Does TT Help a Child Understand Math?

[Homeschooling6]

My 10yr. dd is currently using CLE Math. She is doing fine with it. She will start Level 4 in a few weeks.

 

Here's the deal. Yesterday she told me that she can do the math and get the answers right but she does not understand why or how about it (her own words). This is my logical thinker. She also said that she likes the review in CLE.

 

I have heard that TT explains things very thoroughly. I think the step by step explanations is what we are looking for and there is the review that she likes. She also likes using the computer for school. She did a few sample lessons last night and enjoyed it.

 

It's funny how dc are so different. Her older brother is more of give it to me straight. I don't need to understand all the why's and how of math. He also does not like using the computer. I tell ya, so different.

 

Anyway, do you think TT would be a good fit for her? I have mixed feeling about it but I'm willing to give it a try if it's what will help dd.

 

Thanks for chatting with me about this. Sometimes it helps to just bounce things back and forth.

 

Oh, one more thing. I'm not looking to try Singapore ;). I did like the looks of MEP but I don't want to go that route this late in the game.

 

Blessings,

Edited May 5, 2010 by Homeschooling6

[thowell]

We just switched dd9 to TT5 of few months ago. She loves it!! Now I should say her problem was not that she didnt understand the math she just didn't like it. For her TT is in a format that she loves. They do explain things very well as if a teacher was in front of them. I know other people had in extra review but so far we haven't found it necessary.

[specialmama]

I just asked my dd who is just finishing TT6 and she said "yes, it shows you why you would do it in the different examples, and is very clear about how to do it. Step-by-step they show you, especially in the Lecture and if you get a question wrong and see the solution. Sometimes it doesn't tell you and it tries to trick you." So I asked her for an example. "Well, when we've covered something for a long time, it'll just give some questions and expect you to remember." :lol: Yes, as with any math program there will be some of that nasty test-the-mastery stuff. :lol:

[Homeschooling6]

Thank you ladies.

One thing I am concerned about is the computer grading her work. How do I know what she missed? When she does miss a problem I noticed that there is an option for her to have the step by step explanation.

What about the workbooks, do you use them? Do you have the child watch the lecture, then use the workbook and once done enter the answers on the computer?

Thanks again,

[blessedmom3]

:lurk5:

[LisaKinVA]

Thank you ladies.

 

One thing I am concerned about is the computer grading her work. How do I know what she missed? When she does miss a problem I noticed that there is an option for her to have the step by step explanation.

 

What about the workbooks, do you use them? Do you have the child watch the lecture, then use the workbook and once done enter the answers on the computer?

 

Thanks again,

 

The interactive grade book will allow you to find out which ones she missed, if she looked at the explanation for the answer, and all you would need to know. You can then go back to the problem and have them re-do it as well.

 

The lower levels are GREAT about that.

[hsmom3tn]

What about the workbooks, do you use them? Do you have the child watch the lecture, then use the workbook and once done enter the answers on the computer?

 

 

 

My DS just finished TT6 and he never used the workbook. One of my girls is using TT4 and we haven't even taken the workbook out of the shrink wrap.

I think the purpose of the workbooks might be to use if they miss problems and aren't able to redo it on the computer (they can show you in the workbook that they understand how to do it); or if, for some reason, they were unable to do their lesson on the computer (power out, computer not working, out of town, etc.), they could use the workbook and not have to skip the lesson altogether.

[Gratia271]

IMO, no it does not help a student understand math. Teaching Textbooks offers step by step explanation of their problems, but their problems are way below the level of comparable math curricula. Step by step explanation of a set of math problems is not the same thing as promoting mathematical understanding. I guess it depends on the question then. If the question is whether they explain their problem sets well, then yes they do. If the question is whether they promote mathematical understanding, then the answer is no.

[3Rivers]

She sounds like my DD. She likes to understand all the WHY of everything, which is why math is sometimes tricky for her. TT has worked well for her, all things considered. It IS very thorough in its explanation. She is not a math wiz now, BUT I will say that I have been pleased that she is retaining things a lot better and seems to be actually getting it. The frustration level has gone WAY down, so TT has been worth its weight in gold.

 

From what I hear, Life of Fred may also appeal to your DD. I am also looking into that -- just because I am always looking and it's a heck of a lot cheaper. I might do both. (??)

[Homeschooling6]

I forgot to mention that she is not a mathy child. I see my son Caleb more as a mathy child.

Maybe my question should have been more about how TT gives the solution.

 

[calandalsmom]

I think TT explains very clearly what you are doing and why. If you have her take the pretests you will know which level would be appropriate.

[Mommyfaithe]

I think understanding math comes from using Math. IOW, if a child is using X math program, they still need maniplatives and explanations from Mom, or tutor or DVD, etc. Teaching Textbooks provides the teacher by the lectures on the DVD. With CLE, even though the book is self explanatory, I find I need to pull out those rods, bears, counters etc. and SHOW what we are doing for there to be an understanding of the meaning and not just the method.

 

I needed to do this when we used BJU, A Beka, Saxon, Singapore maths etc. It is nopt so much the program, but the method of teaching.

 

If you want to teach it yourself, CLE is a wonderful program. If you need someone else to teach it, Teaching textbooks or BJU DVD's or Saxon with DIVE etc. will work. Either way, someone HAS to teach it. Math is NOT a self learning subject!

 

Faithe

[Homeschooling6]

Either way, someone HAS to teach it. Math is NOT a self learning subject!

 

Faithe

 

This is where I'm at right now with her. I need someone else to teach her. She is at a point where she can be more independent with me around of course!

 

I need to teach and concentrate more on the four younger ones right now.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I love MUS because of how it teaches the why of math, not how to "do" math. I'm also going to be using LoF but haven't used it yet so can only say the reviews I've read say it does a great job at that as well. MUS isn't a completely independent program but much more so than many because the student can watch the DVD instead of the parent watching the DVD and then re-teaching the material to the student. We've always watched the DVD's together.

[lovemykids]

I think understanding math comes from using Math. IOW, if a child is using X math program, they still need maniplatives and explanations from Mom, or tutor or DVD, etc. Teaching Textbooks provides the teacher by the lectures on the DVD. With CLE, even though the book is self explanatory, I find I need to pull out those rods, bears, counters etc. and SHOW what we are doing for there to be an understanding of the meaning and not just the method.

 

I needed to do this when we used BJU, A Beka, Saxon, Singapore maths etc. It is nopt so much the program, but the method of teaching.

 

If you want to teach it yourself, CLE is a wonderful program. If you need someone else to teach it, Teaching textbooks or BJU DVD's or Saxon with DIVE etc. will work. Either way, someone HAS to teach it. Math is NOT a self learning subject!

 

Faithe

:iagree:

 

And we do love TT here, btw. Sometimes I start wondering if it's "good enough" after hearing so many negative reviews. But the fact is, my children are learning math and liking it. It gives me more time for other things, which is greatly needed around here. I do still teach math w/TT, just not as much as I would have to with other programs. I can save my teaching time for games or help with understanding concepts.

 

I love the way that the child is able to see the problem worked out whether they missed it or not. You as the parent can view a detailed log of their progress, so you are never left in the dark.

[Beth in SW WA]

:

 

I love the way that the child is able to see the problem worked out whether they missed it or not. You as the parent can view a detailed log of their progress, so you are never left in the dark.

 

I was thrilled with TT 6 & 7 (in grades 5 & 6) for my older dc (after an excellent foundation in Saxon). We use CD for the algebra series.

 

I purchased TT 3 for dd 7 for fall. We'll also do Horizons 2, some Singapore and RS games.

 

TT 3 will be great for the days when I can't teach a lesson, I'm driving big kids around town -- or just feeling like a slacker. :001_smile: It'll get the job done without any mom-guilt.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Beth in SW WA
added more info

[3Rivers]

My DD isn't either. Analytical, but not "mathy". I like that TT explains WHILE it shows, and gives hints, and she can replay the explanation as many times as necessary and it will work it through with her...and then if it is wrong it will work through the solution again. I think it is very well done. "It" explained division much better than I did. If you haven't seen these, it's a guy's voice explaining the problems and the screen reflects what he is saying just as he is saying it. Pretty cool. :)

[Orthodox6]

IMO, no it does not help a student understand math. Teaching Textbooks offers step by step explanation of their problems, but their problems are way below the level of comparable math curricula. Step by step explanation of a set of math problems is not the same thing as promoting mathematical understanding. I guess it depends on the question then. If the question is whether they explain their problem sets well, then yes they do. If the question is whether they promote mathematical understanding, then the answer is no.

 

:iagree:

[Homeschooling6]

My DD isn't either. Analytical, but not "mathy". I like that TT explains WHILE it shows, and gives hints, and she can replay the explanation as many times as necessary and it will work it through with her...and then if it is wrong it will work through the solution again. I think it is very well done. "It" explained division much better than I did. If you haven't seen these, it's a guy's voice explaining the problems and the screen reflects what he is saying just as he is saying it. Pretty cool. :)

 

That's how my dd is. You explain is much better than I ;) This is why I think TT would help because it will work through the problem and she'll 'see' it:)

 

My only concern is people say it's too easy. Is it because it really breaks down the solution into bite size pieces? If dd places into the 6th level wouldn't that be challenging for her? I would assume that eventually TT has to get harder :glare:

 

Thanks ladies for chatting about this :D

[3Rivers]

TT works here because: Either I was going to find a tutor for math or get a prescription for Xanax. :tongue_smilie:

 

We had to find something *quick* that would help us to DO math, somehow, someway...and for this child, I don't care about the depth of understanding...I have no idea how well concepts are being learned because I'm just as un-mathematical as she is! LOLOLOL I cried through math my whole life, too, and managed to get scholarships to a good college so I'm not worried. I'm not being flippant here....just that when you have to keep a kleenex box nearby for EVERY stinkin' math lesson you get to the point where if she can multiply and divide and get it right most of the time...that is good enough. Anything else is a bonus. I just want her to be skilled enough in math to find a good accountant some day. LOL And the first day I opened up Teaching TExtbooks and heard giggles coming from the study instead of weeping and wailing I nearly cried tears of joy myself.

 

I'll stick with Teaching Textbooks, thank you very much. :lol:

[3Rivers]

Oh one more thing -- It may be "easier" than other programs, which would just mean you place the child higher up. Their site helps you decide which one to.

 

Also fwiw, I asked my daughter which program for next year and she said TT definitely. She says it works better for her because she can see the problem. Videos, although they are watched (and you "see" them) are still basically someone explaining how to do it, which ends up being more of an auditory function, at least to her.

[Homeschooling6]

Oh one more thing -- It may be "easier" than other programs, which would just mean you place the child higher up. Their site helps you decide which one to.

 

Also fwiw, I asked my daughter which program for next year and she said TT definitely. She says it works better for her because she can see the problem. Videos, although they are watched (and you "see" them) are still basically someone explaining how to do it, which ends up being more of an auditory function, at least to her.

 

This is why I think TT will work for her. I figure as long as we take the placement test she will test at which level she is at :)

 

I received a comment today by Art Reed on my blog and his advice was; stick with a math program from 6th grade and beyond with whatever math program you choose. He also said switching programs develops holes in the students basic math concepts. Just thought I would throw that out there ;)

Edited May 5, 2010 by Homeschooling6

[3Rivers]

stick with a math program from 6th grade and beyond with whatever math program you choose. He also said switching programs develops holes in the students basic math concepts

 

Good point.

[cranberrymom]

It was funny when I searched for posts about it, I noticed some strong comments against it. I guess I am not that deep of a thinker. Can someone explain why? I just switched to TT prealgebra for my 12 year old. We had been using math-u-see for years and he just needed a fresh approach. My other son still loves MUS.

Why the strong dislike?

~Terri, who likes math, but struggles to teach it.

[mycalling]

IMO, no it does not help a student understand math. Teaching Textbooks offers step by step explanation of their problems, but their problems are way below the level of comparable math curricula. Step by step explanation of a set of math problems is not the same thing as promoting mathematical understanding. I guess it depends on the question then. If the question is whether they explain their problem sets well, then yes they do. If the question is whether they promote mathematical understanding, then the answer is no.

I'm sorry, but your explanation of how TT works leads me to think you have never tried it. It does this AFTER the entire lesson, ON TOP of the entire lesson. (ETA: You are also incorrect in thinking it explains problems as a set, each independent problem can be walked through.)

 

Each lesson also includes a few walked through examples after the tutorial in which the student is to give an answer for each step. Such as multiplication with carrying - the student multiplies the first two numbers, puts the part of the answer that goes below the line, then the part that's carried in its box...if those are reversed or otherwise incorrect, it'll stop the child and explain how it should have been entered and why. Then the next two numbers in the problem are asked for answers, then the next row, again reminding why there's a zero placeholder...etc.

 

After all this, first the lesson and the example problems with guidance, then there are 5 practice problems of review, then the lessons problems. All of these can receive the walk-though you explained, but that is NOT the only thing in a TT lesson.

My DD isn't either. Analytical, but not "mathy". I like that TT explains WHILE it shows, and gives hints, and she can replay the explanation as many times as necessary and it will work it through with her...and then if it is wrong it will work through the solution again. I think it is very well done. "It" explained division much better than I did. If you haven't seen these, it's a guy's voice explaining the problems and the screen reflects what he is saying just as he is saying it. Pretty cool. :)

:iagree::iagree:

 

Honestly, TT posts all of their Tables of Contents online for parents to evaluate. They have multiple placement tests. There's no reason a parent would place their child into too easy a level except laziness. It probably would have been smarter for Teaching Textbooks to name their sets with letters.

Edited May 5, 2010 by MyCalling

[Corraleno]

]My only concern is people say it's too easy. Is it because it really breaks down the solution into bite size pieces?

It does break the concepts into small steps, but the problem sets are also really easy. It's good for building confidence in kids who've struggled in math, but IMHO it's not very good at challenging kids and getting them to think deeply about mathematical concepts.

 

IMO, no it does not help a student understand math. Teaching Textbooks offers step by step explanation of their problems, but their problems are way below the level of comparable math curricula. Step by step explanation of a set of math problems is not the same thing as promoting mathematical understanding.

:iagree:

After my DS completed MM5, he tested into TT Prealgebra, and he couldn't believe how much easier the problem sets were compared to MM5. Eventually we ditched TT because DS (who is not at all mathy) found it boring and I felt it was just not challenging enough.

 

Jackie

[Guest momk2000]

Our 9yo dd is using TT4 and she loves it! The other day she told me she loves TT so much, she wants to use it all the way through high school - lol. I like it because it gives just enough review, no overkill with the math drills like some.

She will listen to the lecture first on the computer, work the problems in the workbook to show her work, and then she types in her answers and basically does her own grading. If she misses a problem, she gets an explanation right then and there with just a click of the mouse. I like that it gives her more independence. She loves to look at the gradebook right after she finishes, it's a good boost to her self confidence. :)

[8filltheheart]

It was funny when I searched for posts about it, I noticed some strong comments against it. I guess I am not that deep of a thinker. Can someone explain why? I just switched to TT prealgebra for my 12 year old. We had been using math-u-see for years and he just needed a fresh approach. My other son still loves MUS.

Why the strong dislike?

~Terri, who likes math, but struggles to teach it.

 

Typically, posters like me who dislike TT also dislike MUS in the upper grades. :D

 

They are not on par with standardized texts in difficulty. If you search the boards you will find numerous threads on these discussions. Even when covering the same concepts (and both of these do not cover some topics in typical course level work), the problems are simply easier.

 

On a recent high school discussion on MUS, I put it this way: (keep in mind that this conversation is about MUS at the high school level, b/c I am completely unfamiliar with elementary levels of MUS)

 

[Math war ;)]discussions revolve around whether or not various math programs develop solid problem-solving skills for unique situations.

 

My best correlation not using math would be comparing 2 American gov't courses: course 1 has the student read all the documents in the original and asks the student to extrapolate, compare, and analyze the information in correlation to given situations. Course 2 would be an overview of American documents, etc and asking students to be able to summarize what the various documents are. The courses may cover the same material but the 2 courses are not the equivalent and will give students different levels of understanding of American gov't.

 

I am not stating that all students need the equivalent of the more intense course. But, when I as a parent choose a course, it is to the benefit of the student and me to know what it is that I am selecting. For people who don't know anything about MUS, it is only fair that they understand the full picture of the program. MUS is the equivalent of the 2nd course in my analogy.

 

 

 

My disagreement is with the statement that MUS is the equivalent of application heavy math programs and the reason it seems is easy is b/c Demme is such a good teacher.

 

I also don't disagree that Demme does a good job explaining concepts and teaching the fundamentals of high school math. If I did, I wouldn't use it. I am getting ready to use the alg program as pre-alg for the 5th time next yr with my rising 6th grader. MUS has provided a solid foundation for my kids to progress laterally into more indepth alg programs.

 

However, my kids definitely need teaching to achieve that depth. It is not as if they simply complete MUS alg and can then open really challenging math texts and simply solve the problems b/c they understand the whys. Not at all. They understand the fundamentals, but using the knowledge they gained from MUS still requires a lot of time, work, and instruction to do problem-solving heavy materials.

 

That that is not the route many want to take, I can completely accept. Heavy application of math concepts is not for all kids. However, my comments on the limits of MUS are not personal. It is simply reality. Just as as much as I love Foersters, when compared to AoPS, AoPS hands down is a more difficult problem-solving program. No reason to see the assessment as personal. It is what it is.

 

It is up to me as the parent teacher to assess what is appropriate. I have one child that AoPS is a perfect fit. His sister in no way desires to go that in depth with mathematical concepts. She wants to stick to Foersters. It is the right decision for her. But, I DO know that she will not understand what she is doing on the same level as her brother. It is just a fact.

 

My assumption is the fact that users of MUS and TT that refuse to acknowledge the difference in problem-solving skills associated with them compared to other texts is based on their lack of understanding in the hierarchy of mathematical reasoning.

 

FWIW.... I have taught American gov't the much simpler way......:D But, I also am completely aware that I have. ;)

Edited May 5, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[hsmom3tn]

It does break the concepts into small steps, but the problem sets are also really easy. It's good for building confidence in kids who've struggled in math, but IMHO it's not very good at challenging kids and getting them to think deeply about mathematical concepts.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

My DS struggled with Saxon 65 for two years and still didn't quite get it. He did great with TT6 this year, but we won't stay with it beyond that. He really needed the confidence boost, but even he admitted that it was too easy and he could handle something a little more challenging. We're looking into switching to Chalkdust for next year and see how we like that.

 

One of my girls was having the same struggles with Saxon 54 this year, so I went ahead and switched her to TT4 last month. It's so easy for her, she's already halfway done with it. But like DS, she needed the confidence boost. I will let her do TT5 and then see if she's ready to try something else. If not, we'll do TT6, and we'll see what happens next.

[Orthodox6]

(Interpolations below)

 

I'm sorry, but your explanation of how TT works leads me to think you have never tried it.

I thought her brief comments were accurate. I did purchase TT -- and dump it after several months of use.

 

I think her drift may be that TT teaches "execution", rather than "conceptual understanding." This seems to be the new battle ground for lower level math programs, as I read around message boards. I read/hear people complain about Saxon math on the same basis.

 

It does this AFTER the entire lesson, ON TOP of the entire lesson. (ETA: You are also incorrect in thinking it explains problems as a set, each independent problem can be walked through.)

I don't assume that she did not understand that each problem is explained on its own. Inexact written expression, I'm sure.

 

Each lesson also includes a few walked through examples after the tutorial in which the student is to give an answer for each step. Such as multiplication with carrying - the student multiplies the first two numbers, puts the part of the answer that goes below the line, then the part that's carried in its box...if those are reversed or otherwise incorrect, it'll stop the child and explain how it should have been entered and why. Then the next two numbers in the problem are asked for answers, then the next row, again reminding why there's a zero placeholder...etc.

 

After all this, first the lesson and the example problems with guidance, then there are 5 practice problems of review, then the lessons problems. All of these can receive the walk-though you explained, but that is NOT the only thing in a TT lesson.

:iagree::iagree:

 

Honestly, TT posts all of their Tables of Contents online for parents to evaluate. They have multiple placement tests. There's no reason a parent would place their child into too easy a level except laziness.

Have a heart ! :>) There is no substitute for seeing the textbook "in the flesh", and without buying it, many people do not have that opportunity ! In addition, for K-6 math texts, topics are recycled over-and-over, but at more rigorous pacing and/or level. The tables of contents for two different levels of nearly any K-6 math program's textbooks shall overlap.

 

It probably would have been smarter for Teaching Textbooks to name their sets with letters.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Orthodox6

[LittleHouseHomeschool]

IMO, no it does not help a student understand math. Teaching Textbooks offers step by step explanation of their problems, but their problems are way below the level of comparable math curricula. Step by step explanation of a set of math problems is not the same thing as promoting mathematical understanding. I guess it depends on the question then. If the question is whether they explain their problem sets well, then yes they do. If the question is whether they promote mathematical understanding, then the answer is no.

 

 

:iagree: After having used both TT Algebra I and II, I absolutely agree with your assessment.

[mycalling]

I think her drift may be that TT teaches "execution", rather than "conceptual understanding."

How so? I think it breaks things down so small that the practice problems on that concept are very simple, but they test on understanding of that one concept, not integrating multiple concepts. This is why others think it's too easy...they think understanding of the concept being presented can only come from integration with other concepts. I disagree. That has it's place, but doesn't solidify the concept more and TT does include these types, just to a lesser degree.

 

Having used MotL, which I think is purely conceptual understanding, I understand integrated problems' place are for review. If a child isn't solid on each aspect, they will get it wrong...this doesn't necessarily reflect their understanding on the concept being presented and will NOT lead to understanding.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

How so? I think it breaks things down so small that the practice problems on that concept are very simple, but they test on understanding of that one concept, not integrating multiple concepts. This is why others think it's too easy...they think understanding of the concept being presented can only come from integration with other concepts. I disagree. That has it's place, but doesn't solidify the concept more and TT does include these types, just to a lesser degree.

 

Having used MotL, which I think is purely conceptual understanding, I understand integrated problems' place are for review. If a child isn't solid on each aspect, they will get it wrong...this doesn't necessarily reflect their understanding on the concept being presented and will NOT lead to understanding.

 

You can teach the execution of a concept (how to "do" math) without teaching conceptual understanding (truly unserstanding math). Either teaching method can test using single or multiple concepts. The question is whether or not TT teaches execution or conceptual understanding.

[mycalling]

 

You can teach the execution of a concept (how to "do" math) without teaching conceptual understanding (truly unserstanding math).

Again, how so? How do better curricula teach conceptual understanding?

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Again, how so? How do better curricula teach conceptual understanding?

 

It's all in the way it's taught. One example is dividing fractions. Does it teach to flip the second fraction and multiply but stop there (how to "do" math) or does it each the student why you you flip the second fraction and multiply (conceptual understanding)? I have no opinion on TT. I was trying to explain the difference.

 

Editing because now I'm on my computer instead of my phone. I'm a terrible thumb typist (very slow and probably mistakes) so I'm brief when I'm on my phone ;) I'm not saying anything against TT because I haven't used it and have no idea whether or not it teaches the execution of a concept or conceptual understanding. I was just trying to explain the difference between the two methods of teaching. My children were in math programs that tend to teach execution instead of conceptual understanding until 5th and 6th grade. At the time I didn't understand the difference, and didn't understand the difference between mastery and spiral either. One looked excellent on paper because he has an awesome memory and could easily memorize who to "do" math but couldn't math his way out of a paper bag if he had to apply math to real life ;) My other son was floundering horribly. That was when I started doing a lot more research and switched them to MUS (another that is often not spoken highly of ;)) because of the focus on conceptual understanding. The change was nothing short of amazing because they could "see" math and really understood it for the first time. Life of Fred is one that is also reviewed as being strong on conceptual understanding and real life application. I haven't used it yet but am planing on using both MUS and Life of Fred next year. My goal is that my children fully understand math and can apply it to real life so I won't be switching to a "more rigorous" program.

 

Edited again to add the I love MOTL and use it with MUS because I love them both so much :)

Edited May 6, 2010 by Cheryl in SoCal

[Brindee]

Despite all those that say TT isn't a solid program because they teach WAY below level (as I've said before, they use "creative labeling", which I don't like, and the levels ARE different), there is proof that it works for some kids. It just works. Because it doesn't work for your kids and isn't a rigorous program in your eyes, doesn't mean it's a bad program! It WORKS for a lot of kids! It's been around long enough now that people are reporting that their kids, who used TT in highschool, did very well with SATs, ACTs and college maths!

 

So, if it works for many kids, and they do well once they're done with the program, then it can't be as sub-par as it's made out to be! Different things work for different kids!

[Brindee]

 

One of my girls was having the same struggles with Saxon 54 this year, so I went ahead and switched her to TT4 last month. It's so easy for her, she's already halfway done with it. But like DS, she needed the confidence boost. I will let her do TT5 and then see if she's ready to try something else. If not, we'll do TT6, and we'll see what happens next.

Then just do a higher level? My dd did the TT Pre-Algebra when she was 10. Why put a child in too low of a level then complain that the program is too easy?!:001_huh:

[lovemykids]

We are using LOF for the conceptual understanding. I think the two make an excellent pair.

Teaching textbooks is definitely behind other programs, if you are going to use it, keep testing your child with the higher level pretests- and then trust the pre-test.

[Mommy22alyns]

TT works here because: Either I was going to find a tutor for math or get a prescription for Xanax. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

 

Oh, man... I LOVE this!!! :lol:

[specialmama]

Despite all those that say TT isn't a solid program because they teach WAY below level (as I've said before, they use "creative labeling", which I don't like, and the levels ARE different), there is proof that it works for some kids. It just works. Because it doesn't work for your kids and isn't a rigorous program in your eyes, doesn't mean it's a bad program! It WORKS for a lot of kids! It's been around long enough now that people are reporting that their kids, who used TT in highschool, did very well with SATs, ACTs and college maths!

 

So, if it works for many kids, and they do well once they're done with the program, then it can't be as sub-par as it's made out to be! Different things work for different kids!

 

:D DING DING DING DING!!! :D

Brindee, you get a prize!

 

[hsmom3tn]

Then just do a higher level? My dd did the TT Pre-Algebra when she was 10. Why put a child in too low of a level then complain that the program is too easy?!:001_huh:

 

Yes, I believe that I should have placed her in TT5 instead of 4. I recognized that she was starting to have the same struggles with Saxon that her brother had, I panicked, and went for TT without doing a placement test. I just assumed if she was having trouble with Saxon 54, then TT4 would be a good place to start. I was wrong; it is much too easy for her.

 

I didn't say that TT was bad; and yes, different programs work for different kids. In my opinion, from what I've seen, I don't think that TT is challenging enough. For my DS, it was a welcome relief after struggling with Saxon for so long. He did great with TT6, has done well with a few supplements for fractions and decimals, has gotten his confidence back and is ready to try something else now.

 

As far as putting them into a higher level, that may be fine through Pre-Algebra, but why would I have my child doing Algebra 1 or something higher when they're not old enough (registered in a high enough grade level) to earn a high school credit for it? My DD is 10 and in 4th grade. If she was doing Pre-Algebra now, what would she do for 5th and 6th grade when she can't get a credit for Algebra 1 until at least 7th grade?

[8filltheheart]

Yes, I believe that I should have placed her in TT5 instead of 4. I recognized that she was starting to have the same struggles with Saxon that her brother had, I panicked, and went for TT without doing a placement test. I just assumed if she was having trouble with Saxon 54, then TT4 would be a good place to start. I was wrong; it is much too easy for her.

 

I didn't say that TT was bad; and yes, different programs work for different kids. In my opinion, from what I've seen, I don't think that TT is challenging enough. For my DS, it was a welcome relief after struggling with Saxon for so long. He did great with TT6, has done well with a few supplements for fractions and decimals, has gotten his confidence back and is ready to try something else now.

 

As far as putting them into a higher level, that may be fine through Pre-Algebra, but why would I have my child doing Algebra 1 or something higher when they're not old enough (registered in a high enough grade level) to earn a high school credit for it? My DD is 10 and in 4th grade. If she was doing Pre-Algebra now, what would she do for 5th and 6th grade when she can't get a credit for Algebra 1 until at least 7th grade?

 

You are discussing a couple of different issues here. First, there are kids who, believe it or not, are ready for alg in 5th grade and are receiving high school credit. Their transcripts are atypical and may have 9-12 math credits. The key is the 4 yrs of math taken during the high school yrs which will not be typical high school classes......such as multivariable calculus, number theory, or differential equations, etc. (I know b/c I have one of those kids)

 

The second is whether or not it is appropriate to have an algebra designation for a high school credit when the course does not cover all standard algebra topics and when the content is simplified. Only parents can make that judgment. They just need to know the reality of not only the scope and sequence but the depth of the course they have selected.

 

Unlike other posters, I do not view test scores as a validation of anything b/c I do not believe in teaching to the test. (I am sitting on my fingers trying to not get on my soapbox :rant: about how teaching to the test has destroyed the quality of education.) My goal is a solid foundation with deep exposure to problems that build strong mathematical reasoning skills. Just as in all subjects, all math programs are not equal. Parents need to research and make decisions based on what is appropriate for their children's abilities and goals. If I had a strong math student or a child wanting pursue science and math fields, I would suggest thorough investigation into all the available math options. :)

Edited May 6, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Homeschooling6]

Thank you all! I appreciate everyone taking the time to post your thoughts and experience with TT.

Blessings,

[hsmom3tn]

First, there are kids who, believe it or not, are ready for alg in 5th grade and are receiving high school credit. Their transcripts are atypical and may have 9-12 math credits. The key is the 4 yrs of math taken during the high school yrs which will not be typical high school classes......such as multivariable calculus, number theory, or differential equations, etc. (I know b/c I have one of those kids)

 

 

I sometimes forget that there are people here from all over, and not just my neck of the woods. :) Here, the kids have to have at least 3 math credits to graduate, and they must be Alg 1, Geometry, and Alg 2. They can go beyond and have more math credits, but they can't start earning credits until 7th grade.

[8filltheheart]

I sometimes forget that there are people here from all over, and not just my neck of the woods. :) Here, the kids have to have at least 3 math credits to graduate, and they must be Alg 1, Geometry, and Alg 2. They can go beyond and have more math credits, but they can't start earning credits until 7th grade.

 

I actually graduated my oldest from our homeschool in TN. The actual law is that you can't carry up more than 3 credit hours from middle school for high school credit for graduation requirements. That is slightly different.

 

For example, if my ds did no more math from here on out, he could only carry up the last 3 math credits....geometry, alg2, and alg 3. However, I am giving him credit for alg 1, counting and probability, and physics which he also completed prior to high school. The difference is that those credit hrs are not going directly toward meeting the minimal state graduation requirements, they are simply on his transcript with credit to reflect his achievements. He will have far in excess the number of hrs. (He will literally probably have 9-12 math credits and 6-7 science credits)

 

Does that make sense? You do not have to not progress your child. You simply need to continue appropriate level coursework to be reflected during the high school yrs.

[ncmom2dawters]

I am curious to know how children using TT are doing on annual testing (CAT, WJ, IOWA, ...).

[KJsMom]

I'm almost afraid to enter this conversation, but this is my 2 cents. We love TT. My daughter just couldn't "get" math because it was too intimidating for her. TT has a more gentle approach, it begins with lots of review to build confidence, and it gives lots of opportunity to work the problems. My dd loves the bonus rounds. Nothing makes her happier than scoring higher than 100% on her lesson. That said, we also use MM. I have heard so many people say that TT is not rigorous enough that I was unwilling to take a chance on falling even further behind. She likes both programs and rarely complains about math. Using both programs actually takes less time (much less) than fighting our way through math in the past.

[hsmom3tn]

I actually graduated my oldest from our homeschool in TN. The actual law is that you can't carry up more than 3 credit hours from middle school for high school credit for graduation requirements. That is slightly different.

 

For example, if my ds did no more math from here on out, he could only carry up the last 3 math credits....geometry, alg2, and alg 3. However, I am giving him credit for alg 1, counting and probability, and physics which he also completed prior to high school. The difference is that those credit hrs are not going directly toward meeting the minimal state graduation requirements, they are simply on his transcript with credit to reflect his achievements. He will have far in excess the number of hrs. (He will literally probably have 9-12 math credits and 6-7 science credits)

 

Does that make sense? You do not have to not progress your child. You simply need to continue appropriate level coursework to be reflected during the high school yrs.

 

Could I be getting different information because I am with a cover school? I went to a high school seminar at our cover school last month and that is where I learned of the three specific must-have math credits and no credits before 7th grade. I guess I need to do some more research...

 

Sorry for taking the OP's post off-topic here. :001_unsure:

[Brindee]

As far as putting them into a higher level, that may be fine through Pre-Algebra, but why would I have my child doing Algebra 1 or something higher when they're not old enough (registered in a high enough grade level) to earn a high school credit for it? My DD is 10 and in 4th grade. If she was doing Pre-Algebra now, what would she do for 5th and 6th grade when she can't get a credit for Algebra 1 until at least 7th grade?

 

Does that make sense? You do not have to not progress your child. You simply need to continue appropriate level coursework to be reflected during the high school yrs.

:iagree:

My dd took the TT Pre-Algebra when she was 10. For the last two years, since she did NOT want to move forward into Algebra, we've gone deeper/wider, explored some. She has gained some confidence because of it, though *I* feel we haven't progressed much. But that confidence, and good base is important!

 

I said this somewhere, but I'll repeat it: DD is doing TT Algebra 1 and TT Algebra 2 (which I'll count as just Algebra 1). Next she'll do Geometry (TT? LoF?), then I'm leaning toward Chalkdust Algebra 2 or something with DVDs (her preferred method of doing math....she's very visual). Then we'll do a pre-calc program of some kind.

 

There are absolutely HUNDREDS of things your dd could do for maths! I think that TT is good for my dd. She used to be somewhat advanced in maths. But after one math experience, which she hated the program and lost complete confidence in her ability, she's struggled more. The TT goes slowly, methodically, and is visual, and has the step-by-step answers to all the problems. That is what she needs!

 

Unlike other posters, I do not view test scores as a validation of anything b/c I do not believe in teaching to the test. (I am sitting on my fingers trying to not get on my soapbox :rant: about how teaching to the test has destroyed the quality of education.) My goal is a solid foundation with deep exposure to problems that build strong mathematical reasoning skills.

 

I'm not teaching to the test in any way shape or form!!! :001_huh: The only reason I mentioned that is because people say they're worried about their kids being able to pass those tests if their kids take TT. YES, there is evidence in now that they can! Doesn't mean they're teaching to the test either! They, as I, want a program that works for their child. If, because of many different possible reasons, their child does best with TT, they shouldn't be made to feel that they are using an inferior program and/or teaching to the test!!!

Edited May 6, 2010 by Brindee

[forty-two]

Unlike other posters, I do not view test scores as a validation of anything b/c I do not believe in teaching to the test. (I am sitting on my fingers trying to not get on my soapbox :rant: about how teaching to the test has destroyed the quality of education.) My goal is a solid foundation with deep exposure to problems that build strong mathematical reasoning skills.

 

I'm not teaching to the test in any way shape or form!!! :001_huh: The only reason I mentioned that is because people say they're worried about their kids being able to pass those tests if their kids take TT. YES, there is evidence in now that they can! Doesn't mean they're teaching to the test either! They, as I, want a program that works for their child. If, because of many different possible reasons, their child does best with TT, they shouldn't be made to feel that they are using an inferior program and/or teaching to the test!!!

 

The thing about test scores, especially the SAT (which began life as more of an IQ test than an achievement test) is that they say a lot more about the student than the curriculum, unless you have a LOT of scores, controlled for everything but curriculum, to work with.

 

I mean, I had a typical ps math education, shallow and pretty much rote-this and rote-that, with no mathematical depth at all. And my results on math contest tests reflected the fact that I had never, ever been taught or had even been exposed to such mathematical concepts before. Yet I got a perfect score on the math section of the SAT. Was that because of the school or in spite of the school? Either way, I aced all my math classes and "verified" it via my standardized test scores - and still ended up with a cr@p math education.

 

I wasn't seeing 8FilltheHeart's post as accusing TT supporters of teaching to the test, but saying that the big tests in our country don't actually test for true math understanding, and so you just can't judge a math curriculum's mathematical depth by the scores its students achieve on those tests.