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

 

 

[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?

[langfam]

 

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.

Having used Saxon exclusively for years and TT this past year, I'll have to say that these programs are not at all challenging. It's hard not to score well on their tests. Even my non-mathy kids would score in the 90s, giving the illusion that they are good at math. I kinda buried my head in the sand, until this past year when we hit a stumbling block with SAT prep. DD was traumatized that she couldn't do the math. It made her feel so inadequate.

[readwithem]

The reason he could respond within a couple hours is that this letter is a form letter, at least he sent the same letter - word for word - to address concerns from a Sonlight member.

 

Ask him a specific question and see how long it takes to respond :) Maybe he'll be just as quick - but I wouldn't be impressed with the speed of his response as he already had the answers ready before you asked the questions!

[Beth in SW WA]

Even my non-mathy kids would score in the 90s, giving the illusion that they are good at math.

 

Bingo!

 

TT gave my ds 12 a false sense of success. He is struggling w/ the rigors of Chalkdust Prealg (thorough material plus his dad only allows mastery before moving on, of course).

 

TT was great for basic 5th & 6th grade math. Short, sweet lessons. Mom doesn't need to correct -- just stay in the loop. But for the algebra series we wanted a rigorous traditional program comparable to the public schools. Both kids will take Compass tests for Running Start and will need to be uber-ready.

[SallyMac]

If you have a child is who more geared for liberal arts/performing arts and, therefore, doesn't need rigorous math, a child who struggles in tears with math, or who needs more explanation (and there is no one to explain it to them), then TT is fine. They probably won't be using much math as their gifts are in a nonmath area. You can always force a difficult curriculum on a child, but if they're just going through the motions and not understanding, they won't retain any of it and they'll only hate math. On the other hand, if you have a mathemathically minded child, then this is NOT the right choice as they probably don't need this much explanation and can spend their time going deeper into the topics. Do not assume they are mathematically minded because they are doing well in TT either...you really have to experiment with different curriculums to find the right fit and to find the child's threshhold (for pain?...I love math can you tell) to see how much they can do. And if you are homeschooling and you know your child needs support, but you are absolutely NOT the person who can help and there is no one else who can help, then TT is fine as it explains everything in depth and they will retain it all. You can always supplement...add problems that go a little deeper, especially since there aren't that many practice problems in TT. Let's face it, either the student or the parent (preferrably both, LOL) have to be mathematically minded for this to work at home at this level (I'm referred to high school math). Just this week I pulled out TT Alg II to help us because our main text (Lial) which is always wonderful with explanations suddently failed to explain a concept. So we substituted that topic (yes, it was in TT Alg II at about the same place in the text as Lial) and TT was able to explain it to us. BTW, we also have Saxon Alg II and this same topic was almost at the end of the book. Go figure.

[jubileex5]

:iagree:We are also in the camp of having used TT for Algebra 1. My two daughters both asked to be switched to something else because they felt like it was confusing and they weren't learning enough. I also didn't feel that it was rigorous enough. We switched to BJU and have been totally happy. We have completed Alg. 1 & 2 and half of Geometry so far using BJU.

 

Mary Jo

[Grace is Sufficient]

Wow...

 

I've never used TT, so I don't have a horse in this race but -- I'm just astonished at the level of vitriol being poured out here.

[creekland]

For another point of view... we've used TT exclusively for the past three years and my oldest got a 700 on the math portion of the SAT this past spring... He only missed three questions - and didn't complete 4 due to running out of time for the test. He didn't miss any algebra questions.

 

We also do the collegeboard's question of the day and my 9th grade son (in Alg 2 with TT at the moment - having done Alg 1 and Geometry with TT) has yet to get a math one wrong...

 

I work in our public high school (they use CPM) and my kids regularly test higher on the public school tests than the public school kids do - at least - back when I used to bring home tests to double check. I haven't felt the need to do that lately. And yes, our public school (an average school in an average state) has been cutting out many of the sections they formerly taught in an effort to better teach the basics. I'm not in total agreement with that... but it is true.

 

Anyway, I see no problem with the curriculum personally (other than I added one section to the matrices portion in Pre-Calc - solving systems of equations using inverse matrices). I also know of students who have used the program and done well in colleges - even with math and science majors.

 

I will never say TT is for everyone - different kids learn different ways and prefer different styles, but it certainly is not what some are making it out to be here.

[MomsintheGarden]

(Treading lightly here)

 

I'm glad you and your student are pleased with TT. However, I have compared this program with others, especially Chalkdust, and feel TT is rather light in its depth of coverage, and rigor and types of problems.

 

If you don't mind, could you let us know in a few years how your student has done in his college math, especially if he is a math/science/engineering major? TT is a relatively new curriculum in the homeschool market, and I think folks would appreciate knowing this sort of info.

 

Thanks,

GardenMom

[LoriM]

For another point of view... we've used TT exclusively for the past three years and my oldest got a 700 on the math portion of the SAT this past spring... He only missed three questions - and didn't complete 4 due to running out of time for the test. He didn't miss any algebra questions.

 

A 700 on the SAT math is nothing to sneeze at! Congratulations! :)

[choirfarm]

I see that your 7th grader did TT Algebra I and so he is a year ahead of schedule. That is what I would recommend with this program. My son did TT in 7th and Algebra II in 8th and I am counting it as just Algebra I on his transcript. He scored in the 96th percentile in his standardized testing this year. My 6th grader who is horrible at math and scored in the 40 percentile in ps and then consistently in the mid sixties while I did Saxon and Horizon. This year I went with TT7 since that is where he placed. He had an overall score in math in the 80th percentile with his math computation in the 94th percentile...after 66ish the past 4 years.. So it seems as if TT is doing fine, but notice that I put him in a year ahead. I had planned on doing TT Prealgebra next year, but at the used book sale I found a DVD Prealgebra Chalkdust program for $70, so I couldn't resist. I showed him a portion of the DVD and he loved the teacher, so we'll see. But if you do TT a year ahead, you should be fine.

 

Christine

[lmrich]

TT is great for the summer for your non-mathy kid who needs review. The lessons are quick - my daughter is doing two a day (she finished 4th and is doing 5th). Yes, it is expensive, but compared to tutoring, it is a bargain. I have a friend whose child is really struggling with Saxon; I suggested using TT as a supplement. Perhaps if her DD starts to experience success with math, she will like it more and stick with it longer. I think with any curriculum it works differently for different people.

[Beth in SW WA]

Bingo!

 

TT gave my ds 12 a false sense of success. He is struggling w/ the rigors of Chalkdust Prealg (thorough material plus his dad only allows mastery before moving on, of course).

 

TT was great for basic 5th & 6th grade math. Short, sweet lessons. Mom doesn't need to correct -- just stay in the loop. But for the algebra series we wanted a rigorous traditional program comparable to the public schools. Both kids will take Compass tests for Running Start and will need to be uber-ready.

 

UPDATE:

 

Ds is now finished w/ CD Alg 1. Dd is in CD PreAlg following TT7. They both prefer Prof. Mosely to the computer teaching of TT.

 

Grace, I hope my former post wasn't considered vitriolic. I'm just trying to be honest, for those who want the good/bad/ugly. TT works swimmingly for some families. For us, it wasn't a good fit for the higher levels.

[creekland]

(Treading lightly here)

 

If you don't mind, could you let us know in a few years how your student has done in his college math, especially if he is a math/science/engineering major? TT is a relatively new curriculum in the homeschool market, and I think folks would appreciate knowing this sort of info.

 

Thanks,

GardenMom

 

My oldest, while quite talented in math, has not chosen that path for his future. He is heading toward Global/Community/Economic Development (called different things at different colleges) - though I do plan to have him double major in Economics or Business just in case he changes his mind.

 

My current 9th grader is planning on pursuing genetic engineering or microbiology in the medical field if he doesn't change his mind. He should easily do well. He is the most talented of my three academically.

 

My 7th grader would surprise me if he chose anything related to math. He doesn't like it (nor many other subjects). His ideal job would be something outdoors with critters or plants 24/7, so he'll probably be in science, but research based with something of the above.

[creekland]

A 700 on the SAT math is nothing to sneeze at! Congratulations! :)

 

Thanks. I was pleased. Collegeboard says it is in the 94th percentile nationwide. His prep consisted of Barron's book. He only looked at the actual teachings a little if I made him, but he did three of the four practice tests. On each of those he scored above 700 (generally 730 - 740). We also did collegeboard's question of the day for the month or so prior to the test - He only missed one math question - my middle son hasn't missed any.

 

On the real test he took too much time checking his work where possible, so ran out of time and didn't get to finish 4 questions. I wish he had done them all first, then went back to check, but his score is high enough to easily get him where he wants to go so I'm not paying for him to retake the test. When I looked at the breakdown, he missed two geometry questions (his weakest part) and one probability/proportion question.

 

He is naturally gifted with math and using TT hasn't hurt him a bit IMO.

Edited May 23, 2009 by creekland

[creekland]

As a math person myself, I do have one last thought for people to remember. Now that they have fMRI studies to look at, they have determined that MANY youngsters don't develop their upper level math skills till a later age... so for some, yes, no matter which Alg program you do at 7th or 8th grade - even 9th and 10th for some - they might have difficulty. Give them a year or two later - and a 2nd look, and it should come easier no matter which curricula was first and which was 2nd. The first will get the blame, the second will get the credit. It might not be either.

 

We have many adults coming back for further education. There are tons that say, "Oh, I get it so easily now! Why was it so difficult when I was in school?" They were slower to mature math-wise... and then thought they were math dumb - or perhaps blamed it on the curriculum or teacher.

 

I will never say any one math program is best for everyone. If something is not suiting your youngster, change it. But math does not have to be difficult to get the concept across. Once the concept is there, they should be able to do the difficult problems. They understand "how" and hopefully, "why." In my mind, the easier it is and the more the youngster likes it, the better they will remember it - then move on to tougher stuff. This is why both hubby (Civil Engineer with his own business) and I chose TT for our own kids.

 

My oldest two boys did Alg 1 in 7th grade. My oldest followed that with Alg 2 in 8th and Geom in 9th. We took a year off to do Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace for the Next Generation in 10th, and are finishing TT's Pre-Calc now (remember to add Inverse Matrices to this curricula IMO). I'm thinking of Chalkdust's Calc for him for next year - and a Stats course.

 

My middle son did Geom after Alg 1 and is finishing Alg 2 now. He will then follow the same path with a Business Math course next year and Pre-Calc after that.

 

My youngest had to slow down (even with TT) and is doing Pre-Alg in 7th and will start with Alg 1 next year. IF I decide he needs Calc or Stats, then he will double up with the Business Math course some year. This is the first year math has started to click with him. He is slower and I saw no need to push him considering all the fMRI data out there. Pushing him would have only led to frustration and a true hatred of math - not my goal.

 

Anyway, my two cents - take it or leave it... and no hard feelings anywhere (on my part) if you happen to feel differently.

[Orthodox6]

I agree that Mr. Sabouri's reply appears a pastiche of marketing boilerplates. Little substance.

 

One son used TT geometry and algebra-2 prior to college. He learned what he needed to, then made a B in his first college math course. No complaints for his particular case.

 

I feel quite mixed about how we all [collectively] are characterizing the TT program. I include myself.

 

My flag and temper rise whenever I read, as I have read for years, the dismissive (and tedious by now, after fourteen years of teaching), "That's fine for a liberal arts-oriented student who won't need math anyway." That attitude ticks me off as condescending in tone, even if the writer does not purpose condescension in content.

 

Sometimes the "right match" math textbook triggers interest in a previously uninspired student. I did well in high school honors math classes by dint of diligence, rather than with any talent. The summer before college, I found in a technical bookstore, a marvelous "programmed text" in three volumes, from John Wiley & Sons, that covered pre-college mathematics. Oddly, I fell in love with the books right there in the store, and obtained them from my parents as a birthday gift. Used them all summer as relief from a boring job. In that I was headed off to school by the grace of a huge music scholarship, I definitely was one of those second-class liberal arts students. The math books, however, were not "for dummies".

 

Now I'm a potential fan of TT, when it is the right choice for a particular student. I joined the WTM boards in the first place, to enquire whether TT would be a good choice for a student with finally-confirmed strong math disabilities. (I asked on the special needs sub-board.) What dd ultimately shall do with her post-high school academic life, only the Lord knows. I refuse to slam any doors for her, though. TT appears a program which MAY (just started, so don't know) assist dd with her current difficulties. If math falls into place because of the program's clarity, then maybe dd will pick up the pace, shift comfortably to a more rigorous program for high school math, or even learn enough from TT to succeed on the standardized tests as did Creekland's son. Ask me again in a few years !

 

Already I see curious content in TT4. For sure, I gauge the course as "3rd grade", rather than "4th grade". Saxon, also, bears "cover label" of one year greater than the actual content. Horizon, in contrast, I gauge as teaching content from one year ahead of the "cover label."

 

National, inflexible standards for all published textbooks hold limited appeal -- until I remember the NEA and its goal of exterminating homeschoolers ! Then I sigh with relief, and offer profound thanks for all of you fellow educators, both here at WTM and at the other homeschool boards where I have spent time. We are the real trench-dwellers who know first-hand "what works" !

 

This and other WTM threads discussing TT math sometimes sound as if we are discussing unrelated products. Peculiar -- but all should come out in the wash, leaving helpful suggestions for a variety of students and teachers.

 

Regards to all. :001_smile:

Edited May 23, 2009 by Orthodox6

[Storm Bay]

Wow, I haven't seen this thread in a very, very long time! Math is a volatile subject, of course, and it never surprises me when someone hates a math program anymore, even if it's one we love and think is the best thing since sliced bread. TT is still relatively new, so I think it's relatively untried. It's not our cup of tea (I must be hungry as all these old food cliches are coming up).

 

And, anyway, I really don't think it's insulting if a program is good for nonmathy kids but not necessarily for mathy kids. It's true that something fun and understandable can turn students around. There are a few Physics majors in the world today because my bother makes college Physics fun and understandable (but college level). It's his gift, I suppose. But I'm never going to recommend TT for kids known to be mathy or who already do well with something more rigourous, nor will I call it a rigourous program. That doesn't mean it's inherently bad or lesser. A math program is what it is, but I have to say I find most Algebra programs lack what I personally look for in them. That's the beauty of homeschooling--we have the choice. And the right to heartily disagree on what makes a good/great math program ;).

[4wildberrys]

My flag and temper rise whenever I read, as I have read for years, the dismissive (and tedious by now, after fourteen years of teaching), "That's fine for a liberal arts-oriented student who won't need math anyway." That attitude ticks me off as condescending in tone, even if the writer does not purpose condescension in content.

 

:iagree: Amen to this sister! After coming across this same type of comment in its varying degrees of statement in a variety of math related posts here lately, even if there are many testimonies from parents who not only have graduates IN college who used that math program and did well on tests and in college math. The most irritating of the variations of this comment are by those who have not actually used 'said' program, but heard from a friend or skimmed the table of contents. There is no ONE math program that will magically explain math to ANY student----the very BEST math program is the one that works for your child---whether that be TT, MUS or the exalted CD ;)

[tex-mex]

Wow...

 

I've never used TT, so I don't have a horse in this race but -- I'm just astonished at the level of vitriol being poured out here.

 

I agree. I am a bit taken aback by the replies -- I personally think it is very commendable to have an author reply so quickly. We use TT in our household and love it! And I agree that no one math program is a "fit" for all -- every student is different. But wowzers... it sure gets heated up with this topic!!!

Edited May 25, 2009 by tex-mex

[Laurie4b]

 

My flag and temper rise whenever I read, as I have read for years, the dismissive (and tedious by now, after fourteen years of teaching), "That's fine for a liberal arts-oriented student who won't need math anyway." That attitude ticks me off as condescending in tone, even if the writer does not purpose condescension in content.

:001_smile:

 

Another point of view: I actually appreciate it when people make this distinction and hope they will keep doing it because in my first two ds's, I have one of each: one with strengths in writing/music who is shakier in math, and another who will probably head into engineering. For ds 1, I'm looking for math that will help him test well to get into college, and we'll use dual enrollment to hopefully get the math requirement out of the way for him in terms of college. Right now, I'm looking for a good option for physics for this non-mathy kid. On the other hand, ds2 needs the most rigorous math and science courses he can get because it's extremely likely that he'll go into one of those fields and I want him well prepared for college. So it's really helpful to me to see posts which differentiate between the two types of kids.

 

I don't take it as condescending or in any way dismissive to read that x program is "fine for non-mathy kids" or "fine for kids not going into science." I think we each have strengths and the fact that ds 1's (or another student's) are elsewhere doesn't make me think someone is being condescending in describing a course as one for kids like him. I also appreciate knowing that the same course may not be the right one for ds 2.

 

So I appreciate those distinctions and hope people will keep them coming.

 

I have "no dog in fight" re: TT. I'm speaking in general that I am helped by the distinction between programs for mathy and liberal arts students and hope people will continue to make that very distinction and not avoid it over not wanting to seem "dismissive" or "condescending."

[Brenda in MA]

So I appreciate those distinctions and hope people will keep them coming.

 

I have "no dog in fight" re: TT. I'm speaking in general that I am helped by the distinction between programs for mathy and liberal arts students and hope people will continue to make that very distinction and not avoid it over not wanting to seem "dismissive" or "condescending."

Laurie,

 

I completely agree with what you are saying. I enjoy hearing from folks who "love" a particular curriculum and also folks who've found that it doesn't work for their family or doesn't suit a particular type of student.

 

Short of "seeing" and/or trying every different book, these boards are one of my best resources in trying to determine which programs will work for my children, and the more opinions expressed, the better.

 

Brenda

[Jane in NC]

Laurie,

 

I completely agree with what you are saying. I enjoy hearing from folks who "love" a particular curriculum and also folks who've found that it doesn't work for their family or doesn't suit a particular type of student.

 

Short of "seeing" and/or trying every different book, these boards are one of my best resources in trying to determine which programs will work for my children, and the more opinions expressed, the better.

 

Brenda

 

I would like to chime in after Laurie and Brenda to note that there is no correct answer to that question of "What is the best currculum for ______?" It has been enlightening to see the number of parents who have had to use two or three different sets of curricular materials within their own families.

 

Further, when people have asked for opinions on curricular materials, I am more likely to respond if I have used the materials in question; however, I have occasionally responded when I made a purposeful decision to avoid a particular book. Any criticisms that I have made are not intended to impugn parents or students. They are my perceptions on the failings of certain materials.

 

Case in point: we like Vocab from Classical Roots. Other parents find the material to be too dry and have abandoned the program. Should readers of the board only hear from the rah-rah crowd?

 

I concur that comments addressing various facets of curricular materials (rigor, readability, ease of use) can tell me a great deal about the product.

[8filltheheart]

Re: math programs being good for science/math majors

 

Another perspective on this issue is to not confine performance/understanding of math to math courses and standardized tests.

 

Do the math skills translate to being able to jump into chemistry, physics, etc without having to have the math processes explained and only needing to comprehend the science involved?

 

When people articulate such and such is a good math program for future engineering majors, etc, it is usually b/c the math program forces independent (as in not replicating prior examples) application of the process to challenging word problems. There a many math programs (and even science programs) that give examples and then simply alter the wording and numbers and have the student complete the exact same process. That will not be beneficial to the student in the long term b/c when unique situations arise they may be left stumbling with how to solve the problem.

 

As a mom of a rising college senior in chemical engineering, my ds has never struggled with his math or math based science courses. He (more important than my perspective) credits it to his solid math foundation. He is one of a few of his friends that is still an engineering major. Most of them couldn't cope with the math skills required.

 

So......while a parent/student may like or not like a math program is really irrelevant to whether or not the STUDENT has the ability to take that math course and use it completely independently of the course itself. That should be the ultimate goal.

 

For example, as a parent, pay attention to their chemistry/physics work. If the math is difficult for them, it might not be the chemistry, it might be their math program.

[Jane in NC]

As a mom of a rising college senior in chemical engineering...

 

Whoa! Where has time gone! A senior already?

 

Good points, Karen. I am not teaching so that my son succeeds on standardized exams. His scores are far from perfect. But he has never had a problem applying math within the science courses that he has taken either at home or the CC. Further, he knows how to write a mathematical proof, something that will never be asked on a standardized exam. This is not something that is important to every parent but it is important to me.

 

Good to see you on the boards.

 

Jane

[8filltheheart]

Whoa! Where has time gone! A senior already?

 

Good points, Karen. I am not teaching so that my son succeeds on standardized exams. His scores are far from perfect. But he has never had a problem applying math within the science courses that he has taken either at home or the CC. Further, he knows how to write a mathematical proof, something that will never be asked on a standardized exam. This is not something that is important to every parent but it is important to me.

 

Good to see you on the boards.

 

Jane

 

Call it a young man in love with increased motivation! He has been taking 17+ hrs per semester and summer courses. :)

 

I also completely agree about the standardized test scores. His scores were far from perfect, yet he consistently has one of the highest scores in all of his math and engineering courses.

 

He called a couple of weeks ago b/c he won a T-shirt. I asked him why and he said b/c he scored the highest grade on his thermo final (an 87 with a class average of a 62). His professor sought him out for an internship on campus this summer. :001_smile:

[Nan in Mass]

.

.

.When people articulate such and such is a good math program for future engineering majors, etc, it is usually b/c the math program forces independent (as in not replicating prior examples) application of the process to challenging word problems. There a many math programs (and even science programs) that give examples and then simply alter the wording and numbers and have the student complete the exact same process. That will not be beneficial to the student in the long term b/c when unique situations arise they may be left stumbling with how to solve the problem.

.

.

.

 

So......while a parent/student may like or not like a math program is really irrelevant to whether or not the STUDENT has the ability to take that math course and use it completely independently of the course itself. That should be the ultimate goal.

 

For example, as a parent, pay attention to their chemistry/physics work. If the math is difficult for them, it might not be the chemistry, it might be their math program.

 

This is what we have run into. I happen to have a son who is good at copying a pattern without understanding it, so unless the problems are carefully worded, it is impossible to tell whether he is understanding the math from the curriculum alone. His math book has to be the type that forces that independent application. Momof7, I've never seen it put as succinctly.

 

I don't think it is a good idea to choose a math program because another user did well on a standardized test, even if your only math goal is to do well on the same test. Some students can put the pieces together and learn math well from any program. Some have parents that surround them with extra applications (either deliberately or accidentally). Some have parents that are reteaching the text. In all these cases, the student is going to do fine with most texts. And that doesn't mean that your student will also do well with the same text.

 

Not that I don't think that 700 is wonderful GRIN, and that the parents involved haven't done a great job... Congrats!

 

I'm just not sure that it works to say, "I want A to do well on this test. B used this text and did well on the test. Therefore, if A uses this text, he will also do well on the test." There are more inputs to the problem than just the text, and more outputs than just the test.

 

-Nan

 

(PS - I know nothing about TT. It was Saxon that we had trouble with. And yes, many people happily use Saxon and then go on to be scientists or engineers.)

[Laurie4b]

Whoa! Where has time gone! A senior already?

 

Good points, Karen. I am not teaching so that my son succeeds on standardized exams. His scores are far from perfect. But he has never had a problem applying math within the science courses that he has taken either at home or the CC. Further, he knows how to write a mathematical proof, something that will never be asked on a standardized exam. This is not something that is important to every parent but it is important to me.

 

Good to see you on the boards.

 

Jane

 

A second for "Good points, Karen! I will be keeping an eye on the chemistry this year."

 

And also, I have one son whom I *am* teaching for the purposes of doing well on standardized tests and another whom I know needs to be able to apply to other subjects. I was one who hasn't used anything past the most basic algebra or geometry since being out of school and it's fine for what I need. OTOH, I needed good standardized scores to get into the school I wanted.

[Storm Bay]

.

 

I don't take it as condescending or in any way dismissive to read that x program is "fine for non-mathy kids" or "fine for kids not going into science." I think we each have strengths and the fact that ds 1's (or another student's) are elsewhere doesn't make me think someone is being condescending in describing a course as one for kids like him. I also appreciate knowing that the same course may not be the right one for ds 2.

 

So I appreciate those distinctions and hope people will keep them coming.

 

 

 

 

Thank you--you said what I wanted to (about the mathy and nonmathy) so much better than I did. The entire post was good, but for space I took out part of it.

[Storm Bay]

I agree. I am a bit taken aback by the replies -- I personally think it is very commendable to have an author reply so quickly. We use TT in our household and love it! And I agree that no one math program is a "fit" for all -- every student is different. But wowzers... it sure gets heated up with this topic!!!

 

 

This isn't the first math thread I've read that got heated! I can't recall ever seeing a Latin thread get as heated as I've seen math threads get now and again.

[mommaduck]

I'm also disappointed by the tone of some replies. I have a math oriented student and TT has been a huge blessing. He enjoys it, is being challenged by it, and it was affordable.

[Storm Bay]

I would like to chime in after Laurie and Brenda to note that there is no correct answer to that question of "What is the best currculum for ______?" It has been enlightening to see the number of parents who have had to use two or three different sets of curricular materials within their own families.

 

Further, when people have asked for opinions on curricular materials, I am more likely to respond if I have used the materials in question; however, I have occasionally responded when I made a purposeful decision to avoid a particular book. Any criticisms that I have made are not intended to impugn parents or students. They are my perceptions on the failings of certain materials.

 

Case in point: we like Vocab from Classical Roots. Other parents find the material to be too dry and have abandoned the program. Should readers of the board only hear from the rah-rah crowd?

 

I concur that comments addressing various facets of curricular materials (rigor, readability, ease of use) can tell me a great deal about the product.

 

 

Great post. Sorry, my browser refuses to allow me to multi-quote, and so I end up with three replies in a row.

 

I have one dd who has used several different curricula just for Algebra 1, and I've had to switch things around in other areas for my other two.

 

In our house, rigour in each subject varies with each child, so I like to know how rigourous something is. None of my children will have equally rigourous or non-rigourous curricula through all their subjects due partly to interest and partly to strengths. This is why I have kept my TT, even if I don't care for it and even if it wasn't my eldest's favourite program. However, I'm going to add Life of Fred Algebra 1 to our growing collection of Algebra 1 books because it sounds perfect for my next Algebra student, at least for a first run through of Algebra 1. Although the plan is for her to do it twice, we may nix that and have her do several Geometry programs instead. Or not--she is really into history. If she does a less rigourous math program than my eldest, that could end up being perfect for her.

 

However, as another poster, and I think it was Nan, but I don't want to do a fourth post so soon, mentioned, some kids are great at memorizing a pattern and replicating it. Regardless of Algebra method or rigour, I hope that won't happen here.

[HollyinNNV]

I would prefer to hear a program's strengths and weaknesses hashed out on a forum rather than in my home by trial and (much) error. And, sometimes people comment on perceived weaknesses that I see as strengths. For example, some folks find that there is too much practice in a program and they don't like wading through all the extra problems. I find extra practice a good thing and I'd rather selectively ignore the extra problems than make up my own extras or buy a supplemental book.

 

At this point, I think I've heard every negative (and variation on the negative) that can come up with TT. I just wish that all the TT threads could be combined and when TT comes up for the millionth time we could just link people to the ONE and ONLY TT thread. Personally, I think that we are beating the proverbial dead horse. Until, of course, TT updates their line.:D

[creekland]

This is what we have run into. I happen to have a son who is good at copying a pattern without understanding it, so unless the problems are carefully worded, it is impossible to tell whether he is understanding the math from the curriculum alone. His math book has to be the type that forces that independent application. Momof7, I've never seen it put as succinctly.

 

I don't think it is a good idea to choose a math program because another user did well on a standardized test, even if your only math goal is to do well on the same test. Some students can put the pieces together and learn math well from any program. Some have parents that surround them with extra applications (either deliberately or accidentally). Some have parents that are reteaching the text. In all these cases, the student is going to do fine with most texts. And that doesn't mean that your student will also do well with the same text.

 

Not that I don't think that 700 is wonderful GRIN, and that the parents involved haven't done a great job... Congrats!

 

I'm just not sure that it works to say, "I want A to do well on this test. B used this text and did well on the test. Therefore, if A uses this text, he will also do well on the test." There are more inputs to the problem than just the text, and more outputs than just the test.

 

-Nan

 

(PS - I know nothing about TT. It was Saxon that we had trouble with. And yes, many people happily use Saxon and then go on to be scientists or engineers.)

 

I 100% agree with you. This son is math talented (without much work at it), so chances are, he would have done well with any curricula I had chosen. My point was that he didn't appear to be hindered by TT - and it doesn't matter if I use the SAT for comparison or our local PS tests. Personally, I think the SAT makes a great math comparison as the math on there requires thinking - not just copying a formula as most math tests do - but that's just my two cents. For what it's worth, he also hasn't had math problems with Apologia's Chemistry, but Chem doesn't use a whole lot of math IMO.

 

I do not help my kids with math - other than pointing out what they got wrong on tests (and why). The extremely rare time they have a question, I explain it - so we never use the problems disks, but that's it. I want them to learn independently. We do use math in real life when and where it applies - the same way we discuss history, ethics, or current events.

 

I will never tell folks to use XYZ curriculum to get a great (or poor) SAT test score. Natural ability has a lot to do with it. In the same way I can't say use XYZ Phys Ed curriculum (or coach) to run the 100 yard dash in record time or to make it to pro basketball...

 

I also have no problem talking about things for mathy or non-mathy kids and don't see it as putting one or the other down. Not all kids can run the same time in a race - whether it be a foot-race or a math test. We shouldn't expect them to... They can all learn the basics, but then they ought to be encouraged to go where their desires lead them.

 

When my middle son finishes his schoolwork for the year I'll have him do a practice SAT test from our book. He'll have just finished 9th grade and TT Alg 2. Math-wise they are similar in talent, so all it would tell is that TT didn't hinder him.

[Nan in Mass]

I hope you don't feel like my post was critical of your post. I thought your 700 post was especially good because it did give enough details. It is just that I've watched many math posts through the years here and I've often tried to say what Momof7 said so well and mangled it. Your point about it not hindering your math-bright son is a good one.

: )

-Nan

[creekland]

I hope you don't feel like my post was critical of your post. -Nan

 

I haven't found any post on here overly critical - and there are plenty worthy of thought. I like this forum in general as there is a lot that can be gleaned from several different experiences. We all can benefit from contemplating what others have done and think.

 

And I am definitely in agreement that math needs to be understood - not just memorized - regardless of which curricula is chosen.

 

I'll also add another two cents and say that far too many people rely on calculators way too early. I see this the most in the public school. I teach at the high school level and I'd be surprised if I could find more than a dozen students that could do fractions without the aid of a fraction-equipped calculator. It's sad. There are plenty that can't square -2 as well. They'll argue out the wazoo with me that the answer should be -4 since that's what their calculator tells them (considering they forget parentheses... and calculators do the order of operations correctly, but not as the operator intended).

[Bev in B'ville]

I don't think it's wise to make broad generalizations about an entire program. There are benefits and restrictions to almost every program. For example, we used Sonlight for history in the middle grades. However, I don't think (for us) it was challenging enough and offered a broad enough perspective for high school. So, while I would recommend it for middle school, I would not do so for highschool. That's simply my opinion; I'm sure others have been quite happy and it suited them just fine.

 

To say one entire curriculum is not "rigorous" enough is simply wrong. It's making broad generalizations and not taking into account the student's learning style and/or aptitude in that particular subject or the individual programs (e.g. geometry versus algebra 1, versus, algebra 2, etc.).

 

For our part, we used TT's Geometry program for my dd (when she was in 9th grade) and ds (in 8th grade). My dd did TT Geometry concurrently with Algebra 2 (not TT). She made a 27 (90th percentile) on the ACT that year. This year she took Chalkdust's Precalculus and did great, no problems whatsoever on the transition.

 

I have heard various criticisms about TT's Algebra programs and have steered clear of those. However, I thought the Geometry program was just fine (it had at least two proof problems on every test for those who use proofs - or lack thereof - as a measuring stick). Does that make it fine for everybody, probably not. Do I recommend that everyone have their dc take Geometry concurrently with Alg. 2, no. My ds did not do that this year, though we tried at the beginning. He simply wasn't ready for Alg. 2.

 

Choosing individual curriculums for your dc is a difficult decision, I know. And, not every program is right for every child in a family. My dc have rarely used the same math curriculum (with the exception of TT Geometry). Please, just keep that in mind before slamming an entire program.

[Storm Bay]

I'll also add another two cents and say that far too many people rely on calculators way too early.

 

 

Great point. We have a ps hs freshman on our street struggling with Algebra. She told me that it's because they tell them what to do and have them do it on calculators, so there's no way she can understand it.

 

Some of us mean parents even have our dc use logarithm tables (or plan to) just to get the hang of it. Eventually they need to learn to use the calculators, of course, and different parents here have different approaches. I plan to buy a graphing calculator for my dd when she is 15 (and done Geometry) so that she can use it to check her work. This way she'll know how to use it for the PSAT (or do you only need it for the SAT?).

[Orthodox6]

Time for a calculators thread? (Or has that been flogged to death already elsewhere?) I was interested to read some comments here about their use.

 

I never "taught" calculators until sometime into algebra-2. I'm so reliant on "how I learned it myself" all those years ago. Karin mentioned log tables as cruel-and-unusual-punishment. My eyes popped wide ! As for the SAT and ACT, there were no calculators allowed in 1972 and 1973 !

 

The main difference in how I teach math to my children, compared with how I studied it myself during high school, is that they do not have to use a slide rule for physics class, as I did ! :blink:

[Storm Bay]

Time for a calculators thread? (Or has that been flogged to death already elsewhere?) I was interested to read some comments here about their use.

 

I never "taught" calculators until sometime into algebra-2. I'm so reliant on "how I learned it myself" all those years ago. Karin mentioned log tables as cruel-and-unusual-punishment. My eyes popped wide ! As for the SAT and ACT, there were no calculators allowed in 1972 and 1973 !

 

The main difference in how I teach math to my children, compared with how I studied it myself during high school, is that they do not have to use a slide rule for physics class, as I did ! :blink:

 

 

Not quite cruel and unusual punishment ;), but my dc call me mean if I ensure that they do school and don't goof off all day. When I was in hs, we had to do log tables as calculators weren't allowed.

 

If you search calculators on the high school forum under advanced search you'll find what's been hashed out before.

[Nan in Mass]

Wow! That problem with calculators never occurred to me. Something to beware.

[Beth in SW WA]

Please' date=' just keep that in mind before slamming an entire program.[/quote']

 

Great point, Bev. Thanks to your recommendation, we are using TT Geo. Great stuff.

[bclerkin]

Thanks for the post.

[tdeveson]

For the record, we've switched from Singapore to TT this year. We are very happy. Ds loves it. And he's learning very quickly.