Which math program most closely resembles the materials from your childhood school?

[SnowWhite]

I learned from Strayer-upton which some homeschools use today. My mother had used the same book. I'm pretty sure we skipped the whole "new math" phenomenon. Skill and drill, mindless practice. The only positive part of the program is it's attention to mastery of math facts. No; I don't use it in my he except for facts practice and threats(kidding).

[Storm Bay]

Yes, the only reason I actually knew the teacher was lost was because she was visibly confused and frustrated - often. I also remember her muttering something to herself about not understanding the way the material was presented.

 

And aren't the Dolciani books knock-offs of the Allen books? Maybe that was the problem, eh? ;):D

 

 

I thought that the old Dolcianis are originals, or if not, they were excellent when they were new. They are great in many ways--my eldest does the 1965 editions, and they were recommended to me by at least 2 of the high school forum math gurus (one isn't here anymore.) Of course, we're only doing the Algebra books. I have no idea which texts I used or when our school switched, but by 1976 they were doing something else because we switched to modules for Algebra at that level.

[Storm Bay]

So that is what is meant by New Math? I never knew. That example in the Tom Leher song is how I learned subtraction with borrowing in the 70s. Is there another way to teach it? :001_huh:

I started new math after learning to borrow. You can teach regrouping any way that works for your dc. I tried several with my now 12 yo, but she refused to regroup unless I was hovering over her until she watched Mr. Demme explain it in MUS. I use SM for the most part, and have used MUS and a few other things, but always feel free to explain things in ways different than what we're using.

[Penelope]

I started new math after learning to borrow. You can teach regrouping any way that works for your dc. I tried several with my now 12 yo, but she refused to regroup unless I was hovering over her until she watched Mr. Demme explain it in MUS. I use SM for the most part, and have used MUS and a few other things, but always feel free to explain things in ways different than what we're using.

 

My post must have been confusing. There was a song from the link in the other poster's post about "New Math". The song was describing the way I learned subtraction, and the way Singapore and probably other curriculums teach the algorithm, and calling it "new math". But to me that is not new math, it is just "math". I did not realize there was a way to teach that algorithm without explaining it. I don't actually need to find a different way to teach it. :001_huh:

 

Here's the song:

 

[robsiew]

Are you using methods that are new to you and better than the math that you studied as a child? Or are you using materials that look very much like your own textbooks of yesteryear?

 

Please feel free to name names. :lurk5:

 

NO WAY! I refuse to look at anything that looks like my math books growing up. Think tiny pictures if any and LOTS and LOTS of problems on a page with NO instruction to help the parent work with the child at home. Add to it teachers who wanted math done ONE WAY ONLY (their way) and you get a child who HATED and was not good in math!

 

My kids are using MM and we all love it! If I had learned like this I might even have been able to become a doctor! :001_smile:

[Storm Bay]

My post must have been confusing. There was a song from the link in the other poster's post about "New Math". The song was describing the way I learned subtraction, and the way Singapore and probably other curriculums teach the algorithm, and calling it "new math". But to me that is not new math, it is just "math". I did not realize there was a way to teach that algorithm without explaining it. I don't actually need to find a different way to teach it. :001_huh:

 

Here's the song:

 

 

 

Thanks for the link! I started to learn to add and subtract in school in 1966, and this is how I learned it (carrying--makes by far the most sense to me & this is how my dc learned it in SM & MUS among other places) but I don't remember learning about the commutative property, we had to have the answer rignt and it was called Arithmetic--it was before our school converted to New Math and starting learning things like set theory, etc. Our school didn't start new math until 1970 or 1971. I remember the first time I officially did new math in 1970 and it was at a private school that had already been doing it. The public schools in that city started new math that fall. However, I think regrouping is just regrouping, IMO.

 

For a look at new math in humour, the book Impollutable Pogo from c. 1970 has a few sections on this, the first being the 3 bats using Algebra. One is about 20 percent of nothing, etc.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Karin

[swellmomma]

We used a basic textbook approach in my childhood. Light on manips, heavy on pages of equations. It is nothing Like what I use withmy kids. We use MUS and Horizons, lots of manips, and rounded out with hands-on standards, picture books, board games and computer games.

[forty-two]

We had some Houghton-Mifflin program, standard back-to-basics stuff (mid-late 80s). Nothing remotely challenging, but I loved everything to do with numbers, so it didn't bother me, though in retrospect I was hampered by never being challenged to think. Some manipulatives in 3rd grade, which I hated b/c it took forever and I already understood it (we weren't allowed to play with them or go ahead of the teacher).

 

I'm planning to do a combo of Miquon, RS, MEP, and CSMP - none of which are much like how I learned (but are how I *wish* I'd learned).