AoPS Users - To Beast or not to Beast? That is the Question

[Hedgehogs4]

I am considering AoPS pre-algebra for my DS when he finishes the MUS Elementary series (probably this summer). I understand that there are vast differences between these two curricula, and this is partly why I am considering AoPS. I am also considering BA for my daughter when after this year. Could you tell me why AoPS is so great or why I should avoid it? I don't just want to be on another bandwagon. I am a "pick and stick" kinda gal. I really find it to be detrimental to be switching curricula (especially in math) all over the place. If I choose this AoPS, I want it to be "The thing."

 

(I should explain that I chose MUS because I always suffered as a kid in math, not grasping the "why"-- if someone had shown me I would have been much better off. I felt that I could teach it, and it has been good for our family, but my DS has much greater ability in math than I had as a kid, and I want him to be stretched. Either that, or no one has told him otherwise and he doesn't have confidence issues, which may have been more of my issue! :glare:)

[Momling]

My daughter is really enjoying BA, but there's only the 3a and 3b books at the moment... I don't know the timeline, but I was under the impression it wouldn't be a complete curriculum for a few more years.

[wapiti]

I love AoPS Prealgebra's big-picture approach, the ultimate in whole-to-parts instruction. It shows a perspective, even in the first chapters, that I had never seen before - primarily, taking basic arithmetic math tools and applying them in unique combinations to solve difficult math problems. I think it's a great choice for those with talents in the visual-spatial area and dyslexic-processing strengths (such as those described in the Eide's The Dyslexic Advantage). While AoPS was absolutely written with top math students in mind and the difficulty level reflects that, I also believe that there is some small sub-set of students who struggle with traditional, sequential math curricula but might learn better from the big-picture approach of AoPS, especially if the parent works closely to assure that the student is carefully going through the wordy lesson problem solutions where a lot of the teaching is. For this reason, I hesitate to pigeon-hole a kid on math ability level or learning style - it's hard to know without trying it. AoPS Prealgebra does involve a discovery method of instruction, see, e.g., threads here and here.

 

Beast: the jury will be out for a long time. I'm sure the current users will be happy to share their thoughts. I have total confidence that it will be a complete curriculum. I don't care for the comic presentation, but the approach to math instruction looks wonderfully deep (I have BA but have no student using it yet :D). This is in keeping with the AoPS philosophy of using simple tools to solve harder problems rather than using harder tools to solve simple problems. Obviously, it's quite possible to start in AoPS at higher levels without Beast. The authors previously recommended Singapore, I believe, though the thinking-style and depth are a bit different. (I've been happy with MM at the upper elementary levels; although MM and SM are both direct instruction, they may be heavier on problem-solving than other pre-Beast curricula).

[Hedgehogs4]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Honestly, I think my ds has the ability to be a "top math student" (whatever that means) but does not have any point for comparison with peers at this point, and with my hs friends all over the map in what curricula they use it is hard to compare. I agree, I do not want to "pigeon hole" him, and I know he is a very global thinker--he would probably do very well with a "whole to parts" method.

 

thanks!