Combine Singapore with Right Start?

[CourtneySue]

I'm just getting started home schooling my 5 yo ds in the fall and I really like both of these programs. I'm wondering how I might go about combining them? Is this even doable or totally unrealistic?

 

Thank you in advance for any input!

[abrightmom]

Not unrealistic at all!! Actually, we use Math Mammoth in lieu of Singapore and we are also teaching Right Start. MM is a fantastic conceptual math program that is very similar to Singapore. It is SUPER user friendly, thorough, rigorous and her Blue series is designed to use as a supplement. There are quite a few threads discussing this!! Let me see if I can find one for you:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177719&highlight=Singapore+MM

 

Anyhow, I think the coordination of math programs/approaches becomes very individual. Some folks use one program as a main program and fit the other around it. Others do two full programs as written (IMHO this is a lot for any young kiddo). Others take bits and pieces of various programs to cobble together a personalized, tailored plan for their child.

 

If you do a search on combining math programs I think you will find several threads discussing this! :001_smile:

[Spy Car]

I love combining math programs, but I wouldn't personally try to do the full Right Start program and the full Singapore program.

 

There would be "over-kill" on the procedures IMO.

 

I love adding the RS games and other elements to our program that includes Singapore-MEP-Miquon (among other things) but if we did RS I might just "supplement" with some Singapore materials (if that) but not try to duplicate two similar programs. I don't think you would get "synergy" as much as burn-out.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. But I add additional math elements that add elements that other programs may not have, and with these two I think you'd be plowing many of the same rows. And from parent comments RS is reasonably time-consuming and covers what it covers well.

 

Singapore potentially can move rather faster, and takes well to supplementation with Miquon (to provide "concrete" learning of mathematical principles and parent education) or MEP (tp provide logical thinking and problem solving challenges) and RS games is useful. But these all add something "new" rather than treading the same ground.

 

I'm thinking out loud. I'm sure there will be a variety of thoughts on this from people with more experience combining the two. It's not what I'd do.

 

Bill

[CourtneySue]

So you think Singapore supplemented with Miquon and Right Start games is a better combo?

 

Good point about redundancy. It does seem that using two curriculums in their entirety might be a bit overkill.

 

 

Katrina,

 

I will check out Math Mammoth. It definitely sounds appealing if it is easier to teach. I'm just afraid to tease my indecisiveness anymore.

[Spy Car]

So you think Singapore supplemented with Miquon and Right Start games is a better combo?

 

For us it was, but that was a mater of meeting our style. Someone else using prefer Right Start, and would most likely they would not supplement.

 

But if you want a "combo" (as I like) introducing concepts starts in Miquon, where I also get teacher education of a kind that I really like), then we move into Singapore for the method and strategy (already done physically done with rods) broadened into more pictorial and abstract forms, with a Math Model to give structure to the concepts. The RS games cement what are called math facts into the fast active memory. It is a very potent combo. We also add MEP.

 

It sounds like a lot. But these are efficient math programs that teach well, and don't chew up time we don't have.

 

Either a Singapore-combo or RS could serve you well. You just need to do a little exploration and sold searching. Personally it is Miquon that made all the difference for us (me). It continues to amaze me. And educate me. And my son thrived with the exposure. And there boat-loads of happy RS users. You just need to get the feel for which is the right choice for you.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Good point about redundancy. It does seem that using two curriculums in their entirety might be a bit overkill.

 

 

Well, I combine two (more) and I don't find it overkill, it's just a matter of which two. What is one bring to the table that is making everything "stronger" as opposed to just "more."

 

The additional stuff hopefully throws them some kind of curveball or teaches them something in a very different way than the other. But RS and Singapore are both both trying to build a certain structure to re-grouping, and while they are not incompatible, neither would really make the other stronger (relative to the time spent). There would be a certain clash and a certain redundancy I would think. But sooner or later someone will they me I'm dead-wrong, so....

 

Bill (who missed this in his last post)

[FairProspects]

Well, I combine two (more) and I don't find it overkill, it's just a matter of which two. What is one bring to the table that is making everything "stronger" as opposed to just "more."

 

The additional stuff hopefully throws them some kind of curveball or teaches them something in a very different way than the other. But RS and Singapore are both both trying to build a certain structure to re-grouping, and while they are not incompatible, neither would really make the other stronger (relative to the time spent). There would be a certain clash and a certain redundancy I would think. But sooner or later someone will they me I'm dead-wrong, so....

 

Bill (who missed this in his last post)

 

I agree based on our experience with RS so far. I always feel the lure of Singapore, but RS is such a complete program, I just don't see the need to go over most of the material again in a different format. (If the RS format didn't work for us, I would probably use Singapore, but I personally love the layout, open and go scripting of RS).

 

One program that we have used to compliment RS is MEP. We have found this to be a great combo, because if RS is weak on anything in level A, it seems to be patterning/pattern recognition, which is a strength of MEP.

[Capt_Uhura]

I'm combining RS and SM. I have used RS A-E. My oldest is finishing up RS E in a couple of weeks. We will then quickly hit a few sections in SM 4A/4B. We'll hit highlights in SM5A/5B along w/ SM CWP 3,4. Then we'll move into SM 6a/6b at a normal pace along w/ SM CWP 5,6. WE'll do that along w/ RS Geometric approach.

 

I like RS's way of introducing a topic and having DC figure it out before being given an explicit algorithm. That's why I prefer to do RS first and then SM.

 

Capt_Uhura

[Spy Car]

I'm combining RS and SM. I have used RS A-E. My oldest is finishing up RS E in a couple of weeks. We will then quickly hit a few sections in SM 4A/4B. We'll hit highlights in SM5A/5B along w/ SM CWP 3,4. Then we'll move into SM 6a/6b at a normal pace along w/ SM CWP 5,6. WE'll do that along w/ RS Geometric approach.

 

I like RS's way of introducing a topic and having DC figure it out before being given an explicit algorithm. That's why I prefer to do RS first and then SM.

 

Capt_Uhura

 

Have you done this all the way along?

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I agree based on our experience with RS so far. I always feel the lure of Singapore, but RS is such a complete program, I just don't see the need to go over most of the material again in a different format. (If the RS format didn't work for us, I would probably use Singapore, but I personally love the layout, open and go scripting of RS).

 

One program that we have used to compliment RS is MEP. We have found this to be a great combo, because if RS is weak on anything in level A, it seems to be patterning/pattern recognition, which is a strength of MEP.

 

Now that strikes me as a potentially brilliant combo (assuming one had the time). It's the out-of-the-box critical thinking part that RS (from afar) seems like it would use help with, and provides the "structure" of a re-grouping model that MEP doesn't emphasize in the same way. Wow! Never thought of it till now, but how interesting. There you would have synergy.

 

Bill

[Capt_Uhura]

No, I'm just starting this now. There are topics in RS that were introductions and I'm assuming Dr. Cotter meant to flesh out more in RS Algebraic approach such as division w/ decimals, greatest common factors, more computation w/ fractions, and more work internalizing metric system. So we'll do those lessons in SM. I looked through the VT module A and it covered some computation w/ fractions but not the other areas so I'd like to cover those w/ SM. My DS gets most of it conceptually from the foundation that RS has provided but I think he just needs practice w/ the nitty gritty before moving on.

 

I know several do SM and RS simultaneously and I just never got that going...I had intended to. But I think doing them consecutively will work well.

 

Capt_Uhura

[SophiaH]

I'm just getting started home schooling my 5 yo ds in the fall and I really like both of these programs. I'm wondering how I might go about combining them? Is this even doable or totally unrealistic?

 

Thank you in advance for any input!

 

Siloam does this using the full programs of both. If you search for her name and Rightstart and Singapore you'll probably be able to find many posts from her about how she does it.

 

I agree based on our experience with RS so far. I always feel the lure of Singapore, but RS is such a complete program, I just don't see the need to go over most of the material again in a different format. (If the RS format didn't work for us, I would probably use Singapore, but I personally love the layout, open and go scripting of RS).

 

One program that we have used to compliment RS is MEP. We have found this to be a great combo, because if RS is weak on anything in level A, it seems to be patterning/pattern recognition, which is a strength of MEP.

 

This (I believe) will be our future course. I've done all manner of combinations in the past using RS, SM, MEP, CLE, etc. We've mostly used RS as our spine and added in the others, but I think MEP will be our only supplement once we get started back with a full math program in the fall. My dd prefers this combination that we've tried over all others (besides CLE/MEP).

 

I'm combining RS and SM. I have used RS A-E. My oldest is finishing up RS E in a couple of weeks. We will then quickly hit a few sections in SM 4A/4B. We'll hit highlights in SM5A/5B along w/ SM CWP 3,4. Then we'll move into SM 6a/6b at a normal pace along w/ SM CWP 5,6. WE'll do that along w/ RS Geometric approach.

 

I like RS's way of introducing a topic and having DC figure it out before being given an explicit algorithm. That's why I prefer to do RS first and then SM.

 

Capt_Uhura

 

I might do something like this when we near the end of the RS sequence or use MM in lieu of SM, just because I'm not a huge Singapore fan.

 

To the OP, if you're set on using RS and SM together, my preferred way of doing that is to use RS as the spine and then use the Challenging Word Problems and the IP from Singapore to supplement. That way, it's not overkill on different methods of working the problems, yet provides extra challenge. CWP has the bar method explanations right in the CWP books, so they're easy to use as an add-on. But after all of the combinations I've tried, I think MEP is the easiest, most fun, and most challenging to supplement RS with. Plus, it provides a more diverging perspective from RS than SM does, IMO, in the way it approaches certain topics and in the topics it covers & emphasizes.

[siloam]

I'm just getting started home schooling my 5 yo ds in the fall and I really like both of these programs. I'm wondering how I might go about combining them? Is this even doable or totally unrealistic?

 

Thank you in advance for any input!

 

Heather (mommahawk) is right I use both.

 

I use Right Start as our primary program, start when they turn 5, though I don't worry about doing a lesson a day, but just go at the child's pace. (In other words, wiggly 5yo ds didn't have a huge attention span.)

 

Singapore I don't start till 2nd grade, starting with Primary 1A. I wait to start Singapore for two reasons. 1. So the concepts they need are introduced first in Right Start, and 2. So that they can do Singapore almost totally independently (in 2nd grade I generally go over the pages with them, but 3rd grade I assign the Worbkooks for them to read on their own). Generally I have my kids do Primary A, B, IP A, B and then the word book.

 

Though I do consider us math heavy, and other topics are lighter as a result. It would be easier to do Right Start and just one set of the Singapore texts instead of all three.

 

I am also mastery focused, so I am more interested in my kiddos being able to understand and apply the concepts than they get to Calculus in 12th grade. That said they don't seem to be overly behind. My oldest is finishing up Right Start E, then will start Right Start Geometry with Kinetic Books Pre-Algebra, alternating the tow for a couple of years. That puts her starting Algebra in 9th at the latest and given we hs year around maybe sometime in 8th. Good enough for me!

 

Heather