what's wrong with teaching textbooks?

[jenniferlee]

It seems like I've heard bad things about it, but I haven't paid much attention because we always used singapore and loved it.

Now my 7th grade son is going crazy with it. He's just not getting it at all. I don't have a lot of time to sit with him and go over the lessons every day. (In previous years, he would just read along and "get it" with a little explanation from me here and there). I have 4 other kids to teach and I can't deal with him melting down over this all the time. A friend uses TT and loves it, so I am thinking about it. But it's spendy! And I don't want to short him on his math ed. But any math at this point seems better than the none we are currently getting done. :)

So what're your thoughts on this? Also, I looked at the placement test and just by looking, I could tell that he would easily test into the algebra level, even though he's hardly started pre algebra in singapore. Should I go with that, or should I have him do the pre-algebra level just to make sure we don't miss anything? He's only in 7th grade.

Thanks

Jen

[momto2Cs]

I think if it'll work for him, go for it! I've heard both good and bad, but far more good about it than negative comments. I used it for a while with my kids, but they prefer LOF, so LOF it is.

 

I'm not sure on the placement thing. Hopefully someone else will chime in on that - I just wanted to say it is definitely worth giving a try, and the resale value is great if it doesn't work for you, OR when he's done with it.

[JBJones]

We love TT. I use it coupled with Singapore. Definitely give the placement test. Resale value is excellent on Ebay if for whatever reason it doesn't work out. They are like sharks to raw meat when it comes to TT. LOL

[mom31257]

I think the older versions of TT don't have a very rigorous scope and sequence. I looked at them a few years ago and, if I'm remembering correctly, they didn't teach quadratic formula until Algebra 2. I think they've changed that with the newer versions, so make sure you get those. Most people I know who use it seem to use it a year ahead (4th grade in 3rd) which says to me it isn't challenging enough in at least those lower grades. I would probably never skip a pre-algebra program before Algebra 1. The brain has to be mature enough to process it as well as being able to do the calculations involved.

[redsquirrel]

I have never used TT but I've kept my eye on it. I am not confident in my ability to teach upper level math and my kid is fairly strong in that area. TT is always on my 'backup' list.

 

I have never personally known anyone who has actually used TT to any extent to say anything negative about it. I've heard lots of opinion about it, on this board and other places, but from those who use it, it seems to run positive.

 

I currently have a friend who started her 8th (could be 9th) grade daughter in the pre-A level and she says it seems too easy for her daughter. But, her daughter is loving it and is finally not fighting her about math. It is good to see her daughter have some success in that area.

[TengoFive]

If your son is already having a hard time in math, I would definitely go with Pre-Algebra. He may be able to handle Algebra, but for his confidence level Pre-Algebra should do well. As far as Teaching Textbooks itself, we love it! I resisted for a long time, due to reviews on this board of people who hadn't used it. My dd who has struggled with math forever is getting Algebra easily and is actually learning the material. My 7th grade math bright ds is using Pre-Algebra and doing very well.

[Mom in High Heels]

We love TT. I don't know why it gets so much negativity. Indy really enjoys it and he retains what he learns. We're not in the upper grades yet, but unless something drastic happens, we'll continue with it.

[Lolly]

There isn't anything wrong with TT. The old TT alg 1 does teach the quadratic formula. Math is a funny beast...There really isn't anything new learned after 6th grade for basic math. The problems become more complex/longer. The operations have all been covered. Pre-alg is just a slow intro to the "new" concepts in algebra. ("New" because some texts introduce them in elementary.) Long, long ago, in the time of the ancients (like me), there was no such beast as pre-algebra. You did basic math. You started algebra. Pre-alg came into being when people wanted their kids to start algebra at a younger age. So, if you have a strong math student, they SHOULD be able to go straight from elementary math into algebra. Younger kids' brains often cannot handle the mental jump in theoretical thinking that the higher maths require. Pre-algebra is very helpful there to give them more time for 1. the brain to mature and 2. the student to have more time to process the new thinking that is required. With a 7th grader who isn't liking math, pre-algebra would likely be a good idea. There isn't a need to go beyond calculus in high school which is what you are setting up for with going into algebra in 7th grade.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I've only used TT5 (briefly) with my 4th grader, so don't have a ton of experience with it. But there were two main things we disliked which led us to drop it. First, we did not like the heavily spiral approach - my dd likes to really sink her teeth into a concept and understand it thoroughly before moving on, and has always found heavily spiral math programs frustrating. YMMV.

 

The second thing was that while it showed *how* to do the math/algorithms, it didn't really address the why. Again, I have a child who is a big picture thinker, who likes to understand why she's doing things and how it all fits together, so for her the coverage felt superficial and boring. She whizzed through it, but wasn't really that engaged. Again, YMMV.

 

Not trying to get into an argument about TT, here! Just trying to answer the OP's question - what was wrong with it *for us*!

[redsquirrel]

I've only used TT5 (briefly) with my 4th grader, so don't have a ton of experience with it. But there were two main things we disliked which led us to drop it. First, we did not like the heavily spiral approach - my dd likes to really sink her teeth into a concept and understand it thoroughly before moving on, and has always found heavily spiral math programs frustrating. YMMV.

 

The second thing was that while it showed *how* to do the math/algorithms, it didn't really address the why. Again, I have a child who is a big picture thinker, who likes to understand why she's doing things and how it all fits together, so for her the coverage felt superficial and boring. She whizzed through it, but wasn't really that engaged. Again, YMMV.

 

Not trying to get into an argument about TT, here! Just trying to answer the OP's question - what was wrong with it *for us*!

 

 

See now, to me, that is a great critique of TT. You didn't say that it isn't good because it is a spiral approach. You are telling us it wasn't a good fit because your particular student doesn't do well with a spiral approach. Your student isn't fond of direct instruction, preferring to know the 'whys' of her math so she can see how it works and what she can do with it.

 

That is perfectly valid. In fact, that is more helpful than I have seen anyone else say and I have filed it away to think about.

[jenniferlee]

Thanks for all the great replies! I really appreciate the feedback. It's so hard to know what to do. It's good to know about the resale value. I guess I am apprehensive about just "trying out" something so expensive.

I'm glad to hear that people have had a good experience with it.

And thanks for the differing perspective. That helps. I don't seem to have that issue. My child just wants to get the work done. He doesn't seem to be the slightest bit interested in "why". :( But I guess we work with what we have. He's extremely artistic, creative, etc. Math just isn't his interest.

Jen

[justkeepswimming]

We just switched the 7th grader to TT Pre-Algebra. She used TT one year in the past, but I moved her to Saxon, which her older (mathy) sister and I like a lot, after MUCH thought, worry, discussion, and inner debate. The first semester was a bear to get through. She *did* the work without complaining, but math went from one of her favorite subjects to one she loathed.

 

Talked to her over the break about switching back to TT and she nearly leaped out of the chair with enthusiasm. Math is back to being the first thing she does every morning - without drudgery. She talks about the problems she did and is so excited about Math that I don't care how rigorous it is or isn't at this point. We'll continue with TT for this one for the forseeable future.

 

We do have friends with high school aged students who have used TT for years and they are all 100% pleased with it, so... I'm going to put my reservations to sleep and just go with it - I can spend that time worrying about something else, I'm sure! haha! :)

[AimeeM]

I was/am worried about it too.

I'll have my daughter (7th grade next year) working through TT Algebra I. With all of the negativity about the program, I go back and forth on it - part of me feels that I'm shorting my mathy daughter by having her do a program reputed to be "less rigorous". I just need math to become independent with her next year. I'm outgrowing my comfort zone with this *one* subject.

[PeterPan]

Just as an observation, TT has a lot to offer the creative humanities person. Everything is in a narrative, visual, with a story. Often there's history woven in. Some people don't get things to click/cement by merely understanding. They have these more narrative, circuitous brains that need to get to 3+2 via some history story. TT does that for my dd.

 

No, TT is not the hardest thing on the block. Actually, when I hold them in hand, many of the older programs people laud on the boards don't compare to the new BJU math editions. I was comparing Foerster's algebra 1 (classic edition) and the new BJU 1 algebra 1 last night, and the differences are mind-boggling. There's ALWAYS going to be something out there that is harder. Harder does NOT necessarily mean your study learns more. And if you want to bump it up, you get Foerster or Dolciani or BJU and go through it on the side for a few minutes or during the summer. These are resolvable problems. Like you say, the goal is math done EVERY DAY. When math gets done every day, then I can come in for 15 minutes here and there and bump things up like I want.

[heritagelearningacademy]

I have 2 using TT. My oldest used TT5 up to Pre-Algebra. We began TT Pre Algebra this year but he really, realy doesn't like it. Not that he doesn't understand it, but he has some issues with it being to "kid like." The graphics, the story telling. He is my VERY concrete thinker. Give me the details, formula, etc. Don't give me the extra stuff. Nuts and bolts. So, we switched him.

 

My middle son is in TT4 and LOVES it. It is his 2nd year with TT and for him it is a perfect fit. Math comes easy to him (even when we did Singapore.) But, it is the approach--graphics included--that works for him. He may very well continue to go through TT all the way until graduation.

 

That said, I am a firm believer in finding 1 math curriculum as they get older and stick with it. Do I care if something is taught in Algebra 2 versus Algebra 1? Not if I am sticking with the same program as long as it is working for us. Do I care if they do Alebra first and then Geometry? Again, not if we are using the same program. I believe with TT you will get where you need to be if you follow their sequence and stick with them.

 

Do I believe that my children need to be able to CLEP out of every course. Nope, I don't care in the least. I want them to understand how to do math, to understand science, to appreciate history, to know grammar and appreciate literature. I figure when they are ready for college level courses....it really is okay if it is in college that they experience them.

 

TT is spiral and for my kids that has worked.

 

Have no idea what child 3 will like. Right now we are using Sinapore Essentials for K. Then we will move to Singapore 1. From there, I will try TT3.

 

As far as skipping TT Pre-Algebra. I wouldn't. Even if he knows some of it and it is a review, that's okay too. Build confidence, build an appreciation of math again.

 

Good luck.

[mytwomonkeys]

we switched to TT from CLE (which i also love and was what we used for years). we really like TT! it gets done, my kids understands it, and we aren't fighting or crying. so, it's a win here!

[Bellamoon]

We love TT we have used levels 3,4, and now 5 and plan on getting them all the way through. My ds loves the format and I love that its totally self directed!

[Angel]

We are in our 3rd year of TT. After years of fighting with my older dd about math, I needed something that just taught the math to my younger one. It works beautifully. I do try to keep tabs on what she is doing in case she gets hung up or needs a different perspective on solving a problem. She likes to be independent and TT totally gives her that freedom. We have not made it into the older grade levels yet. However, a friend of mine has graduated three children who all used TT. One is about to graduate with a major in accounting, one went on to electrical school, and one is studying graphic design. None of them were impeded by using TT. Also, my dd's standardized test scores are all in the normal to slightly above normal range for her grade in math (she is a normal kind of gal). So for us it is working right on for grade level. I am a big believer in doing what works for your child. Like Elizabeth said, it may not be the hardest thing on the block, but if it gets done and your child is retaining math, then I would call it a success.

[Haiku]

My opinion, formed based on reading a gazillion threads and reviews about TT, is that there are a few people who are very vocal about why they would never use TT (i.e., they haven't actually used it) and a few people who used it and didn't like it and a bunch of people for whom it saved math for their kids.

 

I am one of that last category. I resisted TT for several years even though my gut told me it would be good for my son because the "math gurus" panned it. After my son started crying (regularly) during math and told me, "This math (Math Mammoth) was made for someone with a different brain," I bit the bullet and took the plunge.

 

TT saved math for my son. He doesn't cry, he feels good about himself, and he's learning.

 

The "best," "most rigorous" math program out there is no good if your child doesn't learn from it. And if I have to tweak that best program so much that it barely resembles the original program, what's the point?

 

My son may never be a mathematician or a scientist (or maybe he will mature in later years and discover that these things are his passion). Not everyone needs to do Calculus in 11th grade. If TT is easier, so be it. I don't hold with math snobbery. Not a bit.

 

Tara

[delaney]

For my non-mathy, future hair stylist DD we get math done to get it done. TT is fine. I may need more to the other kids but I just NEED. IT. DONE.

[mothergooseof4]

I used TT 3 for my 2nd grader, TT 4 for my 3rd grader, and my oldest used levels 5, 6, and 7 all a year ahead. They all asked for TT at the time. It was a nice break for me to be able to turn math over to the program. I was always available to help, and my kids quickly learned that if they missed the problem the first time to ask for help on the second try. They didn't want things deleted and done over. So, in some ways it worked. I really liked that they got immediate feedback before they did a whole page of something the wrong way.

 

That said, this fall they all asked for anything but TT. They wanted to go back to paper. I also found that I was often teaching the concept anyway because they tuned out the voice on the cd lesson. None of my kids seem to be able to focus without a REAL person in front of them.

 

When I tested them to go back into Horizons, I found that they were BARELY testing in at grade level. As in, my dd starting 3rd had finished TT 3 in 2nd grade, yet wasn't really ready for Horizons 3. This was the case for each dc. They had finished the level of TT labeled for the grade they were going into, yet were not really ready for that same labeled level in Horizons....or any other curricula for that matter. We did placement tests for several curricula. The only reason I did place 3rd grade dd in the grade 3 Horizons book was because I am confident in my ability to teach math and was willing to slow down on any topics that needed a bit of extra time. Of course, TT is known to be leveled differently than other curricula, so this is not necessarily a reason to avoid it.

 

I also found that my kids knew how to manipulate the TT program while not really understanding the concepts. They knew how to weed through the mulitiple choice answers in order to pick the right one, yet when having to do it on paper, they could not actually come up with an answer on their own. Also, they could pick out things like a ray or angle on the screen, but not actually draw one. My oldest could use the protractor on the screen, but could not use one to actually draw an angle or pie chart.

 

All of these things could be worked around if TT fits in other ways. I do not think any of them are definite reasons to stay away from TT. I may return to it in the future if needed. But, for now, we are enjoying ME teaching and actually applying what they know ON PAPER.

[bodiesmom]

Rally good points from the PPs.

We are currently working through TT along with MM. Both of my kids were having mental breakdowns every.single.day when it came to math. At the time we were solely using MM. At that point I needed something other than myself teaching the kids new concepts. While TT fit that need, I wanted the kiddos to learn from two different angles, if you will, and since we already had MM, that is what we began concurrently using. It is so far working well. There are still days with gnashing of teeth, but the TT intro is taking the edge off the pen and paper work.

Also, regarding the levels, I agree that they are definitely not even with your typical grade levels. That is a simple fix in just testing out until you reach the point of instructional level with your kiddo. My oldest is doing TT 7 and following up with mastery work with MM5.

Hope this makes sense and helps all of us moms, no matter which side of the TT line we stand. ;-)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I like TT for Pre-Algebra and up, as long as the student had a face-to-face, capable, dedicated math teacher for pre-K through grade 6 or so. IMVHO (not as a specialist, just as a Mom) children benefit from that eye contact and connecting over manipulatives and constant oversight as they master arithmetic. That's what I did, and all of mine are doing very well with TT in 7th or 8th to 10th grade (so far). Then at the other end, I intend to hire a tutor or send them to CC or something for Calculus, because that also seems like a level where interaction between teacher and student might be really important.

 

Edited to change a "12" to a "6"

[RootAnn]

I've had two friends use TT with a total of three children between them.

 

One friend used the upper levels (old editions) Pre-Algebra through Algebra 2 with her two oldest. Her oldest completed three levels of TT with flying colors (95% ave or above), but scored badly on the SAT so the mom put her into Saxon with a tutor (me). She had a solid grasp of arithmetic (pre-TT), but no idea on most basic algebra or geometric concepts. I think she "gamed" the system (like mothergooseofthree's kids). The other child only used Pre-Algebra & Algebra 1. He did "fine" in the program, but the mom chose to have him repeat Algebra I when he went to PS. He struggled mightily with Algebra I in school. Now, granted, he's not a top student. The point was that the mom went hands-off and thought her kids were learning the math when they clearly didn't have a solid grasp. The lesson is one that some of us learn when we turn over our kids to any outsourcing -- we have to check in on them independent of what the program (whether it be TT or online outsourced foreign language!) says.

 

Another friend decided to start her son in TT Pre-Algebra even though the placement test said he could start with TT Algebra. (He had completed "6th grade math" and was going into 7th grade.) She switched back out after that year mostly because she didn't feel he'd learned anything and that it was mostly review for him. She admits that there was "nothing wrong" with TT from her perspective but that she made a mistake in putting him in at a lower level than what he could have done to actually learn something. (He liked TT, but admitted it was almost all review and asked to be challenged more.) He's repeating Pre-Algebra this year with a different program (actually the same program he originally switched from), learning new things, and liking what he's doing.

[dancingmama]

Am I doing something wrong? I just had my ds take the placement test. He's doing SM4b, about midway through right now. He's not a mathy kid at all. I had him take the 4, 5, 6 and 7 tests and he was at least placing at level 7. I had to stop him because it was bedtime. I can't imagine that he would be doing that well. And when are percents taught? In all the tests, I only saw one question about percents. Thanks

[HollyDay]

My oldest used TT 7 and pre-algebra. My youngest used TT 5. Neither liked computer based learning. It was not a good fit for that reason alone. Oldest dd needed more math problems to really solidify the concepts. Where we were living at the time, there were really only 2 programs in use: TT and Saxon. Every once in a while, you'd find a family using MUS, but other than that, everyone used either TT or Saxon. When I compared those two with dd, she chose Saxon because she wanted the extra practice. Looking back, I wish I had chosen a math program that did not incorporate geometry into algebra, but that is another story for another thread :)

 

Youngest just did not like learning on the computer. She liked the cute butterfly/caterpillar and the happy "That's right" voice, but she didn't like sitting in front of the computer.

 

The price was also a major factor for us. If both dds were thrilled with it and I knew for sure both would thrive from it, I would invest in TT. But, with both not liking computer based learning, it just wasn't a good idea.

 

Fast forward to geometry. I'm really leaning toward using TT geometry. From what I've seen, it looks like a good stand alone program.

[shanvan]

My oldest used TT 7 and pre-algebra. My youngest used TT 5. Neither liked computer based learning. It was not a good fit for that reason alone. Oldest dd needed more math problems to really solidify the concepts. Where we were living at the time, there were really only 2 programs in use: TT and Saxon. Every once in a while, you'd find a family using MUS, but other than that, everyone used either TT or Saxon. When I compared those two with dd, she chose Saxon because she wanted the extra practice. Looking back, I wish I had chosen a math program that did not incorporate geometry into algebra, but that is another story for another thread :)

 

Youngest just did not like learning on the computer. She liked the cute butterfly/caterpillar and the happy "That's right" voice, but she didn't like sitting in front of the computer.

 

The price was also a major factor for us. If both dds were thrilled with it and I knew for sure both would thrive from it, I would invest in TT. But, with both not liking computer based learning, it just wasn't a good idea.

 

Fast forward to geometry. I'm really leaning toward using TT geometry. From what I've seen, it looks like a good stand alone program.

 

Ds is using TT Geometry after a disastrous start to this year using Jacob's. I'm not a big curriculum hopper, so I made him stick it out with Jacobs when he started having trouble (which was early on). It was one of the biggest mistakes I made this year. Finally, just before Christmas I bought TT Geometry from someone on ebay. Ds is doing much better and actually thanked his father for buying it. BUT, I don't send him off on his own or to a computer. Mostly I work with him from the book. Some days I have him work on his own, but I'm always sure to check up on his learning by going through the next lesson with him.

 

I've learned the hard way not to be too hands off--even when the curriculum is hailed as independent. Too many kids don't learn well without a teacher. Besides I have all kinds of humorous tricks that help my Dc keep concepts straight. No video or computer program is going to replicate my teaching geared specifically to my Dc. It seems many are blaming TT for their own lack of oversight. I've learned you just can't trust a multiple choice based grade, no matter how high it is. And...I want to see the work. How many math teachers did I sit through practically drilling "show me the work" into our heads. Ds used TT 7 a while back when he was in 6th grade, and I always required him to show his work, and I looked at it b/c it helped me to know if he needed help in any one specific area and also showed when he did things right and just made simple errors. I can see though, that there would be a temptation to think if it's going well then there is no need to check up, especially if you've got other kids you need to teach. I've fallen for it myself and lived to regret it. I can't blame BJU Biology b/c I sent Ds off by himself and he really needed a teacher. That was my own fault (true confessions time).

[Corraleno]

Am I doing something wrong? I just had my ds take the placement test. He's doing SM4b, about midway through right now. He's not a mathy kid at all. I had him take the 4, 5, 6 and 7 tests and he was at least placing at level 7. I had to stop him because it was bedtime. I can't imagine that he would be doing that well. And when are percents taught? In all the tests, I only saw one question about percents. Thanks

 

That sounds about right, actually. My DS placed into TT Prealgebra after MM5b (MM6 wasn't out yet). At first he was thrilled because it was so much easier than MM, but eventually he got bored and couldn't bear all the review, so we used LoF and some other stuff until MM6 was released.

 

I also tried having my DD use TT as review over the summer between MM levels, because she's not very strong in math and MM is hard for her. So, for example, I tried TT3 after MM2, and TT4 after MM3, and they were review for her. She could blast through 3 full lessons in about half an hour, whereas she would often spend more than that on a single page of MM.

 

I think TT is a way to "check the math box" for kids who don't like math, but I think it's important for parents to check that kids are retaining it, and to check the TT grade book frequently, because it will tell you how many "tries" they had for each problem. TT gives students 2 chances to get the right answer, so it's possible for a kid to get a LOT of answers wrong the first time, then guess the right one, and still get a very high score without really understanding what they're doing.

 

Jackie

[PeterPan]

I also tried having my DD use TT as review over the summer between MM levels, because she's not very strong in math and MM is hard for her. So, for example, I used TT3 after MM2, and TT4 after MM3, and they were mostly review for her. She could blast through 3 full lessons in about half an hour, whereas she would often spend more than that on a single page of MM.

 

I think TT is a way to "check the math box" for kids who don't like math...

 

It's curious to me that after admitting that you used it yourself for spiral practice to balance out a more conceptual, low repetition program, you lob everyone ELSE who uses TT into the dumb kids who hate math category.

[shanvan]

 

It's curious to me that after admitting that you used it yourself for spiral practice to balance out a more conceptual, low repetition program, you lob everyone ELSE who uses TT into the dumb kids who hate math category.

 

I thought the post had that undertone too, though that may not be what Jackie meant.

 

I've read quite a few reviews about mathy kids who liked TT and went on to do well in higher maths and even stem majors, so there is probably a lot more to the story than just the curriculum. I think we all tend to forget the other variables like..

 

...the motivation of the kid- whether or not he/she just wants to get it done and over or enjoys math

...the level of supervision provided by the parent

...the amount of practice required by the parent

...the amount of instructional time spent by the parent

...the expertise of the parent in the subject area AND in ability to teach (Dh is a math person but absolutely cannot teach it. My kids go running if they hear he is going to teach them math)

...the way the Dc is wired to learn and the level of interest

 

just to name a few!

[AimeeM]

 

I thought the post had that undertone too, though that may not be what Jackie meant.

 

I've read quite a few reviews about mathy kids who liked TT and went on to do well in higher maths and even stem majors, so there is probably a lot more to the story than just the curriculum. I think we all tend to forget the other variables like..

 

...the motivation of the kid- whether or not he/she just wants to get it done and over or enjoys math

...the level of supervision provided by the parent

...the amount of practice required by the parent

...the amount of instructional time spent by the parent

...the expertise of the parent in the subject area AND in ability to teach (Dh is a math person but absolutely cannot teach it. My kids go running if they hear he is going to teach them math)

...the way the Dc is wired to learn and the level of interest

 

 

just to name a few!

I agree.

TT looks great to me.

I sincerely doubt that my daughter would do well with it though. If I'm honest with myself, I would be too tempted to be hands off with it, myself - and my daughter, while "wired" for maths and sciences, doesn't LOVE math like she loves science... and if she were to find a shortcut to just "get it done", without fully understanding it, she would in a heartbeat, lol.

[PeterPan]

Shannon, so true. I just love it when someone's kid does poorly on the SAT and the parent blames the curriculum, never stopping to ponder that the same dc might have done poorly after ANY curriculum, that some kids are going to have lower test scores than others. If that parent had used SM or some of the others that used to be the fad, they'd be on here slamming that too.

 

I'm not saying TT is stellar math. I'm just saying sometimes people blame the curriculum instead of getting to the issue. Did the parents not do ANY standardized testing along the way? They had NO clue the dc was not doing well until they got to their junior year and took the SAT?!?! SWB is a huge advocate of testing and points out in her convention talks that JW gave them TONS of standardized tests, as in multiple times a year every year. There's an anti-testing undercurrent in parts of the homeschooling community, and sometimes it comes back to bite them in the posterior.

[RootAnn]

I just love it when someone's kid does poorly on the SAT and the parent blames the curriculum, never stopping to ponder that the same dc might have done poorly after ANY curriculum, that some kids are going to have lower test scores than others. If that parent had used SM or some of the others that used to be the fad, they'd be on here slamming that too.

 

 

I know I went to pains to report in one of my examples (of a teen doing poorly on the SAT after using TT for 3+ years/4 levels of TT) that the issue was one of the parent not independently checking on the student's understanding. In this particular student's case, she was a good overall student (who has gone on to do very well in college in a non-STEM major) who did not get out of the curriculum what she should have. (That could have been because the curriculum wasn't a good "fit" for this kid. If you are actively teaching something, you generally figure out what is a good fit or not.) The mom lived in self-inflicted blindness until the SAT (math) score arrived. After several months of tutoring (using Saxon *insert GAG smilie here* - Mom's choice, not mine) and specific SAT-test-taking skills, her math score improved (can't remember exactly - 80ish? points).

 

I think Shanvan had two great posts on this. You can't be completely hands-off & then blame the curriculum for your failure to check up on the kid.

[dereksurfs]

Here's one more interesting perspective from Jann in Texas who also teaches math to quite a few WTMF kids. She goes into a bit more depth in reviewing each TT course at the higher levels:

http://forums.welltr...scope-sequence/

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Here's one more interesting perspective from Jann in Texas who also teaches math to quite a few WTMF kids. She goes into a bit more depth in reviewing each TT course at the higher levels:

http://forums.welltr...scope-sequence/

 

I have the utmost respect for Jann, of course, but that particular post is no longer relevant because TT has modified the high school programs since 2010. Algebra I, particularly, is far more rigorous and comparable to other well-known programs now. In its original form, all the usual material was covered by the end of Geometry and Alg. 2, but TT listened to customer complaints that the students might not be ready for standardized tests by the end of Algebra 1 so some topics needed to be moved back down. At least, that's how I remember the story. Whether I'm fuzzy on the details or not, I do know that TT Alg. I has been updated since Jann's post in 2010.

[dereksurfs]

I have the utmost respect for Jann, of course, but that particular post is no longer relevant because TT has modified the high school programs since 2010. Algebra I, particularly, is far more rigorous and comparable to other well-known programs now. In its original form, all the usual material was covered by the end of Geometry and Alg. 2, but TT listened to customer complaints that the students might not be ready for standardized tests by the end of Algebra 1 so some topics needed to be moved back down. At least, that's how I remember the story. Whether I'm fuzzy on the details or not, I do know that TT Alg. I has been updated since Jann's post in 2010.

 

This is interesting getting a bit more into the specifics of the courses as they are revised. I wonder if they revised the Pre-Calc as well?

 

Also with Common Core changes effecting the SAT among other things I wonder if TT will try to align with it? I know for example SM, MM and MUS are making some changes to try to better align to the CC standards.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This is interesting getting a bit more into the specifics of the courses as they are revised. I wonder if they revised the Pre-Calc as well?

 

Also with Common Core changes effecting the SAT among other things I wonder if TT will try to align with it? I know for example SM, MM and MUS are making some changes to try to better align to the CC standards.

 

Good question. I received an email from TT explaining their current stance on CC, which is that they are more invested in presenting the material in the way that they believe to be the most effective than in purposely trying to fit CC or any other standards. So that sounds anti-CC, but on the other hand, one of TT's main selling points has always been that their method best prepares kids to take the SAT and other standardized tests because they are very careful to include the exact types of problems that students will see on the tests. That type of language is on the website right now in the FAQ's.

 

So they'll either have to drop that particular selling point (unlikely, IMO) or else modify their program to be sure it's still true, if CC does bring about significant changes in those tests.

[Corraleno]

It's curious to me that after admitting that you used it yourself for spiral practice to balance out a more conceptual, low repetition program, you lob everyone ELSE who uses TT into the dumb kids who hate math category.

 

 

Elizabeth, that is not what I said. I said I think TT is fine for "kids who don't like math." If you read through this thread, and most of the threads about TT, those are precisely the kids who are using it. The vast majority of parents who like TT say they like it because their child used to struggle or dislike math, and now they like math. Why get snotty with me when that's all I'm saying?

 

I also said that I had "tried" using TT for review, not that I still do. I used it for 2 summers, a year ahead of grade level, as an easy fun review, not as a stand-alone math program. I no longer use it that way because I found the problem sets to be much easier and the explanations much less conceptual than either Math Mammoth or Singapore; I would rather just use MM worksheets for summer review, since they're much cheaper as well as more challenging. I also tried using TT Prealgebra with my son, but dropped it for the same reasons.

 

I see so many posts here asking about TT, and often see people say: "Oh, the people who post negative reviews have never used it." But if I reply and say that I did use it, and found it lacking, then someone responds with "so you admit using it, but you say it's only for dumb kids???" What the heck? It's my personal opinion that kids who like math, and can handle a more challenging/conceptual curriculum, should have the opportunity to do so. What's wrong with that? :confused1:

 

OP, it's hard to get posts from both sides of the issue when you ask about TT these days; many people who aren't fans don't bother posting anymore, because they're tired of being called "math snobs" and having their words twisted into things they didn't say.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

FWIW, here are a few quotes snipped from older threads:

 

We tried TT for a month and I didn't feel that it was thorough enough to give a solid foundation.

 

TT is not conceptual at all. I also tried it for a very short time and we didn't like it at all.

 

I like TT and I think it's a great solution for some families... <snip> But (and I've said this before) -- it does not offer a good conceptual foundation. If you use TT, I think it's really important to supplement with manipulatives or with another program. It's good at describing *how* to do math, but not so good at explaining *why* we do it that way.

 

I've checked out TT and it just seems too simple to me. My ds was able to do all of the TT 3 sample lessons easily before he had finished Horizons 1.

 

We will likely phase out TT as we progress, but for now it reenforces and provides confidence. I wouldn't use it as your main program, but a part of a whole math education plan.

 

We use TT for summer school math. It is a great review. Hopefully the conceptual part of math was learned during the year and TT is a fun way to review all summer long.

 

[Corraleno]

Here are some more:

 

IMO, no it does not help a student understand math. Teaching Textbooks offers step by step explanation of their problems, but their problems are way below the level of comparable math curricula. Step by step explanation of a set of math problems is not the same thing as promoting mathematical understanding. I guess it depends on the question then. If the question is whether they explain their problem sets well, then yes they do. If the question is whether they promote mathematical understanding, then the answer is no.

 

:iagree: After having used both TT Algebra I and II, I absolutely agree with your assessment.

 

My DS ... did great with TT6 this year, but we won't stay with it beyond that. He really needed the confidence boost, but even he admitted that it was too easy and he could handle something a little more challenging.

 

I didn't say that TT was bad; and yes, different programs work for different kids. In my opinion, from what I've seen, I don't think that TT is challenging enough.

 

I believe that TT and MUS are very good for helping kids that struggle with math. It IS definitely better that students have a math program that makes them understand math fundamentals than not master any mathematical concepts!

That said, I don't think they are appropriate for strong math students

 

There's logic in math that I have only recently become exposed to that goes way beyond the algorithm involved in solving the problems. I think from looking at the online lectures TT strips that type of understanding out of the math.

 

[Corraleno]

OP, if you think TT is something that would work well for your family, then by all means give it a try. Different programs work for different kids. What math program you choose depends on what you're looking for in a math program, what your kids' strengths and interests are, and many other factors.

 

However, it is simply not true that "all math programs are equal, just different." Comparing tables of contents won't tell the whole story either — the TOC may tell you what topics are covered, but they will not tell you how deeply they're covered, how well the concepts are explained, or how challenging the problem sets are. No one would argue that Rosetta Stone Latin and Wheelock's Latin are "equal, just different," but for some reason, people aren't supposed to point that out when it comes to math programs.

 

Jackie

[BlsdMama]

Math is not my cup of tea. I enjoy it now as an adult, but I was miserable at it in high school. ;)

 

I have three kiddos using TT right now.

 

I *am* that math snob who said I'd never, ever use Teaching Textbooks.

 

Why?

 

Well, for one, I really thought that most parents who are uncomfortable with math shouldn't touch it. The reason being is that when their child gets stuck, they can't just pop in and help. They haven't been following along and they are in a rough spot.

 

So, being adamantly opposed to Teaching Textbooks, my daughter stuck with good 'ole Saxon. She did great (advanced by one year) through elementary and middle school. Pre-Algebra definitely had some hiccups but we persevered. Onto Algebra I! We failed. We started over. We failed again. I was confident in my understanding and I was able to teach it from various "angles" but she just wasn't getting it. At this point she was in high school and we were falling behind in credit hours. We tried a couple different things, but it was Fred that finally worked (LOF) for this non-mathy but very academic child. We weren't confident in Fred so we used TT to "check" to see if she was had understood it. She worked through Fred's Into Algebra and TT1 and received high A's in both. (We added in the Companion with Fred.)

 

Here she is now, doing Algebra II and very confident. What is she using? TT. But she will never *ever* major in a math/science field in college. TT is sufficient for her.

 

Second child:

Just purely for time saving we let him do Teaching Textbooks. The boy is on auto pilot. He switched to TT in grade 7. He's doing Algebra right now in Grade 8. I'm seriously thinking about switching him to something more rigorous. The problem? He LIKES TT. He's hooked on TT. However, that said, he's got a math brain. He intrinsically understands and LIKES math. I believe I'll be short-changing him by having him do Teaching Textbooks simply because he can/should be doing a rigorous math program.

 

Third child: NOT mathy. Not remotely. I foresee her using TT all the way up because she believes she is great at math and she loves TT. You know what? I'm good with it. It builds her confidence and she's doing Life of Fred as well as supplementation. She believes math is her favorite subject. More power to her. I believe with anything else, she'd hate it and be frustrated to tears.

 

 

So, here's the deal, IMO. You could use the most touted, most rigorous program out there. But if it's NOT getting done and your DS is hating math and resistant, then it isn't a better solution FOR YOU or FOR HIM just because it's better. Because NOT DOING IT isn't teaching him a thing. ;) We often forget that. The DS (the math brain) that I just said "gets" math? Yeah, he's my first Rod & Staff Grammar drop-out. I like Rod & Staff. I love grammar. But frankly, for him, it wasn't working. We switched to Fix It. Do I think it is nearly sufficient or a great program to substitute for Rod & Staff? I don't. But you know what? He NEEDS to know the basics and Fix It is doing that for him.

 

I spent a lot of time and effort choosing Ana's curriculum (first born) through her elementary and junior years. We never hit a bump until 8th grade. I assumed everyone could learn from the "best" if the mother was willing to understand the curriculum and devote herself to teaching it. However, I truly believe that in some cases it is better to "git 'er done" than it is to stand the higher ground and refuse to use anything but the best. I stood my higher ground. Hurrah for me. It left my daughter with stellar scores on her PSATs except for abysmal math scores which took her out of any NMSF running. (Kick. Growl.)

 

Truth? The truth is that I would have been better off using what works and what we could commit to rather than refusing to do something else that could have clicked. More than that, I believe if we had done TT earlier, we could have moved incrementally into a harder curriculum and we'd have had time to do so.

 

However, the opposite is ALSO true. If your child IS a "math/science" child, getting them hooked onto TT could leave them resistant to harder curriculums that would leave them more prepared for college and using TT could knock down their scores.

 

The truth?

 

The truth is that you are going to hear from a lot of mamas that don't have kids in high school yet so their experience is valid, but might not be the most helpful.

The truth is you will get rave reviews from people who have no regrets.

The truth is that if someone's child has done well with one of the "best" curriculums out there, then they can afford to stick to their higher ground as well.

 

The truth is that everyone's mileage is going to vary.

You are simply going to have to look at that ONE child and say: "Will Teaching Textbooks work for HIM?" Because everyone's $0.02 isn't relevant if it won't work in your family.

[Corraleno]

...At this point she was in high school and we were falling behind in credit hours. ... Here she is now, doing Algebra II and very confident. What is she using? TT. But she will never *ever* major in a math/science field in college. TT is sufficient for her.

 

Second child:

Just purely for time saving we let him do Teaching Textbooks. ... I'm seriously thinking about switching him to something more rigorous. The problem? He LIKES TT. He's hooked on TT. However, that said, he's got a math brain. He intrinsically understands and LIKES math. I believe I'll be short-changing him by having him do Teaching Textbooks simply because he can/should be doing a rigorous math program.

 

Third child: NOT mathy. Not remotely. I foresee her using TT all the way up because she believes she is great at math and she loves TT. You know what? I'm good with it. It builds her confidence and she's doing Life of Fred as well as supplementation.

 

 

:iagree: with this!

 

For the kids who struggled/aren't mathy/are not headed for a STEM major, TT is sufficient. (Plus you're supplementing with LOF, to approach math from a different angle and add some more conceptual background.) OTOH, you feel that your mathy kid who could do a more challenging program probably should. Exactly! I don't understand why that's so controversial, or why some people choose to take it as an insult. :confused1:

 

Jackie

[PeterPan]

Jackie, believe it or not, I know people with kids (plural) who went to Rose Hulman after TT. It doesn't always turn out as badly as you seem to think, and it can be used in a larger context of how the family does math (Math Olympiad, etc.).

[Corraleno]

Jackie, believe it or not, I know people with kids (plural) who went to Rose Hulman after TT. It doesn't always turn out as badly as you seem to think, and it can be used in a larger context of how the family does math (Math Olympiad, etc.).

 

 

If your point is that TT didn't prevent those kids' from getting into Rose Hulman, then I would agree. (Rose Hulman has a 60%+ admission rate, and average SAT math scores are 630-720.) But I would also argue that a kid who is doing Math Olympiad and aiming for an engineering career could certainly do with a more rigorous math program. "Adequate" and "optimal" are not the same thing.

 

I don't remember the math texts I used in HS, but they were lousy, and I had lousy teachers, I never did the homework, and I frequently cut class. I still aced the SATs, was a National Merit Scholar, and had a full scholarship to an excellent LAC. None of those things "prove" that my HS math program was a good one, or that I wouldn't have been better served by a more challenging program.

 

Jackie

[Lang Syne Boardie]

If your point is that TT didn't ruin those kids' chances of getting into Rose Hulman, then I would agree. But I would also argue that a kid who is doing Math Olympiad and aiming for an engineering career could certainly do with a more rigorous math program. "Adequate" and "optimal" are not the same thing.

 

I don't remember the math texts I used in HS, but they were lousy, and I had lousy teachers, I never did the homework, and I frequently cut class. I still aced the SATs, was a National Merit Scholar, and had a full scholarship to an excellent LAC. None of those things "prove" that my HS math program was a good one, or that I wouldn't have been better served by a more challenging program.

 

Jackie

 

For Pete's sake. There is such a thing as good enough. Doing Math Olympiad and going to Rose Hulman is good enough.

 

My very mathy kid does TT, for high school only. I taught him myself for K-7th including a year of Saxon Algebra, but it's been TT since then. He leads his Civil Air Patrol squadron in math and science. He corresponds with, and meets IRL with, engineers and mathematicians to talk about math and science. He tutors younger cadets in math and science so they can go farther in their aerospace studies. He programs flight simulation programs with math, and uses math-based computer art programs. Could he be better served by a more challenging program? He's made his own more challenging program! His whole life is a more challenging program! He uses curriculum as a piece of the puzzle that is his amazing mind.

 

Of the math tapestry that has been a huge, important layer of his first eighteen years, the only thing that's gonna make it onto the transcript under the heading of "math" will be Teaching Textbooks. So what. Broaden your mind.

[Corraleno]

My mind is broad enough that I actually tried TT myself, and I compared it extensively, side-by-side, with many other programs. My conclusion is that the conceptual explanations are weak and the problem sets are much less challenging than the other programs I compared it to. I am far from the only person who feels that way, but many are no longer willing to post their opinions and take the inevitable flak.

 

If some people feel that TT is "good enough" for their students, even mathy students, that's fine. Others, including me, want more than "good enough," even for nonmathy students. And I should be able to post my opinion without being called a hypocrite or narrow-minded.

 

Jackie

[shanvan]

My mind is broad enough that I actually tried TT myself, and I compared it extensively, side-by-side, with many other programs. My conclusion is that the conceptual explanations are weak and the problem sets are much less challenging than the other programs I compared it to. I am far from the only person who feels that way, but many are no longer willing to post their opinions and take the inevitable flak.

 

If some people feel that TT is "good enough" for their students, even mathy students, that's fine. Others, including me, want more than "good enough," even for nonmathy students. And I should be able to post my opinion without being called a hypocrite or narrow-minded.

 

Jackie

I see your point about curriculum needing to be challenging enough for a kid who is good at a subject. The problem is some read posts that question the adequacy of TT and then toss it as a perfectly valid choice precisely b/c they see that you are knowledgable in the area of math and have a mathy kid. I went back to the OP's post and her child is having math meltdowns and she has other kids to teach. She is thinking about TT, but is nervous b/c of what she read on boards like this and maybe other places.

 

She really needs to hear from someone who has btdt with a kid who is having meltdowns, and I realize you did say TT s adequate for some kids, but you did post a lot of what seem to be arguments against TT. Of course you are not to blame for how others perceive your advice, but the original question and situation is about a kid having trouble with math every day.

 

Since you have looked at and compared a lot of different math curricula, I'm curious what you think is a solid math program with conceptual teaching for kids that don't get excited about math (except for meltdown type excitement that most of us want to avoid)? What curriculum do you see with clear explanations that would work well for a non-math kid?

 

I am not exactly a math person, I consider my strengths to be in the language arts/literature area, though my test scores in math have always come out slightly higher, which is weird. And I have always loved Geometry b/c I love proofs. I could not believe how much trouble Ds had with Jacobs. I never thought I'd go back to TT, but we did for geometry and I'm considering it for Algebra 2 now. BUT I teach the lessons, so possibly Ds is getting the conceptual end from me.

 

Math Mammoth--Hmm. i have it and have used some of it. I didn't see it adding much conceptually to our curriculum, but we used it for 3rd-4th grade, nothing higher. But, again, I teach. The curriculum is not the only thing my kids get for math.

 

Math Mammoth, Fred, and Jacobs did not really contain enough actual teaching for concepts from what I have seen of them. They might have the conceptual part built in, but they don't provide a framework that gets the Dc and the parent/teacher there. When we used each of those I had to provide the rungs on the ladder that lead to those abstract concepts that were left floating in the air. My kids weren't going to build their own, they needed to be taught. But, they are not math thinkers--though Ds is an extremely logical thinker. I'm not knocking any of those programs b/c I have and will continue to use them, and they are fabulous, but they won't be the only part of the math picture for my Dc.

 

And maybe that's what mathy kids need, a curriculum that gives them room for their way of thinking. They probably don't need the rungs on the ladder. BUT, there might be some kids who love math and are math whizzes who want something no-nonsense like TT precisely b/c it gives them free time to explore. My Ds loves history and we've been using TOG. He excels at it, but he's asking for a textbook next year. He wants to get it done so he can explore his own history books, projects, whatever. He doesn't want curriculum dictating to him what he's allowed to explore. I can see kids deciding the same about math.

 

As Tibbie said, there are those for whom TT is only part of the puzzle, or who have a focus in another area. For them it might be even more than good enough.

 

I don't know if we'll continue it after Geometry. I went to TT after Jacobs was a flop and we had invested close to half a year and every approach I could think of to make Jacobs work. Whether or not we go back to what we used before or decide to conitnue with TT is going to depend and awful lot on how I structure the rest of his school and the choices he makes. As you said, a lot depends on your Dc's interests and other factors.

 

Still, I'm not going to lose sleep over TT, which is getting the job done. OP, just give it a try. The world will not end if you don't use the most rigorous math curriculum. You can always add more to it later once you stop the meltdowns. Just keep your eye on your Ds's learning. Only a certain type of kid can handle having a curriculum thrown at them and being expected to learn the subject--even if the curriculum has video lessons. A live teacher monitors the students and adjusts teaching to fit. No video teacher can match that or do it for you. If you want that, you need to get a tutor and make sure he/she is a good one.

[HappyGrace]

The OP specifically asked "What's wrong with TT?" Jackie is giving her opinion on exactly that. I think if we always jump on the TT naysayers, they will go (and have gone) into hiding, and this does a disservice to people trying to truly understand TT's drawbacks so they can make an informed decision for their child.

 

When I was looking into TT, it helped me very much to understand BOTH the positive and the negative so I could make an informed decision.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Yeah, it's scary to offer a criticism of TT on these boards - hence my *very* gently worded criticism above. I think it's unfortunate that when someone asks for opinions, people are castigated for offering them.