district adopted for mainstream middle school (6-8) children , while special ed. children will use Saxon Math--go figure.

[choirfarm]

You are confusing the sensitivity of a lot of the people that use the program with actual harshness of the comments made about it. This is not subjective. It is a simple matter of fact as to whether or not a student of TT can do the same kind of problems as a student of Saxon or Singapore. It seems almost certain that they can't. That's it. Maybe I'm wrong -- then prove it with problems. Show me the problems that students can do after TT. .

 

Well, here is my experience. My son is 7th grade taking TT ALgebra and took the ACT as part of the Duke program and score better than 60 percent of the seniors who took it even though we were only halfway through the program. He really gets it.

 

Christine

[Laura in VA]

Not to put another fly in the ointment, but I don't think this was an off the cuff response. I can't remember where, but I have read this response before. I have been looking into TT for my dd next year so maybe it was on their website in the FAQs.

 

It is still one of my top choices for math even if he does have a standard form letter in which to answer these kinds of questions.:)

 

I thought this too, at first. But I saved an earlier response he wrote on my computer and I just re-read it. It is not the same document. I'm pretty sure the one you are thinking of is this one:

 

It may help to give you a little background on the TT series. We first developed the curriculum while running a school for academically-gifted students. We used the same techniques with them that are now used in the TT books. The academic performance of our students was outstanding. Their test scores were extremely high and a large percentage ended up attending very prestigious colleges. For instance, one student went to Dartmouth where he made the highest score in history on their math placement exam. Four years later, he graduated first in his class in math, and he s now getting his Ph.D. in math. With this background, it should be obvious that we would never produce materials that are not college prep.

 

As for our personal backgrounds, I have two degrees from Harvard and tutored graduate students in statistics, probability, and game theory while I was a student there. My brother attended Swarthmore College in Philadelphia, which is one of the very best colleges in the country. We both have 12 or 13 years experience teaching math, and several of those years were spent teaching homeschoolers exclusively. So we are very familiar with homeschoolers unique needs.

 

A few people asked whether TT would prepare a student for college algebra. The series will not only prepare a student for college algebra, but he/she may be able to test out of that course, because there is a lot of overlap between high school Algebra 1 and 2 and college algebra.

 

You asked why our Algebra 1 does not include quadratic equations. It absolutely DOES include quadratic equations. A quadratic equation is just a second-degree equation. We have an entire chapter on that subject in Algebra 1 and all the subsequent chapters of the book review quadratic equations (in the problem sets). Quadratic equations are covered even earlier in our Algebra 2 book.

 

It is true that we don t cover logs. But that’ s only because the TT series is not finished yet. The same is true of the 2 or 3 other topics that were mentioned. Our Pre-Calculus is coming out next year and that book will cover all those topics extensively, along with many others. The TT series, once it s finished, will cover ALL of the topics that a student needs, no matter what his/her future career plans (including science, engineering, medicine, etc.).

 

Why is it that we put some topics in Algebra 2 instead of Algebra 1 or vice versa (or wait to do logs until Pre-Calculus)? We introduce topics in the order that we think will help the student learn the most. And we ve had quite a lot of experience teaching math, as I ve discussed. I don t think the goal should be to race through the most number of topics in the shortest time. What s more important is to really learn what you cover. Our approach is to help students gain mastery over foundational areas before moving on to new things.

 

More generally, there are always differences in the sequencing of topics when you compare publishers. For example, to get through all of Saxon s geometry lessons you would have to take Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Advanced Mathematics. And even then, you wouldn’t get a complete high school geometry course. Videotext covers Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 in only 180 lessons, whereas most books take about 260 lessons to cover the same material. But I’ m not saying that Saxon or Videotext is bad because of their sequencing or the small number of lessons. When choosing a curriculum I think it makes more sense to focus on how well the book EXPLAINS the concepts, rather than just count up the topics. If topics covered were so important then public school students would have high test scores. That s because the public school books are full of topics. In reality, of course, many public school graduates can t multiply or divide or solve even the simplest algebra equation. And the U.S. is near the bottom of the international math rankings.

 

The biggest problem we have in math education is not that topics aren’t introduced early enough. It s that the books don t give enough explanation and the instruction they do contain is usually very poor (maybe because mathematicians are often bad communicators.) Inadequate explanation is an especially big problem for homeschoolers, who are often studying independently once they reach middle school age.

 

The TT series is designed to deal with this problem. We cover all the major topics and we do so in depth, with full explanation so much explanation, in fact, that the student can pretty much teach himself! I am convinced that a student who uses the TT series will be BETTER PREPARED for the SAT and ACT and for college than if he/she uses any other series on the market. And the reason is the quality and quantity of our instruction. It doesn’t hurt that we make math enjoyable either. Everybody knows that the more interested a student is in a book, the more he s likely to learn.

 

As for the Jay Wile e-mail, I already told you that we will cover every one of the extra topics he mentioned in our Pre-Calculus product. And for those students who don t want to go all the way through our Pre-Calculus, we’ll post certain topics (like logs) on our website for all users to access.

 

The physics lesson that was mentioned was not on imaginary numbers. It was on complex numbers. A complex number can be viewed as a vector in 2 dimensions (and in the lesson we used a two-dimensional example). Also, the addition and subtraction of complex numbers and vectors are the same. This gave us a rare opportunity to show, in a way that a high school student can understand, how complex numbers (a very abstract and difficult concept) could actually be used in a real-world context. Other math authors have taken a similar approach.

 

Greg Sabouri"

[Charon]

Well, here is my experience. My son is 7th grade taking TT ALgebra and took the ACT as part of the Duke program and score better than 60 percent of the seniors who took it even though we were only halfway through the program. He really gets it.

 

Christine

 

Don't you think Saxon, Singapore, Dolciani, Foersters, and Jacobs all have similar stories associated with them? The point is that Singapore seems to have more stories associated with it. And if you compare placement tests, for instance, Singapores are much harder. And, if you start comparing problems between, say, TT Algebra II and NEM 3, what do you find? Reality is not one thing for one family and another thing for another family. TT is either a good program or a not so good program for all families. Choosing to use it or not is a matter of style and priorities. No amount of "it works for my family" is going to turn TT into something it's almost surely not: the top program that all the "mathy" kids do.

[GailV]

So this guy was out of line for saying we didn't know what we speak of by giving our opinion on his product. It's quite clear that is what he means even if he didn't spell it out.

 

Umm, sorry, I just don't see this in the letter. It isn't clear at all to me that he means that. I'm just sayin'.

 

I'm not planning on using TT, and don't have an emotional investment in this issue. I think some of the discussion has been interesting -- I particularly like the way Charon went through the letter and discussed various points, btw. I'm okay with y'all using TT or not, and I'm okay with y'all hating my personal choices for math and verbally flogging me on a public message board for choosing something different than you (been there, done that). But I really don't get the impression that this guy thinks I don't know what I'm talking about, at least not based on what he's said in this letter. I just can't take this letter as a personal attack on my ability to choose a math program.

[Sandy in Indy]

Just chiming in to say that the Pre-Calculus CD's are in the works. In the meantime, the authors are willing to respond to students' questions about the material. They released the books because they were ready and people wanted the program.

 

I've said it over and over again...TT may not be as *rigorous* as other programs, but it's understandable. I could have put other texts in front of my dc...did so with my first, in fact. They might as well have been written in Chinese. TT is understandable for a student who has no other math support. For us, it's better to have material that can be understood and learned, than rigorous and unattainable.

[readwithem]

Well the OP's letter was posted - word for word - on Sonlight a few weeks ago. I can't send you the link as their forums are private. But I just searched for it as the response sounded familiar.

[GothicGyrl]

I actually am sitting here laughing at the responses my and Charon's posts are getting. They border on "yeah well look here" and it is kind of funny.

 

Neither he nor I said "TT Stinks". He and I both said that the letter being sent out (and judging from my pos. rep comments) is a standard form letter and not impressive. That what he said in that letter, *I* could say about Videotext Algebra (my program of choice).

 

Our points were that "he isn't special" and we resented the tone taking with those of us who had negative opinions on the program. We are allowed those opinions, good or bad. And his letter (and the OP's letter) is trying to take that away from us, in fact, she stated she wrote him out of concern for all the negative comments.

 

But since the whole point is we are allowed to make those comments because that's the nature of the beast, him trying to take them away upsets me even more.

 

And here in bold:

You do not see Susan Wise Bauer coming on here telling people to stop talking negatively about her product, do you? No, you don't because she realizes people have opinions, good or bad.

 

If TT works for you, GREAT!!!! No one said otherwise. But we did say that taking away our opinion on a product was unfair because just by default, that's what HOMESCHOOL message boards do--they discuss curriculums!!

[Charon]

Well, I am a mathy mom and I think that TT is great. I also think that Saxon and Miquon are great. In fact, I think most math curricula around teach what you need to know.

I have chosen TT for my three eldest for different reasons. Both DD12 and DS10 were understanding Saxon, but they weren't enjoying it. But with TT they do like math, something I think is very important. DD12 is very sensitive about what grade level her books are on. If she feels she is getting at all behind she gets scared of getting "behind" and lets her terror dominate her, making her farther and farther "behind". She's not behind, she's doing algebra 1, a roughly 8th grade curriculum. She loves it, she loves math and she loves algebra. We've had more than on fun session of solving algebra problems together, complex ones that challenge me and easier ones for her to do.

DD9 will start pre-algebra next year. I have chosen TT for her because she is mentally ready for algebra and really wants to do it, but only nine. All the curriculum I've found slog through dull math problems and use a vocabulary beyond that of DD. TT doesn't, she finds the word problems fun and doesn't find the book to be written for high school students.

I've looked at the samples of the early TT levels and I firmly think that Saxon is a better fit for beginning math. TT is overly simple then, I had DD7 take the Math 5 test just for fun and she scored well enough to be ready for TT5. DD7 isn't brilliant at math, I have my doubts that TT5 is even a 4th grade curriculum.

You say " if Saxon has a whole lot of that kind of stuff in it but TT doesn't, doesn't that strongly indicate an immediate lack of content?"

Couldn't Saxon have too much content? I'm not saying it does, but since when has Saxon been called "the curriculum with the perfect amount of content"?

 

I stick to what I believe, TT works for us and we like it.

 

 

Well, it isn't just Saxon it is all of the mainstream programs seem to cover a lot more. Some folks have come on here and said that TT Algebra II is really more like Algebra I by most curricula standards. And, it isn't just the fact that they are doing something else like mathematical logic or something. They just are moving a lot slower and the problems are a lot easier and the material is just a lot more spoon fed and students coddled all the way around. That fact is disturbing if you are concerned about the content of TT. And, it warrants a much better response than some dismissive "well, they're cramming all kinds of superfluous crap in texts these days." I don't necessarily dispute that, actually, but it is non sequitur to the real concern. The concern is that crap or no crap, this is what everyone is doing and I don't want my dc to be left behind. (Actually, I do something a lot different from all this, so maybe I don't have quite the same concerns as other parents, but that is the general angst people have over this issue, at any rate.)

 

All of that requires some sort of a "respose" in one's mind. If I were using TT, my response would just be that "Fine -- you're right. I'm simply not covering as much math. I don't feel like I really need to." If that was my response, though, I wouldn't really turn around and simultaneously imagine that my math program was just as good as the mainstream. I would think that I am using a somewhat mediocre math program because I don't really value math, per se, that much -- similar to what is probably, in fact, the case for English literature and history around here. I'm not goign to come around here saying what a great English Lit program when I have next to nothing on my list of books I want to cover. Now, if I was planning on my kids reading a bunch of Of Mice and Men, Brave New World or whatever it is -- Beowulf or Shakespear, perhaps -- that might be different.

 

Also, specifically with regard to advincing a child through it -- like you have a 12 yo that is in TT Algebra II, say -- I, personally wouldn't do that. I think it is at best redundant -- you'll have to rehash the very same material only harder later on. It could also end up undermining them later on if you end up not covering topics with sufficiently difficult problems and they are later expected to have a high level of facility and sophistication with that topic. With that said, though, I will concede that it is probably different to take what might normally be considered an inferior program and accelerate a student through it. You are making up for lack of content with speed of coverage. In other words, a 9 year old doing TT Algebra I is probably a lot more like a 12 yo doing NEM I than not. That 9 yo is probably on track, for instance, to do NEM I when he is 12 (from what I can tell).

 

In a similar fashion, I have often tried to figure out how to do Analysis with an Introduction to Proof by Steven R. Lay. There is no doubt about it that this text is vastly inferior to Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin. However, not all students can handle "Baby Rudin", as it's commonly called. And doing Lay's book with a 16 yo, say, would be a striking achievment, indeed. So, while I, personally, do tend to dislike the same idea applied to TT, it is probably true that a child that has been accelerated through it is not receiving some sort of an easy unchallenging math program.

[Laura in VA]

Well the OP's letter was posted - word for word - on Sonlight a few weeks ago. I can't send you the link as their forums are private. But I just searched for it as the response sounded familiar.

 

I wasn't saying that this had never been posted before or that it was a new response, I was just thinking that the poster I responded to may have been thinking about the letter that I had seen a couple of years ago (which was what I had included in my post).

I'm sure he gets these types of questions often, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has sends out the same response. :)

[GailV]

 

 

And here in bold:

You do not see Susan Wise Bauer coming on here telling people to stop talking negatively about her product, do you? No, you don't because she realizes people have opinions, good or bad.

 

 

 

I also don't see the author of TT coming on here telling people to stop talking negatively about his product. I see the author of TT sending a form letter to someone here who then posted the letter. The brouhaha about whether we should criticize TT seems to be coming from people here (not that I see anyone here wringing their hands and crying "Oh waily wailly waily! Stop dissing my program!" -- I've seen that done very bluntly on other boards, and it doesn't look like what's happening here). Said brouhaha doesn't seem to me to be coming from the author. So I"m not sure what point you're trying to make here, since I don't see that we're making an apples to apples comparison.

[Kelli in TN]

It does seem to provide the most eshaustive and thorough video explanations of any program and it is the easiest and so most doable. But, it seems a near certainty that it just doesn't have as good of problems and the students coming out of it are less equipped to work hard problems than they are coming out of most of the other programs. That is not a matter of opinion nor is it a matter of student or parental preference. It is a simple matter of fact. It is much better to know this and accept it and plan around it than to talk yourself into thinking that TT is going to produce students that can really solve problems the way programs like Singapore or supplements like Gelfand do.

 

 

Okay, I am going to ask you this because my daughter is in 11th grade and sometimes I am very, very scared that I have ruined her life. (I have issues, melodrama being one of my responses to everything :lol:)

 

She had a private tutor for alg 1. Then she did alg 2 and is doing geometry through TT. We plan to start TT precalc as soon as she finishes geometry. She has done Aleks alongside these courses every step of the way. She has done very well with each run of Aleks, she gets most of her pie pieces most of the way filled in every time.

 

The plan is to have her finish pre calc (TT and Aleks) by Christmas and then spend the second semester of her senior year taking a math course at the community college.

 

Do you think she will be ready for community college work? We want to use the community college course as a bridge to prepare her for university level work. Our older daughter who graduated from public school and took honors math is really struggling to hold onto her scholarship and we wanted to give this next child in line a better boost up.

 

But I worry that the foundation I have laid might be too shaky for the community college course and everything is going to come apart for this girl.

 

I guess I am hoping that you can reassure me or tell me how to fix it in the limited time I have left. Higher math truly stumps both my husband and I. I never had more than alg 1 as that was all that was required when I was in high school. (I forgot to go to college). Dh chose his major in part based on the low amount of math required. I guess we are math-weenies.

[GothicGyrl]

I also don't see the author of TT coming on here telling people to stop talking negatively about his product. I see the author of TT sending a form letter to someone here who then posted the letter. The brouhaha about whether we should criticize TT seems to be coming from people here (not that I see anyone here wringing their hands and crying "Oh waily wailly waily! Stop dissing my program!" -- I've seen that done very bluntly on other boards, and it doesn't look like what's happening here). Said brouhaha doesn't seem to me to be coming from the author. So I"m not sure what point you're trying to make here, since I don't see that we're making an apples to apples comparison.

Once more, for old time's sake:

 

The OP posted stating that she was going to "defend it to the end!" and that the reason she wrote was because she was "disturbed by some of the comments on the board and from friends looking at Public School Texts - so I wrote TT and asked some questions." Then she posts the letter from the publisher which basically states how all of the criticism is unjustified and unwarranted and really is a standard form letter.

 

By way of her posting this letter here, it is the same as him posting it himself because presumably, it was a private exchange between he and her that should have been kept private, but was made public. And since it was made public, we have a right to assume that it is coming from the publisher (as it appears) and to respond to the publisher as though he were here.

 

*we* have the benefit of having SWB here should something like this occur. That's just a plus for us. But, judging from other responses, she posted his letter (or ones similar or someone else did) on other forums.

 

AND let's not forget that no one said you could not use or should not use TT. We simply said that this guy's letter wasn't exactly something to be praising.

[Laura in VA]

I know you didn't address this question to me, but I would like to mention a few things. I think your plan sounds fine (and fwiw, I get math). The community colleges have math courses that students can take, if they need to, that will get them up to speed. I really don't think your daughter will need to take those.

My oldest son went to a very good public high school, made a B in Pre-Calculus his senior year and placed into Calculus at the college he attends. He is struggling with Calculus. Struggling. Last semester he made a D, and decided to retake it this semester. He did well on his ACT. But, he is really having a difficult time with Calculus.

The fact that you care and are concerned about your dc's education is to me, proof-positive that you will not/have not messed up their lives. :)

[GailV]

Don't you think Saxon, Singapore, Dolciani, Foersters, and Jacobs all have similar stories associated with them? The point is that Singapore seems to have more stories associated with it. And if you compare placement tests, for instance, Singapores are much harder. And, if you start comparing problems between, say, TT Algebra II and NEM 3, what do you find?

....

 

WARNING: OFF TOPIC! This is a digresssion from the topic at hand (directly discussing TT), so if you just want to read about that subject, don't bother reading this post.

 

I keep thinking about this quote. I sort of like to read anecdotal evidence, since it tells me what's possible. It doesn't tell me what's probable, of course. But I can read the anecdotes and think "what if...."

 

Anyway, I started wondering why Singapore seems to have more of these stories associated with it. Do Singapore users tend to self-select -- that is, are the people who are going to do well on the later testing situations for future programs -- regardless of program they used in high school -- also the people more likely to continue in Singapore (implying the rest tend to go with other, easier programs)? Or maybe Singapore users tend to hang out in places (blogs, message boards) where they have more opportunity to read Singapore success stories (I know I fall into this category -- I love to read success stories about products I've chosen, but am less enchanted with success stories about products I've rejected). Or maybe there are just more Singapore users than, say, Dolciani, or for that matter TT.

 

Has anyone come up with statistics? I don't think statistics would necessarily prove any point -- I think there'd be too much variability in how the programs are presented to various classes and homeschool kids (that is, how I present any given math lesson is likely to be different that how anyone else does). But I still think it would be interesting.

 

ETA: THis probably should've been a spin off thread, shouldn't it. Sorry I didn't think of that until I posted. And now the kids are up, so I have to actually interact with them instead of just theorizing about homeschool.

[GothicGyrl]

Gail--I think your comment is fine in this thread. It's not a spinoff, it actually is a valid comment that could apply to what we are talking about as well. ;)

[Charon]

Okay, I am going to ask you this because my daughter is in 11th grade and sometimes I am very, very scared that I have ruined her life. (I have issues, melodrama being one of my responses to everything :lol:)

 

She had a private tutor for alg 1. Then she did alg 2 and is doing geometry through TT. We plan to start TT precalc as soon as she finishes geometry. She has done Aleks alongside these courses every step of the way. She has done very well with each run of Aleks, she gets most of her pie pieces most of the way filled in every time.

 

The plan is to have her finish pre calc (TT and Aleks) by Christmas and then spend the second semester of her senior year taking a math course at the community college.

 

Do you think she will be ready for community college work? We want to use the community college course as a bridge to prepare her for university level work. Our older daughter who graduated from public school and took honors math is really struggling to hold onto her scholarship and we wanted to give this next child in line a better boost up.

 

But I worry that the foundation I have laid might be too shaky for the community college course and everything is going to come apart for this girl.

 

I guess I am hoping that you can reassure me or tell me how to fix it in the limited time I have left. Higher math truly stumps both my husband and I. I never had more than alg 1 as that was all that was required when I was in high school. (I forgot to go to college). Dh chose his major in part based on the low amount of math required. I guess we are math-weenies.

 

 

Your kids will encounter a whole lot of stuff along the way that they just aren't ready for. It will happen just because they don't take the sequence they were supposed to. It will happen because they did take the sequence they were supposed to but it just doesn't prepare you like it should. It will happen because courses in the sequence they took ended up being weak for some reason -- perhaps because they "lucked out" and ended up with a really easy professor that semester. Their success is going to be determined a lot more by how they get through those rough spots. When they come they are going to be a lot rougher than simply not factoring enough difficult cubics or something like that. It is going to be something more like them being expected to handle a certain kind of second order linear ordinary differential equation in their circuits class long before they are even told what a "differential equation" is just because they have to cram a litany of engineering into 4 years. That's a helluva prerequisite to miss! And, it was baked into the program at the university I attended! (My brother got his degree in EE.)

 

So, I don't really know how your children will do in college because so much of it is going to be determined by how they handle that kind of situation, and it will play out at a much higher level than high school. But, to give you an anecdote on how reality often doesn't conform to our expectations, my brother was a high school drop out. He dropped out in like the 9th or tenth grade and is 9 years older than me. When I came up through the ranks, I went to an elite private school -- perhaps the best in town. I then transferred to a pretty top notch public school and entered their "level 4" track -- the highest level. I took all kinds of level 4 english and history and math. I took AP biology and made a 5 on the exam which was all essays. You know what that high school drop out did -- he crushed the SAT and made a 1430. I only made a 1340 and largely the difference was in the verbal! (I remember our scores distinctly because the middle numbers were transposed and our math scores were either exactly the same or ten points off from each other.) He placed in second semester calculus, even. He ended up take first semester freshman calculus and just sucked it up and filled in any gaps he may have had on his own. He has his EE degree now.

[HollyinNNV]

Their success is going to be determined a lot more by how they get through those rough spots.

 

 

Yes! Yes! Double and triple yes!

 

When my son writhes on the floor during math (he is at the moment) I TRY and keep from thinking about an easier math program. I look at teaching him how to get through that moment and power through! (now he is verbalizing how much he hates math) When my dd hits a section in Algebra I (last week) where the word problems are taking an hour to complete three, I look at it the same way. We spent 2 hours instead of 1 that day. (DS is better now-though not finished with his math.)

 

I spent 1 hour in algebra II class each day and at least 90 minutes at home with homework. This is what it took for ME to succeed. I didn't just say, "Well I've used up my allotted time for math-bummer about the rest of the problems!" Thank goodness my teacher didn't just give up on me and give me a book with less content. Cuz, I could do the math. For me, it took lots of effort and time.

 

I learned that with enough effort, I could do math and it contributed to a strong self-esteem and confidence. Powering/Shouldering through a difficult thing creates confidence like nothing else. It is just like when my dd won second place in a contest that she had worked on for 10 months. Boy-the following year she was determined and did a superb job (and won first place). Coming in 2nd (painful experience) was the best thing that could have happened to her.

 

When I got to college, I had to take an elective-either math or science. I would have been pretty ticked had I found out that my high school math teachers had NOT prepared me to take the class that I chose-Calculus. (Not the difficult science calculus, but the non-math major Calculus.) As it was, I came into it knowing no matter what, it would take a bunch of time and effort.

 

Even with that math background, I have still had to

1. ask my dh to help with particularly difficult AlgI problems

2. refer to the textbook explanations frequently (we use Larson)

3. watch some of the DVD lectures myself (Chalkdust)

4. think, think, think-take a break, think some more about problems

5. get frustrated

6. sing songs about my temporary hatred of math

7. send questions to the WTM board

 

Math is pesky. And if it isn't taking gobs of time and effort in our house, I know we aren't doing something right.

 

Now, I don't take this as an expression of opinion about one curriculum or another. However, I do feel that math takes a bunch of time and effort and sometimes emotion.

Holly

[Charon]

....

 

WARNING: OFF TOPIC! This is a digresssion from the topic at hand (directly discussing TT), so if you just want to read about that subject, don't bother reading this post.

 

I keep thinking about this quote. I sort of like to read anecdotal evidence, since it tells me what's possible. It doesn't tell me what's probable, of course. But I can read the anecdotes and think "what if...."

 

Anyway, I started wondering why Singapore seems to have more of these stories associated with it. Do Singapore users tend to self-select -- that is, are the people who are going to do well on the later testing situations for future programs -- regardless of program they used in high school -- also the people more likely to continue in Singapore (implying the rest tend to go with other, easier programs)? Or maybe Singapore users tend to hang out in places (blogs, message boards) where they have more opportunity to read Singapore success stories (I know I fall into this category -- I love to read success stories about products I've chosen, but am less enchanted with success stories about products I've rejected). Or maybe there are just more Singapore users than, say, Dolciani, or for that matter TT.

 

Has anyone come up with statistics? I don't think statistics would necessarily prove any point -- I think there'd be too much variability in how the programs are presented to various classes and homeschool kids (that is, how I present any given math lesson is likely to be different that how anyone else does). But I still think it would be interesting.

 

ETA: THis probably should've been a spin off thread, shouldn't it. Sorry I didn't think of that until I posted. And now the kids are up, so I have to actually interact with them instead of just theorizing about homeschool.

 

 

Basically, to answer your question: no, not really. There certainly may be something to that effect. It may be that the Singapore students all do twice as good as the TT students on average but that Singapore is not really quite twice as good of a program as TT, say. But, I've been over the online problems and placement tests, myself. In fact, that was directly where I went the first time I ever looked at it (years or a year (?) ago). The problems just aren't there. I've looked at a lot of material by now. And watched a number of videos. If I were really formally reviewing it, then I would spend hundreds of dollars on texts and go meticulously through them in every last detail. But, I've really seen enough and I have compared it to both Saxon and Singapore. Like I say, it just isn't as hard -- that's all. A number of other people who have actually bought and used the program have come back corroborating my assessment.

 

So, we kind of really know that TT is not as "rigorous" as Singapore. It's not just anecdotes or isolated test scores. It is a direct comparison of the problems. And, the anecdotes aren't just "I used TT and it didn't work out for us." They are "I used TT and the problems were all really easy compared to Saxon" -- stuff like that. That's not just an anecdote. That's real information that doesn't change from family to family.

[ArwenA]

Also, specifically with regard to advincing a child through it -- like you have a 12 yo that is in TT Algebra II, say -- I, personally wouldn't do that. I think it is at best redundant -- you'll have to rehash the very same material only harder later on. It could also end up undermining them later on if you end up not covering topics with sufficiently difficult problems and they are later expected to have a high level of facility and sophistication with that topic.

 

Maybe my kids will have to do everything all over again, but I don't think so. I could buy them Singapore math and make them do it because it's "better" than TT. But I'm not going to because, IMO, it's more important to love math and have a basic understanding than be able to solve complex equations but hate doing it.

[Charon]

Yes! Yes! Double and triple yes!

 

When my son writhes on the floor during math (he is at the moment) I TRY and keep from thinking about an easier math program. I look at teaching him how to get through that moment and power through! (now he is verbalizing how much he hates math) When my dd hits a section in Algebra I (last week) where the word problems are taking an hour to complete three, I look at it the same way. We spent 2 hours instead of 1 that day. (DS is better now-though not finished with his math.)

 

I spent 1 hour in algebra II class each day and at least 90 minutes at home with homework. This is what it took for ME to succeed. I didn't just say, "Well I've used up my allotted time for math-bummer about the rest of the problems!" Thank goodness my teacher didn't just give up on me and give me a book with less content. Cuz, I could do the math. For me, it took lots of effort and time.

 

I learned that with enough effort, I could do math and it contributed to a strong self-esteem and confidence. Powering/Shouldering through a difficult thing creates confidence like nothing else. It is just like when my dd won second place in a contest that she had worked on for 10 months. Boy-the following year she was determined and did a superb job (and won first place). Coming in 2nd (painful experience) was the best thing that could have happened to her.

 

When I got to college, I had to take an elective-either math or science. I would have been pretty ticked had I found out that my high school math teachers had NOT prepared me to take the class that I chose-Calculus. (Not the difficult science calculus, but the non-math major Calculus.) As it was, I came into it knowing no matter what, it would take a bunch of time and effort.

 

Even with that math background, I have still had to

1. ask my dh to help with particularly difficult AlgI problems

2. refer to the textbook explanations frequently (we use Larson)

3. watch some of the DVD lectures myself (Chalkdust)

4. think, think, think-take a break, think some more about problems

5. get frustrated

6. sing songs about my temporary hatred of math

7. send questions to the WTM board

 

Math is pesky. And if it isn't taking gobs of time and effort in our house, I know we aren't doing something right.

 

Now, I don't take this as an expression of opinion about one curriculum or another. However, I do feel that math takes a bunch of time and effort and sometimes emotion.

Holly

 

 

Myrtle has spent days thinking about a problem. She was reminding me that she spent 6 hours proving that the geometric mean is less than the algebraic mean. I, myself, certainly have spent days thinking about a single problem. Our kids have spent hours on a hard problem. Myrtle imagines that she really probably could not handle a normal college paced course in the kinds of things she is doing, but she doesn't back down one bit from the rigor or the difficulty. She just takes as long as it takes to do it. And, now, she just got finished doing a series of mathematical induction problems in about two or so days time and a number of those problems appear in a senior college abstract algebra text (by Herstien). She never made it beyond Trig in college. You can do it if you want to. And, you're kids can, too.

[Kelli in TN]

 

So, I don't really know how your children will do in college because so much of it is going to be determined by how they handle that kind of situation, and it will play out at a much higher level than high school. .

 

 

You are right. It was pretty silly of me to think I could get reassurance from an internet message board where nobody knows me or my daughter.

 

Can you tell I am having an emotional crisis in my homeschooling life right now?

 

I need to get a grip.

 

Thank you for your feedback nonetheless. You are right, I won't know until I know, will I?

[GailV]

Charon, I wasn't disagreeing with what you said, or thinking that you weren't rigorous enough in your method of evaluation. Yours was simply a quote that had my mind wandering down different paths of "I wonder if anyone's ever done something like compile statistics ... hmmm ... 'lies, **** lies, statistics', should I even care about statistics?" I tend to wander off the subject a lot in my thought processes. I'm likely to follow up this discussion with reading a book on statistics, which will lead me to a new interest in, well, who knows what, maybe medical research or traffic patterns.

 

I think that your follow up answered my question (is there anything like this? not to your knowledge) but I wanted to clear up that I wasn't posing the question in order to pick nits.

 

And I wasn't posing my question simply to you, but to the hive mind in general. So don't feel the burden is on you to come up with the definitive answer.

[Beth in SW WA]

Can you tell I am having an emotional crisis in my homeschooling life right now?

 

Bless you, Kelli. You are an awesome mom and YOU KNOW BEST what your kids need -- in all subjects. Your kids are blessed to have YOU leading them on this educational journey. Godspeed!

[choirfarm]

Don't you think Saxon, Singapore, Dolciani, Foersters, and Jacobs all have similar stories associated with them? The point is that Singapore seems to have more stories associated with it. And if you compare placement tests, for instance, Singapores are much harder. And, if you start comparing problems between, say, TT Algebra II and NEM 3, what do you find? Reality is not one thing for one family and another thing for another family. TT is either a good program or a not so good program for all families. Choosing to use it or not is a matter of style and priorities. No amount of "it works for my family" is going to turn TT into something it's almost surely not: the top program that all the "mathy" kids do.

 

That isn't what I was saying. I have no idea how people do in the other programs. You just said you had no proof that people in TT did well and mine did.

 

Christine

[Colleen in NS]

You are right. It was pretty silly of me to think I could get reassurance from an internet message board where nobody knows me or my daughter.

 

Can you tell I am having an emotional crisis in my homeschooling life right now?

 

I need to get a grip.

 

Thank you for your feedback nonetheless. You are right, I won't know until I know, will I?

 

Kelli, I wish I could PM you or rep you again.....you have no idea how encouraging your comments are to me. "I forgot to go to college" had me almost spitting my tea out from ROTFL!!!! I love your grip on reality. I'm a simple girl, who is trying really hard to understand this whole thread so that I can make a decent decision on high school math in a few more years - and there you are, putting it all out there. Thank you! I'll bet your kids will do just fine - you just wait and see.

[Kimber]

Kelli, Charon wasn't being flip in his response. He was dead on in his answer to you.

 

In college, the professors are notoriously horrible. Sometimes you can't even understand what they're saying. I remember one of my engineering classes where a teacher's aid was referring to "finger 7, finger 7" There were only 5 Chem Engineering students in the class and none of us could figure out what "finger 7" was. It turns out he was saying "figure 7". By the time we understood, we were laughing out loud at him. It was awful, we were awful. The oldest student in the class (who's getting his PhD in math at the moment) had been in the military. He never cracked a smile, but tears were streaming down his face.

 

I write all this to say, college will be full of the unexpected. It's a completely different world that has it's own reality. All students at some point will be faced with some weird, unexpected reality that will cause them to discover or redefine who they are.

 

When I took Cal 1 in college, I was flunking terribly. I had graduated with scholarships and had easily placed in to calculus. I remember walking the yard talking to myself about loosing my scholarships. I had to do better. It was a growing experience. And no matter I smart I was, that wasn't why I was failing.

 

I was failing because I didn't know what was expected, I wasn't prepared, and I wasn't studying. I was coasting on high school study habits. To pass that class, I had to study calculus every night. I studied every week end. i couldn't afford tudors, so I found study groups. I talked to the professor. Basically, I grew up. I took control of my situation.

 

I didn't deserve anything more than a C in that class. But I was given an B, because I aced the final. I went back and taught myself everything I had failed before. The teacher said I had earned it.

 

In my calculus three class, I received a B on a test that would have been a 100, but I didn't use proofs that justified my work. Each professor is like a mini-dictator and the rules change from class to class. IMHO, a studen'ts success often depends on how well he or she can handle the variety of teachers from class to class and year to year.

 

As parents, the best we can do is teach them to work hard and give them a good foundation. If you don't think that is happening with the math that you're using, then I'd suggest you use the summer and zoom through the Singapore books to make sure they understand.

 

 

Kimberly

 

(I'm editing now, I re-read your post and maybe you didn't think he was being flippant. I couldn't really tell. Hopefully, my little .02 helped a little bit. Good Luck!)

[cricket1178]

I thought this too, at first. But I saved an earlier response he wrote on my computer and I just re-read it. It is not the same document. I'm pretty sure the one you are thinking of is this one:

 

It may help to give you a little background on the TT series. We first developed the curriculum while running a school for academically-gifted students. We used the same techniques with them that are now used in the TT books. The academic performance of our students was outstanding. Their test scores were extremely high and a large percentage ended up attending very prestigious colleges. For instance, one student went to Dartmouth where he made the highest score in history on their math placement exam. Four years later, he graduated first in his class in math, and he s now getting his Ph.D. in math. With this background, it should be obvious that we would never produce materials that are not college prep.

 

As for our personal backgrounds, I have two degrees from Harvard and tutored graduate students in statistics, probability, and game theory while I was a student there. My brother attended Swarthmore College in Philadelphia, which is one of the very best colleges in the country. We both have 12 or 13 years experience teaching math, and several of those years were spent teaching homeschoolers exclusively. So we are very familiar with homeschoolers unique needs.

 

A few people asked whether TT would prepare a student for college algebra. The series will not only prepare a student for college algebra, but he/she may be able to test out of that course, because there is a lot of overlap between high school Algebra 1 and 2 and college algebra.

 

You asked why our Algebra 1 does not include quadratic equations. It absolutely DOES include quadratic equations. A quadratic equation is just a second-degree equation. We have an entire chapter on that subject in Algebra 1 and all the subsequent chapters of the book review quadratic equations (in the problem sets). Quadratic equations are covered even earlier in our Algebra 2 book.

 

It is true that we don t cover logs. But that’ s only because the TT series is not finished yet. The same is true of the 2 or 3 other topics that were mentioned. Our Pre-Calculus is coming out next year and that book will cover all those topics extensively, along with many others. The TT series, once it s finished, will cover ALL of the topics that a student needs, no matter what his/her future career plans (including science, engineering, medicine, etc.).

 

Why is it that we put some topics in Algebra 2 instead of Algebra 1 or vice versa (or wait to do logs until Pre-Calculus)? We introduce topics in the order that we think will help the student learn the most. And we ve had quite a lot of experience teaching math, as I ve discussed. I don t think the goal should be to race through the most number of topics in the shortest time. What s more important is to really learn what you cover. Our approach is to help students gain mastery over foundational areas before moving on to new things.

 

More generally, there are always differences in the sequencing of topics when you compare publishers. For example, to get through all of Saxon s geometry lessons you would have to take Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Advanced Mathematics. And even then, you wouldn’t get a complete high school geometry course. Videotext covers Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 in only 180 lessons, whereas most books take about 260 lessons to cover the same material. But I’ m not saying that Saxon or Videotext is bad because of their sequencing or the small number of lessons. When choosing a curriculum I think it makes more sense to focus on how well the book EXPLAINS the concepts, rather than just count up the topics. If topics covered were so important then public school students would have high test scores. That s because the public school books are full of topics. In reality, of course, many public school graduates can t multiply or divide or solve even the simplest algebra equation. And the U.S. is near the bottom of the international math rankings.

 

The biggest problem we have in math education is not that topics aren’t introduced early enough. It s that the books don t give enough explanation and the instruction they do contain is usually very poor (maybe because mathematicians are often bad communicators.) Inadequate explanation is an especially big problem for homeschoolers, who are often studying independently once they reach middle school age.

 

The TT series is designed to deal with this problem. We cover all the major topics and we do so in depth, with full explanation so much explanation, in fact, that the student can pretty much teach himself! I am convinced that a student who uses the TT series will be BETTER PREPARED for the SAT and ACT and for college than if he/she uses any other series on the market. And the reason is the quality and quantity of our instruction. It doesn’t hurt that we make math enjoyable either. Everybody knows that the more interested a student is in a book, the more he s likely to learn.

 

As for the Jay Wile e-mail, I already told you that we will cover every one of the extra topics he mentioned in our Pre-Calculus product. And for those students who don t want to go all the way through our Pre-Calculus, we’ll post certain topics (like logs) on our website for all users to access.

 

The physics lesson that was mentioned was not on imaginary numbers. It was on complex numbers. A complex number can be viewed as a vector in 2 dimensions (and in the lesson we used a two-dimensional example). Also, the addition and subtraction of complex numbers and vectors are the same. This gave us a rare opportunity to show, in a way that a high school student can understand, how complex numbers (a very abstract and difficult concept) could actually be used in a real-world context. Other math authors have taken a similar approach.

 

Greg Sabouri"

 

Hmmm. I apologize. This could have been the post I read. :D:glare:

 

Think I'll just scamper off to the TT site and view some samples...