How necessary is constant mathematical review?

[lorisuewho]

We use MEP and CLE math here (level 2 in both) for my oldest son. He also does one page of SM IP each day for "fun." I love this math combination. I love it! It is very solid. I love the review CLE provides and its gentle introduction of new concepts. I love the math fact practice. I love the conceptual math in MEP. I feel like I found the perfect combination (for me).

 

My son, on the other hand, loves MEP and loves SM IP and hates CLE. Now normally, I'm one to say, "Well, buck up because not all of life is exciting and this is working for us." I'm not one to feel that school needs to be exciting or a three ring circus. HOWEVER, I do believe school should be ENGAGING.

 

My son says he doesn't need to keep reviewing these things. He already knows them. It is tedious. It is boring. But he is a first grader! What does he know about how much review is needed?

 

But I like the review. And, I don't fully trust MEP on its own since I haven't done the entire program so I have trouble seeing where we are going. I like the safety net of CLE.

 

But I don't want my son to grow to resent or dislike math. It doesn't need to be fun, but it shouldn't be torturing him either.

 

Help!

[RootAnn]

If he keeps up with MEP & the SM IP, you shouldn't have to add a whole 'nother math program. If you start seeing issues with SM IP, you can add CLE (or maybe just a math worksheet from the internet) back in. But seriously, don't kill his love of math by overwhelming him with two full math and one-third of an additional programs!

 

Some kids need the constant review. (Mine do.) Some don't.

[Farrar]

MEP by itself is a complete program. And you can see their complete K-8 scope and sequence on the site.

 

I think this depends entirely on the kid. All kids need some review, but if a kid says it's boring and it's making him dislike math, I'd personally back off and do new concepts until you hit a wall. Or I'd review with games.

[kiana]

I would cut down on the review.

 

I really don't think he will end up with holes if you cut down to only doing one main and one supplemental curriculum :P

[NotSoObvious]

One of my DDs needs the review, which is why we use CLE.

 

If I only had my other DD, we could use something else, maybe.

 

I wouldn't ask them to do another program on top of CLE though. That's a lot of math!

 

If he doesn't need the review, just skip it.

[Walking-Iris]

I agree. A 1st grader doesn't really need that much review. Or that much math. I like a main math book and at least one supplement.

 

Also do you mean that you do all 3 each day? That would be a lot of math at that age. Trust!!!

[boscopup]

1st grade math is basically addition and subtraction facts. How much review does a child need when that's ALL they're doing all year? :D What's in any one of those programs should be enough. MEP is very strong in math facts, as is CLE.

 

I agree with a PP - pick ONE full curriculum and one supplement, but not two full curriculums. Or if you're going to use MEP and CLE, cut out a LOT of the CLE problems.

 

My oldest has never needed spiral review. He gets a cumulative review at the end of each unit in Singapore, and sometimes we even skip those. It's working for him (finishing up 5A this week). He remembers how to do things as long as you hit on them on occasion. It doesn't have to be every day. Perhaps your son learns that way also. Or it's just overkill to do two full programs plus a supplement. :D

 

Addition and subtraction facts are easy to practice ("review" ;) ) via games, so if you want more review, I'd add in more games and less worksheets. Do your ONE full curriculum, and add some games to that if you think it's lacking (but again, both MEP and CLE are known for cementing facts, so you shouldn't have a problem with either one as a sole curriculum).

[lorisuewho]

Thank you for taking time to respond. I appreciate all your thoughts as I process what is the best thing for us to do.

 

MEP by itself is a complete program. And you can see their complete K-8 scope and sequence on the site.

I need to go back and do this. I have only used levels one and now two of the program. I need to go back and look at the whole thing.

 

Also do you mean that you do all 3 each day? That would be a lot of math at that age. Trust!!!

 

Yes, we do all three. He does MEP with me and does CLE on his own and one page of IP either with me if it is tricky or on his own (he picks the page). I don't think we spend more than 45 minutes on math typically. Most of the time is on the MEP and IP.

 

CLE is super easy for him. But I like that it covers things the other programs have not touched yet (like line segments, various polygons, cups in a pint, feet in a yard, etc). It has a lot of practical aspects to it.

 

1st grade math is basically addition and subtraction facts. How much review does a child need when that's ALL they're doing all year? :D What's in any one of those programs should be enough. MEP is very strong in math facts, as is CLE.

 

I don't think this would change your advice, but he is doing second grade math, but still it is basically addition and subtraction, adding money, clocks, etc.

 

I agree with a PP - pick ONE full curriculum and one supplement, but not two full curriculums. Or if you're going to use MEP and CLE, cut out a LOT of the CLE problems.

 

I think for now, I'm going to follow this and just cross off CLE problems until I decide if there is a better course of action.

 

My oldest has never needed spiral review. He gets a cumulative review at the end of each unit in Singapore, and sometimes we even skip those. It's working for him (finishing up 5A this week). He remembers how to do things as long as you hit on them on occasion. It doesn't have to be every day. Perhaps your son learns that way also. Or it's just overkill to do two full programs plus a supplement. :D

 

Perhaps he is like your son. I like review, but I guess like everything else in parenting, the children aren't exactly like I expect them to be. Perhaps he is more like his daddy and just gets it and retains it easier. :D

 

(but again, both MEP and CLE are known for cementing facts, so you shouldn't have a problem with either one as a sole curriculum).

 

I actually didn't know that MEP was known for this. Good to know :)

[boscopup]

Yes, we do all three. He does MEP with me and does CLE on his own and one page of IP either with me if it is tricky or on his own (he picks the page). I don't think we spend more than 45 minutes on math typically. Most of the time is on the MEP and IP.

 

I think we spent about 20 minutes on math in 1st grade, and he did MM1A-3A that year, IIRC. He would not have been happy doing 45 minutes of math! He does 45 minutes of math NOW... sometimes. This week, it was more like 20 minutes because the topic was easy (ratios), and that was doing multiple lessons per day because I don't want him having a 5 minute math lesson for the day. :tongue_smilie:

 

CLE is a pretty full program. I can see why he'd complain about doing that after already doing MEP and IP. MEP should have plenty of review for you anyway, since it's spiral. Though you won't have US money in there. Maybe pick and choose CLE problems you think he could use work on?

[lorisuewho]

CLE is a pretty full program. I can see why he'd complain about doing that after already doing MEP and IP. MEP should have plenty of review for you anyway, since it's spiral. Though you won't have US money in there. Maybe pick and choose CLE problems you think he could use work on?

 

Maybe I can find a MM unit on American money and measurements. Hmmm.

[NittanyJen]

Not all kids need to be killed with review and drill. In fact, doing that to them can make them hate math if they don't need it. However, a first grader needs you to see how he's doing, because yes, you need to listen to them, but they don't always gauge their abilities accurately either :) It's a fine balance :)

 

*****That said, consider this when deciding how much "continuous review" is needed in math.

 

Math naturally has continuous review built into the subject matter by the nature of mathematics itself.

 

*When you learn subtraction, you discuss addition naturally; the two are quite related.

 

*When you learn multiplication and division, again, they are very related to addition and subtraction. In fact, when doing multi-digit multiplication and division, you HAVE to use addition and subtraction. Separate "review" is unnecessary, as you are already using it.

 

*When you study "other topics" like time, measuring, and geometry, if you do word problems, you are probably incorporating problems that involve addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division along with the measuring, time, geometry, etc. So again, "review" as a separate subject is unnecessary; you are just using what you already know. Similarly, a well-designed program will incorporate those "other topics" into word problems and examples any time after they have been introduced even when ramping up to the next level of add/sub/mult/div again, so you don't need to "review" those concepts because they are being continually used again. Singapore Math does this-- you might be working on a unit on adding hundreds, but there will be word problems involving liters, miles, rectangles, time, and money. Why make a big deal out of reviewing those things if the child can do those problems?

 

*When you move on to fractions, you are definitely adding, subtracting, talking about place value, multiplying, and dividing.

 

*When you move to decimals, you are absolutely working with fractions, adding, subtracting, etc.

 

*When you move on to algebra, fractions don't go away. Neither does addition, subtraction . . . get the idea? You don't really need to review it, because you are constantly using it.

[lorisuewho]

Not all kids need to be killed with review and drill. In fact, doing that to them can make them hate math if they don't need it. However, a first grader needs you to see how he's doing, because yes, you need to listen to them, but they don't always gauge their abilities accurately either :) It's a fine balance :)

 

*****That said, consider this when deciding how much "continuous review" is needed in math.

 

Math naturally has continuous review built into the subject matter by the nature of mathematics itself.

 

*When you learn subtraction, you discuss addition naturally; the two are quite related.

 

*When you learn multiplication and division, again, they are very related to addition and subtraction. In fact, when doing multi-digit multiplication and division, you HAVE to use addition and subtraction. Separate "review" is unnecessary, as you are already using it.

 

*When you study "other topics" like time, measuring, and geometry, if you do word problems, you are probably incorporating problems that involve addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division along with the measuring, time, geometry, etc. So again, "review" as a separate subject is unnecessary; you are just using what you already know. Similarly, a well-designed program will incorporate those "other topics" into word problems and examples any time after they have been introduced even when ramping up to the next level of add/sub/mult/div again, so you don't need to "review" those concepts because they are being continually used again. Singapore Math does this-- you might be working on a unit on adding hundreds, but there will be word problems involving liters, miles, rectangles, time, and money. Why make a big deal out of reviewing those things if the child can do those problems?

 

*When you move on to fractions, you are definitely adding, subtracting, talking about place value, multiplying, and dividing.

 

*When you move to decimals, you are absolutely working with fractions, adding, subtracting, etc.

 

*When you move on to algebra, fractions don't go away. Neither does addition, subtraction . . . get the idea? You don't really need to review it, because you are constantly using it.

 

Thank you. This is an excellent point.

I guess I worry he will speed ahead in understanding things conceptually before being fully grounded in procedural basics. But the more I think on this the more I think he is fully functioning in understanding and procedures at this level. I believe I am wasting his time at this point and we need to move forward without so much review.