I need wisdom: Switch from Singapore to TT?

[Heather in VA]

I agree, of course there is a place for "easier" math programs, as well as programs that help a student like math and help a student be able to perform calculations. There is no one-size-fits-all curriculum.

 

However, I think the issue is not about fit, but goes to making an informed choice - if, as some threads indicate, there is a significant lack of conceptual teaching with TT, it would be important for a parent to be aware of this. In many cases, this might be compensated for through the parent's own teaching, through the use of additional math resources, or through the student's own natural math talents and ability to see concepts. In other cases, if one chooses to forego that aspect of math education for whatever reasons, it should be a deliberate, informed choice. I do think it's helpful to point out potential instructional deficiencies in curricula so that parents know what they are buying and what they are not buying. Posters who have been around here a long time are likely to be aware of the criticisms and have made an informed choice, but newer posters may not be aware.

 

I agree with this and this is why it's even more important that people with a negative opinion (and positive too) of a product be responsible and specific about their experience so it does provide information for a deliberate and informed choice. Negative feedback from someone who hasn't used the product and whose only "support" for their opinion is that they've seen more negative reviews about it and it's like giving your kid french fries instead of apples does no one any good and just propagates false information. As other posters have said, you simply need to have been around long enough to have seen volumes of negative reviews of many of the foundational math programs considered head and shoulders above TT by the nay-sayers. I remember when TT first came out one of the biggest negatives about it that you'd see in these posts was that it had to be bad because kids would take the placement test and test at least a grade level, often more, above. I found that comical because at the time I had my middle daughter take the placement tests for both TT and Saxon (which is so often said to be the better choice for the regular person) and she placed 4 grade levels ahead in Saxon but 3 in TT. In fact Saxon is regularly recommended to be used a grade ahead... but because it isn't fashionable to rank on Saxon, Saxon doesn't get criticized for this.

 

I am not saying that TT doesn't have it's faults or even that it's a great program. And I'm certainly not saying its right for everyone. I'm only using it with my youngest. It would not have been right for my middle and wasn't available for my oldest so I'll never know. But I am encouraging those who are critical (of TT or any other curriculum) to be specific. Share your own experiences. Give specific finds during your own research (like it doesn't cover X topics or point to an example problem that reflects your concerns). But gross generalizations influenced by bias and condescending comparisons are not helpful to those looking for advice.

 

Heather

[Crimson Wife]

We are currently using SM which is fine but I just can't see the difference between TT and SM. So what am I missing?

We are just finishing up SM4 and I plan to spend the rest of the school yr doing word problems, math whizz and SM worksheets but I could also start TT6 which is where ds placed.

 

It doesn't concern you that TT is running quite a bit behind grade level when compared to Singapore?

 

I use various programs' placement tests as review for my DD (and sanity check for myself). TT's recommended grade levels are way off compared to the other programs. Not just the Asian-based ones but also traditional ones like Horizons, CLE, etc.

[BlueTaelon]

It doesn't concern you that TT is running quite a bit behind grade level when compared to Singapore?

 

I use various programs' placement tests as review for my DD (and sanity check for myself). TT's recommended grade levels are way off compared to the other programs. Not just the Asian-based ones but also traditional ones like Horizons, CLE, etc.

 

 

As many users have pointed out, that depends on what your comparing it too. For many people even on grade level TT outstrips the local B&M schools. Some people have higher req's for each grade then others. I expect a 6th grader to be taking Pre-Algebra and Algebra 1 in 7th, is that realistic for most kids? Probably not and they are lucky to get to pre-alg in 8th, as they say, different strokes for different folks. I just find it upsetting though when people are trashing TT when they have never even USED the program when we see kid after kid doing stellar on state tests who have used the program then that tells me the program WORKS. Sure it may not prepare her for a STEM field but she has the option to learn more complex/deeper math at college and will have a good foundation to work from.

[StephanieF]

It doesn't concern you that TT is running quite a bit behind grade level when compared to Singapore?

 

Perhaps, but whether he does TT6 next or SM5 next doesn't matter, it is what he covers that matters and the way in which he covers it . Perhaps TT starts off slower than SM.

 

It would concern me if TT left things out of TT6 which he would cover in SM5, that I need to check specifically. I know people have said that the sequence is different but it is different in SM, MM, MUS etc.

 

We are currently using Math Whizz for fun and I think their levels are off. According to them ds is over 1 1/2 yrs ahead of where he should be and I think that's rubbish, he is bang on age wise where he should be.

Stephanie

[BlueTaelon]

Just a thought but why do you assume that level 1-2-3 whatever is meant to correspond to the same grade level? I know for TT they tell you don't just order 3 for grade 3, take the placement test and place your child where they need to be. My 5th grader is taking TT7, should I assume thats 7th grade math? No, thats just where she is in math for the TT program.

[Haiku]

I don't hear lots of people with horror stories about how poorly prepared for higher level math their children were after completing those programs like I do with TT.

 

When I was considering the switch to TT (and even before that, just because sometimes I like to be titillated), I did a lot of searches for these negative threads and reviews of TT. What I found here were a few of the same people saying that the program didn't work for their kids. Fine. I certainly have programs that didn't work for my kid(s) (GWG comes to mind). On other review sites I also found some scattered reviews that TT was lacking in this, that, or the other. I also found a lot of positive reviews. What it comes down to, to me, is that some programs work well for some people, and some don't. I think MM is a solid program. I think it covers things well. I think it is comprehensive. My dd loves it. It was a disaster for my son, and there are plenty of people here who dislike MM.

 

Do I think TT is the best choice for an extremely mathy kid? Probably not. Is it the most rigorous program around? Nope. Does it teach the amount of math that is required by the average person? Yes, I am satisfied it does (after reviewing scope and sequence for half a dozen higher level math programs and considering what math I use in my everyday life, which does include algebra). I'm honestly not overly concerned if my son is not a math genius. And if, as he gets older, he develops a knack for math and I or he feel something more challenging is in order, fine. We can add/switch/supplement. But even so, there have been threads of late about how well TT grads have done on college placement tests and in college. I have seen plenty of people complain that their Saxon grads can do computation really well but lack a conceptual understanding. I have seen people rave about CLE and others dish it for being easy and non-conceptual. I have seen people love Right Start and others think it's a nightmare.

 

But everyone here, everyone, is doing what they think is best for their kids, and telling people that they are giving their kids the math equivalent of junk food is is just rude, really. I mean, after all, why do you care? It's not your kid. If you have specific concerns, it's quite fine to voice them. (One poster said she doesn't think math instruction should be computer-based in 3rd grade. I respect that, even if I don't necessarily agree.) I voice my specific concerns about GWG (concerns I developed after actually using the program, which I had heard many negative things about but tried anyway). Some people love GWG and think it suits their kids just peachy. Who am I, really, to tell them that they are using a terrible program that will hamper their children and rot their teeth?

 

Ultimately, I don't care what anyone else thinks of my curriculum choices. What I do care about is people (like me) being scared away from a curriculum that might work well for their kids because people make inflammatory comments about it.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

It doesn't concern you that TT is running quite a bit behind grade level when compared to Singapore?

 

I use various programs' placement tests as review for my DD (and sanity check for myself). TT's recommended grade levels are way off compared to the other programs. Not just the Asian-based ones but also traditional ones like Horizons, CLE, etc.

 

It doesn't concern me. I don't use homeschool curricula as a measure of where my kids should be because the expectations of various programs can vary so widely. Nor do I use public school curricula as a measure, for the same reason. (I used to work in educational publishing, and I have my own opinions on why certain things are included/excluded/sequenced in traditional school curricula.) I base my expectations on where my kids are developmentally. I homeschool for academic excellence and I run a pretty tight ship. I believe SWB has a great plan for homeschooling. My 3rd grader is not where SWB says he "should" be (according to certain expectations laid out in TWTM). Ok. Fine. I can't push him beyond his developmental level. I just keep trucking him along and expecting the best he can give me, where he is right now. Comparing him to what my dd did last year in third grade, or to what his cousin in 2nd grade is doing, or to what the kids on his hockey team are doing, doesn't really do me (or him) any good. I standardize test in part so that I can measure my son's progress against himself ... as long as he makes progress, I don't really care whether it's on Singapore's or Holt McDougal's timetable. Learning is not a race.

 

Tara

[Mandylubug]

When I was considering the switch to TT (and even before that, just because sometimes I like to be titillated), I did a lot of searches for these negative threads and reviews of TT. What I found here were a few of the same people saying that the program didn't work for their kids. Fine. I certainly have programs that didn't work for my kid(s) (GWG comes to mind). On other review sites I also found some scattered reviews that TT was lacking in this, that, or the other. I also found a lot of positive reviews. What it comes down to, to me, is that some programs work well for some people, and some don't. I think MM is a solid program. I think it covers things well. I think it is comprehensive. My dd loves it. It was a disaster for my son, and there are plenty of people here who dislike MM.

 

Do I think TT is the best choice for an extremely mathy kid? Probably not. Is it the most rigorous program around? Nope. Does it teach the amount of math that is required by the average person? Yes, I am satisfied it does (after reviewing scope and sequence for half a dozen higher level math programs and considering what math I use in my everyday life, which does include algebra). I'm honestly not overly concerned if my son is not a math genius. And if, as he gets older, he develops a knack for math and I or he feel something more challenging is in order, fine. We can add/switch/supplement. But even so, there have been threads of late about how well TT grads have done on college placement tests and in college. I have seen plenty of people complain that their Saxon grads can do computation really well but lack a conceptual understanding. I have seen people rave about CLE and others dish it for being easy and non-conceptual. I have seen people love Right Start and others think it's a nightmare.

 

But everyone here, everyone, is doing what they think is best for their kids, and telling people that they are giving their kids the math equivalent of junk food is is just rude, really. I mean, after all, why do you care? It's not your kid. If you have specific concerns, it's quite fine to voice them. (One poster said she doesn't think math instruction should be computer-based in 3rd grade. I respect that, even if I don't necessarily agree.) I voice my specific concerns about GWG (concerns I developed after actually using the program, which I had heard many negative things about but tried anyway). Some people love GWG and think it suits their kids just peachy. Who am I, really, to tell them that they are using a terrible program that will hamper their children and rot their teeth?

 

Ultimately, I don't care what anyone else thinks of my curriculum choices. What I do care about is people (like me) being scared away from a curriculum that might work well for their kids because people make inflammatory comments about it.

 

Tara

 

 

Insert here long-winded, southern drawn-out "aaaammmmmmmeeeeennnnnnnnn!"

[WeeBeaks]

To the OP, my oldest hit a wall with Singapore during the 3 books also, fractions for him. We backed off and just spent a while on the topic. He needed longer for it to sink in fully. Singapore can move rapidly and doesn't have a lot of drill unless you are using the extra practice, challenging word problems or other practice. That usually works great for my son (we don't use any extra practice for most topics, only doing so when he needs it), but he was stuck on that one topic. He is now flying along in Singapore 4B again. The program as a whole works for him, but he really needed to take a break and do one topic for weeks on end there last year. We used Key to Fractions for a while and then started Singapore back up.

 

If it is a single topic in a book that is otherwise working for your child over several years, perhaps you just need to stop and work on that a while (long division) until it is solid. Then move on. If your child is struggling often though perhaps the program isn't right for your DC.

[Zebra]

I really can't believe you compared TT to a french fry....it's the most hilarious thing I've read on here in awhile. Immediately I thought, "Pass the KETCHUP :lol:!!!!"

 

The bottom line is, any math program you've heard of, used and retained consistently, is going to be fine. Your child won't necessarily become a rocket scientist because they used Singapore, and won't necessarily become a hobo because they used TT....;)!!!

[In2why]

I don't think it's snobbery to recommend what one thinks is a better math program over what one thinks is a not so good math program. IMO math education should not be led by a computer at this age.

 

The computer aspect is the lecture which teaches the lesson. To me that isn't any different than a teacher, a tutor, or a Mom explaining the lesson. The actual work is done on paper and the answer is plugged into the computer and it gives instant feedback as to whether the answer is right or wrong. I think that is great, because it prevents the child from doing an entire page wrong and not discovering why until it is graded and explained.

[Jen500]

The computer aspect is the lecture which teaches the lesson. To me that isn't any different than a teacher, a tutor, or a Mom explaining the lesson. The actual work is done on paper and the answer is plugged into the computer and it gives instant feedback as to whether the answer is right or wrong. I think that is great, because it prevents the child from doing an entire page wrong and not discovering why until it is graded and explained.

 

When I do math with my elementary kids it is not a one-sided lecture with me talking-- it is interactive the whole time, discussing the concept together, asking questions, drawing in previous concepts when applicable. I pretty much know when they understand and when they don't. We may talk about the concept from a different viewpoint if they don't really get it. Then, when they understand the concept, they go off to practice more with workbook pages. I think this is how a tutor, or mom or dad, differs from a computer lesson.

 

I hope we haven't scared the original poster away! :001_smile:

[mariposa]

I would be sure to have your child take the placement test on their website - and I would skip one level ahead if you've been doing Singapore.

 

My son has been doing TT this year (4th grade) after trying Saxon and Singapore, which were both basically torture for him. This year, he loves math, he's learning, and he's confident about his math abilities for the first time ever! Not to mention the time and frustration this has saved me as the teacher.

 

I'm having my daughter do it next year, but she enjoys math a bit more, so I'll probably give her some additional work. I tested her (she's in 3rd grade and doing Singapore 3) and she tested into TT 5th grade.

 

I'd say go for it. It's the best hs decision I made this year!

Sarah

[In2why]

When I do math with my elementary kids it is not a one-sided lecture with me talking-- it is interactive the whole time, discussing the concept together, asking questions, drawing in previous concepts when applicable. I pretty much know when they understand and when they don't. We may talk about the concept from a different viewpoint if they don't really get it. Then, when they understand the concept, they go off to practice more with workbook pages. I think this is how a tutor, or mom or dad, differs from a computer lesson.

 

I hope we haven't scared the original poster away! :001_smile:

 

Oh I agree, the computer doesn't catch the glassy vacant stare. Or allow for questions. But I am not missing in action, I see the dazed look (which doesn't happen often because they explain well) and then we do a couple of problems together. I have enjoyed prealgebra with TT because there have been a couple of times my kiddo has had to interrupt my glassy stare and explain something to me that I haven't even thought about in 20 years. :001_huh:

[Shellers]

I just pulled my DS11 out of what's considered a good California public school and started homeschooling him Nov 1, 2011. TT5 was right inline with what he was struggling to learn in his 5th grade class. I sit next to him the entire lesson and we talk about what is going on and what he's learning. Last year in the 4th grade my DS scored "Advanced" on his California Star test, and this time last year he couldn't read (dyslexia). So I'm sure he missed a lot of the word problems. He is a mathy kid and is loving TT.

 

... But everyone here, everyone, is doing what they think is best for their kids, and telling people that they are giving their kids the math equivalent of junk food is is just rude, really. I mean, after all, why do you care? It's not your kid. If you have specific concerns, it's quite fine to voice them. (One poster said she doesn't think math instruction should be computer-based in 3rd grade. I respect that, even if I don't necessarily agree.) I voice my specific concerns about GWG (concerns I developed after actually using the program, which I had heard many negative things about but tried anyway). Some people love GWG and think it suits their kids just peachy. Who am I, really, to tell them that they are using a terrible program that will hamper their children and rot their teeth?

 

Ultimately, I don't care what anyone else thinks of my curriculum choices. What I do care about is people (like me) being scared away from a curriculum that might work well for their kids because people make inflammatory comments about it.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

[HappyDoopy]

Whew! It's me, the OP here ... I was almost scared away (not really, I just haven't checked the forum in a day or so ~ imagine my surprise to see so many responses!) ...

 

You guys are funny!! The french fry thing was killing me!

 

I really appreciate all of your feedback. (And just for the record, I can double a recipe pretty easily. ;) )

 

At this point I think I'll have my daughter play around with the sample pages on TT's website, to see if it may pique her interest even slightly. I'll likely continue using Singapore's challenging word problems, for the extra practice. I'm going to investigate MM ~ that wasn't even a consideration before now. (thanks!)

 

I'm especially grateful to have heard from everyone whose child has had a definite change in attitude toward math since switching to TT. I tend toward academic snobbery, but I'm just human (flawed!), holy cow!! I need to continually remind myself why I'm homeschooling in the first place. Academics is part of it - but there are a few other things that are more important than academics in our homeschooling journey ... I certainly will not let math deter us from what is (in my mind) most important. Thanks for the grounding!

 

Thanks for the lively discussion ... I'll be back!