Life of Fred: WHERE is the TEACHING?!

[hmschooling]

I see that it shows WHEN you use math in real life, and that math is very useful. What I'm not seeing from samples is teaching the HOW and WHY of concepts??? Does he show all these fantastic uses, but not deliver on the teaching? I'm not using anything above Apples right now, and it's just so simple for my kids right now that they just know how to do it. But, when things get tougher, does he really teach how to do the work, why it works, and the usefulness in real life? Does he do it well? Examples?

[LittleIzumi]

The Elementary level is NOT a stand-alone curriculum. It is a supplement. The higher levels are supposed to be stand-alone, and they seem to be much meatier, and have more instruction (at least from the samples, and from the reviews here).

[hmschooling]

The Elementary level is NOT a stand-alone curriculum. It is a supplement. The higher levels are supposed to be stand-alone, and they seem to be much meatier, and have more instruction (at least from the samples, and from the reviews here).

 

I'm using three supplemental Singapore books... Brain Maths, Fun Maths Process Skills, and Visible Thinking in Mathematics... Am I covered using LoF with these? I'm taking my oldest through a quick run through the elementary series as she's had gaps and some math troubles, but seems to be REALLy blossoming after using these supplemental books (and perhaps just maturing). She's very bright, gifted in fact, and also slightly on the spectrum most likely. Math hasn't been her thing. She's getting there quickly though! My DS is a very mathy 7yo so we're hitting it together, but he needs more instruction (or will) as we get deeper into it since it's not review for him, and I'm not sure there's going to be enough in the elem level. :001_huh: I just ordered the next two levels to check them out.

[TKDmom]

I have not been particularly impressed with the elementay series. There doesn't seem to be anything there but a really off-the-wall story with a few addition problems thrown in.

 

My oldest is working her way through Fractions right now and I like it better. Hopefully someone who has more experience with the program will weigh in, but I'll at least try to give you one example of how he approaches teaching.

 

In chapter 8 of Fractions, Fred lists 6 things that he did one day--he taught 5 hour-long classes and spent an hour at the library. The author points out that Fred did not spend half his time in the library and half in class, then he goes on to describe sixths (with the help of pie charts) and shows how Fred spent 5/6 of his time in class and 1/6 of his time at the library.

 

The problem set for the chapter extends the lesson a little bit with these problems:

 

1. Draw a circle with four equal sectors. Color in 3/4

2. We know that 1/6+1/6+1/6+1/6+1/6=5/6

What does 1/4+1/4+1/4 equal?

3. Draw a circle and color in 1/6 and draw another circle and color in 1/4

Which is true: 1/6<1/4 or 1/4<1/6

 

There are 6 more problems in the set. Four of them review concepts from previous chapters and two of them are slightly more difficult versions of the ones I typed out.

Edited October 9, 2011 by bonniebeth4
Can't type on a iPod

[TKDmom]

The Elementary level is NOT a stand-alone curriculum. It is a supplement. The higher levels are supposed to be stand-alone, and they seem to be much meatier, and have more instruction (at least from the samples, and from the reviews here).

 

:iagree: If you don't have another spine program to take you through a progression of increasingly difficult concepts, I would work on finding one. LOF Elementary spends a long time on one type of problem and then suddenly jumps up to more difficult problems. It can be fun for kids, but it won't get them ready for prealgebra.

[hmschooling]

:iagree: If you don't have another spine program to take you through a progression of increasingly difficult concepts, I would work on finding one. LOF Elementary spends a long time on one type of problem and then suddenly jumps up to more difficult problems. It can be fun for kids, but it won't get them ready for prealgebra.

 

crud. that is all. crud.

 

ok..no..really. With my supps I mentioned above...still not good? I do NOT have time to teach 3 levels of math right now using Singapore, which is my top choice. I just don't. It won't get done, and I can't leave them to do it on their own. My alost 2yo is going batty, I'm going batty, my everything and everywhere is batty right now. I tried TT and DROPPED that junk quick. (if you use that, I'm sorry, but I hate it for us) My kids were learning nothing. I refuse to give up conceptual understanding and problem solving skills totally which is why we are using those supp books. And I adore them...seriously crazy about them. We can pick them up and just go with it...here, there, on the road, ...easy to do for me and we all enjoy them. I just need a spine, and that, my friends....it's not working. HELP. I need mostly independent. Nothing repetitious and boring. And affordable. I have RS A going for my 5yo. I have the Abacus activities book and all the games for the big two to play with. Help me out here. Will LoF not work well for elem with my supps? seriously? My oldest is going to breeze through them and start fractions soon...she should be okay, right?

[TKDmom]

crud. that is all. crud.

 

ok..no..really. With my supps I mentioned above...still not good? I do NOT have time to teach 3 levels of math right now using Singapore, which is my top choice. I just don't. It won't get done, and I can't leave them to do it on their own. My alost 2yo is going batty, I'm going batty, my everything and everywhere is batty right now. I tried TT and DROPPED that junk quick. (if you use that, I'm sorry, but I hate it for us) My kids were learning nothing. I refuse to give up conceptual understanding and problem solving skills totally which is why we are using those supp books. And I adore them...seriously crazy about them. We can pick them up and just go with it...here, there, on the road, ...easy to do for me and we all enjoy them. I just need a spine, and that, my friends....it's not working. HELP. I need mostly independent. Nothing repetitious and boring. And affordable. I have RS A going for my 5yo. I have the Abacus activities book and all the games for the big two to play with. Help me out here. Will LoF not work well for elem with my supps? seriously? My oldest is going to breeze through them and start fractions soon...she should be okay, right?

 

Honestly, I'm not familiar with the books you listed. If you feel like your kids are learning and advancing, then they should be fine. It sounds like that is what you're saying--that your oldest at least, finally learning with those books.

 

 

 

But...if you don't feel like like they are learning the skills they need to get to prealgebra...My 10yo is using Math Mommoth almost completely independently. It can get a little repetitious, though. I let dd do half the problems if it is obvious she understands the material. And my 6yo loves Miquon. Every time I turn around, he has done 3 or 4 pages behind my back. Of course now that I think about it...my almost-8yo tries to do Singapore independently. He won't tolerate more than a 5 minute run-though of the material in the text. And he would rather not bother with being taught at all. So maybe my kids are just oddballs. :001_huh:

 

Anyway, I feel your pain. I can't wait until my oldest is ready to do LOF full time (which I'm thinking won't be until she completes MM 6B and the LOF Pre-Algebra books). She does so much better with it becuase it is interesting and doesn't have 10-zillion problems to work through. I really wish the lower levels of LOF were a little more meaty...

[chepyl]

I have not found Singapore to be hard to teach. A few minutes on the text and then DS can do the problems. I do have to sit by home to get the work done some days, but we are working toward more independence on the workbook. You could at least pick that up with your 7 yo. If your older student is doing well, stick with it for now. You have a program for the 5 yo that is working as well. So it sounds like you just need something for the 7yo. If you Luke SM, go with that.

[veggiegal]

I have not been particularly impressed with the elementay series. There doesn't seem to be anything there but a really off-the-wall story with a few addition problems thrown in.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

We've finished Apples, and are starting Butterflies. I am planning to whip through this and Cats and then start my older on Fractions, to give LoF a fair shot. I am hoping the series dramatically improves. But right now I am thinking our time is better spent reading titles from the living math booklist, as we've been doing all along. Because while my boys say they liked Apples, I never hear or see content from the book come up again in their play or creations or whatnot. Whereas with other living math books, my kids have created games, activities and artwork inspired by a particular book. (For one example, inspired by a math reader, see here.)

Edited October 13, 2011 by veggiegal
fixing link

[Jay3fer]

Want to dissent here, though we're just using Apples at the moment. I have found it to be quite meaty and there are a few concepts repeated often enough that they are VERY thoroughly taught. In particular, time, numbers adding to 7, shapes, and the concept of 0, days of the week and months of the year (particularly February) are taught and reinforced fairly well. Additionally, by doing the questions at the end of the chapter out loud, we're introducing "mental math" with simple word problems. This is not an insignificant skill.

I find it also complements some of what we're doing / done in science, albeit not in a systematic way. I like seeing science and math together, so the kids know they're not totally separate disciplines.

However, I would definitely still consider these books supplementary. And they are an expensive supplement. There may be BETTER supplements, but none with more bizarre illustrations.

As I've said before, we like it.

[boscopup]

Have you tried Math Mammoth? It can be done fairly independently. I don't make it fully independent, mostly because I have a 7 year old, but teaching it is very quick and easy. I simply go over the new concept in the box on the page, watch him do a problem or two on his own, then I circle the ones I want him to do (the number depends on how much practice I think he needs on that topic). Usually I have him doing half of the problems or less. On some topics, I'll just have him do 2-3 to demonstrate that he understands it (because I know he does before going over it). On truly new topics, I might assign a little more. Once I'm done teaching him, I let him do the work on his own, with me still in the room but maybe working with his younger brother. I also have a 2 year old and know how that is. :tongue_smilie: The 2 year old has his own "math book" (Singapore EM K book A, which my middle son already finished ;) ).

[radiobrain]

I have not seen the elementary series, but the fractions, decimal & percents, and pre-algebra books are supplemental. They help teach/approach things from a different angle.

 

I did find that after we finished the 2 pre alg books we were finished with Singapore. I did not need to do the 6A & B books. It was all review of stuff that my kids learned better from Fred. :D

[Penelope]

I only have the Fractions and Decimals books, but that was my exact thought when I saw them. I don't quite understand the appeal. Maybe the algebra and up books are better.

[EKS]

I see that it shows WHEN you use math in real life, and that math is very useful. What I'm not seeing from samples is teaching the HOW and WHY of concepts??? Does he show all these fantastic uses, but not deliver on the teaching? I'm not using anything above Apples right now, and it's just so simple for my kids right now that they just know how to do it. But, when things get tougher, does he really teach how to do the work, why it works, and the usefulness in real life? Does he do it well? Examples?

 

You're not seeing the teaching because, in general, it isn't there. (Disclaimer: We have only used Fractions, Decimals, and the Prealgebras.) We use Fred as a fun supplement. I would never use it as a primary program.

[Trez]

We use Fred here as a fun supplement that the kids do on "Fred Fridays". It has introduced them to concepts that they would not have seen otherwise (sets for example) and there are many interesting extras taught in the biology/economics books. I agree though that I would not use it as my primary source for math.

[KarenNC]

Have you considered trying Khan Academy's website? It's free, online, and the kids can earn web badges, etc for completion of various activities. It's something they could do independently (or at least I think it would work that way, even for younger kids). http://www.khanacademy.org/

[NanceXToo]

You're not seeing the teaching because, in general, it isn't there. (Disclaimer: We have only used Fractions, Decimals, and the Prealgebras.) We use Fred as a fun supplement. I would never use it as a primary program.

 

:iagree:

 

We're using Fractions this year in conjunction with TT6. We're not very far into it, but while my daughter likes the story so far, there is very little teaching/instruction/explanation regarding how to do the math. We would never be able to use this as a stand alone math curriculum and really learn from it. This is just a fun/different supplement for reinforcing something my daughter has already learned. I had already bought Fractions and Decimals used in one lot so we could give it a try because it had sounded like a fun way to learn, but unless my daughter decides she's absolutely dying to continue with the series, I don't think I'll buy any more of them. TT is much more effective with regard to actual instruction/learning/comprehension etc, for us anyway.

[NittanyJen]

My son used Fractions and Decimals and Percents as his sole curriculum in those areas, and he is now rock solid there. He will not have to use anything but Fred.

 

We find the teaching for understanding to be excellent and very, very complete for his learning style and ability level, which is high. He's a kid who loves independent learning, and loves not having everything spelled out in painstaking steps... learners who enjoy connecting the dots will enjoy Fred and find it a very thorough program-- we are a family with very high mathematical expectations in the conceptual understanding as well as performance domains. I grade tougher on thought process than I do on correct answers (though correct answers are also expected). Both are required in Fred.

[hmschooling]

My son used Fractions and Decimals and Percents as his sole curriculum in those areas, and he is now rock solid there. He will not have to use anything but Fred.

 

We find the teaching for understanding to be excellent and very, very complete for his learning style and ability level, which is high. He's a kid who loves independent learning, and loves not having everything spelled out in painstaking steps... learners who enjoy connecting the dots will enjoy Fred and find it a very thorough program-- we are a family with very high mathematical expectations in the conceptual understanding as well as performance domains. I grade tougher on thought process than I do on correct answers (though correct answers are also expected). Both are required in Fred.

 

Have you seen/tried the elem series? I think the levels you mention will be fine, but there is NO explanation in apples. I'm thinking perhaps it's b/c it's such simple topics?? I think my DD will continue with LoF b/c it really suits her learning style, and she will zoom through the elem series quickly and get to the "meat" containing levels soon.

[hmschooling]

Have you considered trying Khan Academy's website? It's free, online, and the kids can earn web badges, etc for completion of various activities. It's something they could do independently (or at least I think it would work that way, even for younger kids). http://www.khanacademy.org/

 

Great idea! I'll check that out! I've tried and loved it before...over early summer...and it's been lost in the shuffle.

 

Have you tried Math Mammoth? It can be done fairly independently. I don't make it fully independent, mostly because I have a 7 year old, but teaching it is very quick and easy. I simply go over the new concept in the box on the page, watch him do a problem or two on his own, then I circle the ones I want him to do (the number depends on how much practice I think he needs on that topic). Usually I have him doing half of the problems or less. On some topics, I'll just have him do 2-3 to demonstrate that he understands it (because I know he does before going over it). On truly new topics, I might assign a little more. Once I'm done teaching him, I let him do the work on his own, with me still in the room but maybe working with his younger brother. I also have a 2 year old and know how that is. :tongue_smilie: The 2 year old has his own "math book" (Singapore EM K book A, which my middle son already finished ;) ).

 

We tried it and I really liked it...a lot! The pages were too much for my SPD DD, though. So, it really bogged her down and took absolutely forever to get even a portion of the work done. She was kinda getting the math, but was slowing down pace b/c of the page clutter....we just kept getting more and more behind. And the printing was making me poor.

 

It was way too much to do for my very mathy DS in 2nd this year. And I had a hard time knowing which problems we could skip with him so I wanted to do something else.

 

 

 

 

We did attempt SM, and I will NOT use it without the HIG, so the time is too much for us. I am unable to teach that math without instruction for myself. I'm not a mathy mom and it's not clear to me from the text alone. I just don't have that time, though SM SE w/HIG is my first pick. We are barely getting school done these days as is, so I can't add more to my plate. I am getting my taste of SM by using the supps I mentioned. They are all linked on my blog on the math tab. http://www.thomasschooldays.blogspot.com

[jjcmehl]

Just an FYI: Khan Academy has instructional videos for Singapore Math...only the first few, thus far. I'm not sure which edition, however.

[hmschooling]

Just an FYI: Khan Academy has instructional videos for Singapore Math...only the first few, thus far. I'm not sure which edition, however.

 

I only saw a few videos for a very small bit of 3A , and it's been well over a year I think since any others were posted. :(

[jenbrdsly]

:iagree:

 

We've finished Apples, and are starting Butterflies. I am planning to whip through this and Cats and then start my older on Fractions, to give LoF a fair shot. I am hoping the series dramatically improves. But right now I am thinking our time is better spent reading titles from the living math booklist, as we've been doing all along. Because while my boys say they liked Apples, I never hear or see content from the book come up again in their play or creations or whatnot. Whereas with other living math books, my kids have created games, activities and artwork inspired by a particular book. (For one example, inspired by a math reader, see here.)

 

 

Okay, now I want to see your math reader and be inspired, but the link isn't working! Please fix!

 

I'm adding my voice to the chorus saying that LOF should be supplement only. Here is my review of LOF Cats and LOF Fractions. That being said, I'll probably be ordering LOF Decimals for my son for Christmas. I'm weak, I know...

[NittanyJen]

My younger son is using Apples as a supplement to Singapore. I have posted several times now on ways to get the most out of the math in the book. On the surface, there may not look like much, but with minimal effort, there is quite a bit there... There is a reason why the author states the elementary series is to be done with the child in the lap of an adult or much older child.

 

I would still only use it (elementary series) as a supplement based on what we have done so far, but it has been a very worthwhile one for us-- I have high math ability children, and we expect a lot from them and from our math resources; on the flip side of that is the notion that we generally do more than just read the book; we play with it!

[Jay3fer]

Okay, now I want to see your math reader and be inspired, but the link isn't working! Please fix!

 

Quick fix:

http://educatingrisa.com/2010/11/22/inspired-by-a-math-reader/

[Heather in VA]

My son used Fractions and Decimals and Percents as his sole curriculum in those areas, and he is now rock solid there. He will not have to use anything but Fred.

 

We find the teaching for understanding to be excellent and very, very complete for his learning style and ability level, which is high. He's a kid who loves independent learning, and loves not having everything spelled out in painstaking steps... learners who enjoy connecting the dots will enjoy Fred and find it a very thorough program-- we are a family with very high mathematical expectations in the conceptual understanding as well as performance domains. I grade tougher on thought process than I do on correct answers (though correct answers are also expected). Both are required in Fred.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I have used almost every level of Fred and completely agree that it is a very thorough program. I have three kids with three different levels of math ability. My oldest is smart but math is not her strength, my middle is highly gifted in math and my youngest has math disabilities. All are doing very well with Fred. For my older two I have gotten more traditional books to "test" their understanding and have never found anything they didn't understand and couldn't do. PSATs went very well for my oldest last year (10th grade) and we'll see this year (she took them this morning) but I don't anticipate an issue. My youngest is older than typical for the early elementary books but with her disabilities we have tried more math programs than I can count and nothing worked. She thought she was stupid. Fred is the first program that has helped her see and get math. She enjoys it. She's remembering (a big problem for her) and she's understanding. Most importantly for the first time she's able to take what she's learning and apply it outside of the math book. These are all near miracles for her considering her struggle up to now.

 

I would never say that Fred is right for everyone. Many don't want a math program with a non-traditional feel. And the elementary books shouldn't just be given to a child without discussion or parent involvement, but then again I don't think elementary math (or really any level math) should be solely student learned. But it's working great for us and it is definitely giving them a good math education.

 

Heather

[BlsdMama]

FWIW, I steadfastly REFUSE to teach my K-3 children formal math. They are able to then memorize their facts and jump straight into a fourth grade book at which point I can take the time to teach anything they haven't already picked up. Trust me, they just learn to add and subtract and understand multiplication at that point without all that wouedorns have an article about not using formal math curriculum 'til fourth grade and there are some studies to back up this way of thinking.

 

Frankly I think LOF is fine and fun as a way to get K-3 kiddos to think of math as enjoyable and that is worthwhile. However to think of it as curriculum... I wouldn't say that.

 

I readily admit we are using Life of Fred algebra and love it. But I personally don't feel that is a full credit of Algebra on its own either. (But we are loving it and grateful that it is helping a non-math child understand algebra!)

[mycalling]

You're not seeing the teaching because, in general, it isn't there.

:iagree: We've also only used the Fractions and D&P books. That was enough wasting our time on it.

TT is much more effective with regard to actual instruction/learning/comprehension etc, for us anyway.

I agree. I've actually read LoF being equaled to AoPS's conceptual teaching on this forum.:smilielol5: Levels above TT, in their opinions.:blink:

[Heather in VA]

:iagree: We've also only used the Fractions and D&P books. That was enough wasting our time on it.

I agree. I've actually read LoF being equaled to AoPS's conceptual teaching on this forum.:smilielol5: Levels above TT, in their opinions.:blink:

 

You know, people find many different things effective depending on their children. That's why it's so nice to have a place people can share their successes and failures so others can see what might be best for them. But the effectiveness of this forum really loses something when it becomes ok to laugh at other opinions or mock other people's experiences.

 

Heather

[mycalling]

You know, people find many different things effective depending on their children. That's why it's so nice to have a place people can share their successes and failures so others can see what might be best for them. But the effectiveness of this forum really loses something when it becomes ok to laugh at other opinions or mock other people's experiences.

 

Heather

Something working is one thing, calling it equal to a highly rigorous curriculum like AoPS is completely untrue. I wasn't naming anyone who has said that on this forum, and no one in this thread has compared the two specifically.

[veggiegal]

Quick fix:

http://educatingrisa.com/2010/11/22/inspired-by-a-math-reader/

 

Thanks much Jay3fer. I fixed the link in the original; hope it is working now.

[nmoira]

:iagree: We've also only used the Fractions and D&P books. That was enough wasting our time on it.

 

I agree. I've actually read LoF being equaled to AoPS's conceptual teaching on this forum.:smilielol5: Levels above TT, in their opinions.:blink:

DD the Elder has worked through Fractions and D&P, both Pre-Algebra books, and now is doing Beginning Algebra. I have read every word of the remaining books. Where the first four of these books shine is in throwing in bits and pieces and hints of what's coming down the pipe. My eldest is math adept and doesn't shy from a challenge, but she is not passionate about the subject. LoF spurred more enthusiastic math conversations than anything she had used before, including the Challenge Math books and Singapore Primary Maths (using the IP in lieu of the workbook).

 

There are some valid criticisms of the instruction of a couple points in Fractions (though they share a similar methodology, or lack thereof :tongue_smilie: with some "star" programs on these boards), and I taught multiplication with decimals in a different manner than does Schmidt. For maximum benefit, these books require the student to stop and think and play and test before moving on; some people don't like or respond to this approach and prefer to have everything laid out. That's fine. That said, IMHO, the only students who should use these as standalone texts are very bright kids who need to zip ahead; the lack of significant work in ratios and proportions is its greatest deficiency.

 

I would caution against judging the high school books without having actually seen them. Unlike the earlier books, these were designed to be complete and stand-alone course texts. AofPS it is not (though it's certainly "mathier" than some other programs I've looked at), but LoF's intended audience isn't the same, is it? A child who can handle the challenge, workload, and pace of AofPS should be doing AofPS. I haven't used TT and so can't speak to how it deals with concepts, but I am given to understand that it runs behind, so TT Algebra I is not really what most people would consider Algebra I. LoF doesn't have this issue, and Beginning Algebra even covers a nifty method of polynomial factorization (for ax²+bx+c where a is not 1) I'd not previously seen.

[hmschooling]

You know, people find many different things effective depending on their children. That's why it's so nice to have a place people can share their successes and failures so others can see what might be best for them. But the effectiveness of this forum really loses something when it becomes ok to laugh at other opinions or mock other people's experiences.

 

Heather

 

I have to agree about that, b/c IMHO...TT is just lousy. It doesn't teach a single thing. Way too many "that's just the way it's done" type comments for my taste and the word problems with the 5+3 (susie has 3 pens and johnny has 5) for TT3... WHAT?! But I won't laugh if it works for someone else!

 

Yall all have me on the fence about Fred. :001_huh::confused:

[hmschooling]

Now I just can't wait to see the elem AoPS for DS7!! I ordered Butterflies and Cats...we shall see! I'm also looking into something a little more for DD10...thinking maybe math essentials .

[NanceXToo]

I have to agree about that, b/c IMHO...TT is just lousy. It doesn't teach a single thing. Way too many "that's just the way it's done" type comments for my taste and the word problems with the 5+3 (susie has 3 pens and johnny has 5) for TT3... WHAT?! But I won't laugh if it works for someone else!

 

Yall all have me on the fence about Fred. :001_huh::confused:

 

I agree that there's no reason to state an opinion in a way that mocks someone else's choice, but I do have to say that I totally disagree that "TT is just lousy" and "doesn't teach a single thing." Or with the previous post about it being way behind.

 

After one year of using TT my daughter's math scores on her standardized test went from the 59th percentile with a stanine of 5 to the 82nd percentile with a stanine of 7.

 

We used no supplements that year- it was ONLY TT5 (used on grade level). TT took a non-mathy kid with about average math scores (scoring as well as or better than 59 percent of other kids who took that test nationwide) and turned her into a kid who likes math, has confidence in math, and scored better than just average on her standardized test that year (as well as or better than 82 percent of other kids who took that test nationwide, who, I assume, used all sorts of different math curricula, not just TT). (And I think she would have done even better because we took the earliest possible standardized test date and there was a particular concept that hadn't yet been introduced that ended up being introduced a few weeks after we took the test so she would have done better on that if we'd tested a bit later)!

 

I know TT isn't for everyone. I'm okay with that, I have no vested interest in what math curriculum any family other than mine uses. It works for us though and I just hate to see it get such a bad rap about how "behind" it is knowing that 1) it's not really true (it's even one of the math curricula recommended by SWB these days from what I've read on this board) and 2) it could be scaring off the people who really could benefit from it the way that we did, which would be a shame.

 

Sorry to derail the thread but just wanted to get that off my chest. :D

[hmschooling]

I agree that there's no reason to state an opinion in a way that mocks someone else's choice, but I do have to say that I totally disagree that "TT is just lousy" and "doesn't teach a single thing." Or with the previous post about it being way behind.

 

After one year of using TT my daughter's math scores on her standardized test went from the 59th percentile with a stanine of 5 to the 82nd percentile with a stanine of 7.

 

We used no supplements that year- it was ONLY TT5 (used on grade level). TT took a non-mathy kid with about average math scores (scoring as well as or better than 59 percent of other kids who took that test nationwide) and turned her into a kid who likes math, has confidence in math, and scored better than just average on her standardized test that year (as well as or better than 82 percent of other kids who took that test nationwide, who, I assume, used all sorts of different math curricula, not just TT). (And I think she would have done even better because we took the earliest possible standardized test date and there was a particular concept that hadn't yet been introduced that ended up being introduced a few weeks after we took the test so she would have done better on that if we'd tested a bit later)!

 

I know TT isn't for everyone. I'm okay with that, I have no vested interest in what math curriculum any family other than mine uses. It works for us though and I just hate to see it get such a bad rap about how "behind" it is knowing that 1) it's not really true (it's even one of the math curricula recommended by SWB these days from what I've read on this board) and 2) it could be scaring off the people who really could benefit from it the way that we did, which would be a shame.

 

Sorry to derail the thread but just wanted to get that off my chest. :D

 

I apologize...I should have said "concepts" in place of "thing". It's not one to teach concepts and some kids do better just learning HOW to do something and just doing it instead of learning the concepts and having to understand the WHY along with it. It IS behind typical state standards, and I really don't care about standardized tests in our house for my kids...that just shows my kids are learning like public school kids who also score high in math many times...that's b/c it's all about how to do it...step by step rote memory. My kids might lag behind in math because we don't cover an inch deep-mile wide math program and their computation skills are slower, but they test sky high in the problem solving! I was really disappointed in TT b/c it did not meet OUR needs or goals, which is beyond knowing how to do the math work, and solve problems on paper...I want my kids to know how to do it, why it's done that why, why it works, and be able to solve math outside of the textbook and in real life. I want mathematical thinkers! Not everyone puts the same focus on math, and for some, TT will work and others it won't...even if it would up their kids' test scores. For me, it was horrible.

[hmschooling]

I'm doing LoF with the SM supp books with my 2nd grade DS. DD will continue the SM supps and add in Math Essentials 4/5 (Book 1) then any specific topics she needs further work in, we'll use the Math Essentials books for those prior to moving into Book 2 and their Pre-Alg. Then we'll move into Video Text or Discovering Mathematics!

 

I'm not sure what DS will do after LoF elem...I think the new AoPS elem program that's in pilot stage right now is going to be a great fit for him. Maybe. Otherwise, maybe he'll follow what big sis is doing, but possibly at an earlier age/grade. The SM supps really are teaching the problem solving and bar models very well...even *I* can learn and teach them now! ;)

[Embassy]

I use LOF as a supplement to Singapore right now. My son enjoys it and wants to continue, but I view it more like a supplement.

[nmoira]

I agree that there's no reason to state an opinion in a way that mocks someone else's choice, but I do have to say that I totally disagree that "TT is just lousy" and "doesn't teach a single thing." Or with the previous post about it being way behind.

[snip]

I know TT isn't for everyone. I'm okay with that, I have no vested interest in what math curriculum any family other than mine uses. It works for us though and I just hate to see it get such a bad rap about how "behind" it is knowing that 1) it's not really true (it's even one of the math curricula recommended by SWB these days from what I've read on this board) and 2) it could be scaring off the people who really could benefit from it the way that we did, which would be a shame.

 

Sorry to derail the thread but just wanted to get that off my chest. :D

I don't know if you were referring to my post wrt TT being "way behind," but I didn't say "way" and was referring to the high school courses. These do run behind (this has been convincingly demonstrated in these forums with respect to its scope and sequence), and but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use them, just that you have to follow farther in the sequence to cover the equivalent work.