what's wrong with teaching textbooks?

[TracyP]

I completely agree with HappyGrace! I am on the search for math programs from pre-A on up and this is helpful info. That is not to say that I am even ruling out TT yet, but if I pick it I will do so with eyes wide open.

 

We are here to share opinions and personal experiences. By their very nature, they can't be wrong. Share the negatives, and share the positives, I *think* we all have the ability to sift through both sides and see what works for us.

 

Oh and fwiw, the OP hasn't been back since the day after she posted...

[8filltheheart]

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.

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.

 

I have stopped posting in the majority of math threads with the exception of people trying to understand AoPS. They tend to become personal vs. staying more informational and those are the type of threads that I personally don't enjoy. (seems to be a lot of blather escaping the the chat board into the other forums...there are few I wish would just die already. ;P Not referring to this one btw.)

[Dolphin]

I think a lot of it is lost in the translation of the internet. You can not hear people's "tones" when you are in a forum. When I read good enough, it gets me annoyed. Usually I hear that as an insult rather than a specific con to something. I hear it from people as meaning that you are settling. Maybe, that is not how Jackie meant it.

 

I think TT is sensitive around here because of the fact that it did go through a spell of getting really bashed, and not in nice polite ways. When that happens enough, the people who love the program jump into to defend it. It sounds like the pendulum has now swung the other direction.

 

I like pros and cons that are polite, and don't make people feel bad for using a certain program. What is one person's dud, is another's gem.

 

Another reason I think TT is sensitive is that for me (and I think a lot of posters on here) TT was the life raft we found in a stormy sea. For us it saved not only math, but homeschooling. When Math was going badly, everything was bad. The whole process was a fight. TT changed that. TT gave my son confidence in Math, and changed it from tears and a hated subject to one he looks forward to. It did help us catch up. We are now at level, and are using it as part of our program now. For awhile there it was our only program, and it was not good enough, it was great! Just what we needed.

 

Now, for what is wrong with it like the OP stated. It is not the most rigorous math program out there. It is probably not the program you want if you are wanting your child to be a math superstar (unless you supplement).

 

TT and LOF are a great combo by the way

[RootAnn]

There are also certain topics that people are very passionate about. I know someone asked me what type of programs are out there to teach her kids phonics IRL and I was in the midst of explaining what a good phonics program will teach :001_tt1: when she started questioning the very need for phonics. I was taken aback and admit to climbing on my phonics high horse. :blushing: It took me awhile to calm down.

 

Math, surprisingly, can be one of those Hot Topics. (And, FWIW, I have a math-meltdown kid.)

[dereksurfs]

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 think this is a very good question and part of the dilema for many families with non-mathy kids. It could really be a great thread all on its own. Yet it does relate to the OP question in asking if not TT then what? TT is unique in that it appeals to a lot of kids who normally dislike or even hate math, have meltdowns, etc... It fills a niche with very little competition in this area.

 

It's kind of funny that when we frequent various homeschool groups we discover very similar 'default' math programs being used. They are basically Saxon, TT and MUS. Each has a tremendous fan base along with those who have tried them and disliked them for whatever reasons. So I have to ask why these three are so darn popular? What do they have in common? Well, let's see, they are basically 'complete' programs which are very open and go from k-12. The are geared toward independent study not requiring as much prep time from the parent. So they are basically an all-in-one box curriculum for math. They've been around a long time, some longer than others (hello Saxon). Of these three which work the best for kids described in the OP? It seems like TT becomes the most frequent answer with MUS coming in second and Saxon a much distant third.

 

So with all this in mind what else is there for these families and kids? I have to ask that question myself since neither of my girls are math lovers per se. They get it done. But I don't expect them to follow in ds11's footsteps either, our stronger math student. Yet I don't want to prematurely handicap them as well before they are old enough to make a decision about their future. We've already used MUS and both disliked it very much. In answer to the alternatives I would have to say that I don't see too many 'all-in-one' programs even at the secondary level. I do think the options increase however as one considers secondary online options which are somewhat teacher led such as Derek Owens and Jann in Texas. Then if one breaks the secondary courses down and considers them individually other combinations emerge such as Jacobs for Algbera 1, etc... Still its a tougher question to answer.

[Haiku]

I think it's unfortunate that when someone asks for opinions, people are castigated for offering them.

 

 

It's also unfortunate that some people have been so rabidly anti-TT that they have stooped to the level of being insulting to those whose kids use TT. I have read threads and reviews that take the tone that kids who use TT will be math-ignorant dunderheads doomed to a life of menial labor. Not that anyone has actually stated that, but the implication is there: my kids will be more successful than your kids because mine are getting a good math education and yours aren't.

 

I've been reading TT threads and reviews (here and elsewhere) for YEARS. There was definitely a time in the past few years where TT and those who used it were fairly viciously attacked.

 

Tara

[PeterPan]

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.

 

Actually I have no issue with criticizing something you've used. In the past we've had threads castigating TT, end on end, by people who NEVER USED IT. They have no clue why it might work for some kids or be good for them, but they scare off all sorts of people with their expert labels. I happen to agree with Jackie that TT is weak on word problems and has only adequate instruction and thought process. I've been checking her against another very strong conceptual curriculum and see the holes. I supplement it and am open about why. What I have an issue with is people who say therefore NO ONE should use it or imply people's kids are DUMB if they chose to use it.

 

And btw, the very fine engineering schools of the midwest (Rose-Hulman, Purdue, Ohio Northern, etc.) may not be selective enough to please some people, but they have fine programs that allow kids to go as far as their ambition will take them. I have a cousin making millions who spends his Christmases in Hawaii while the rest of us slog, and all he went to was mediocre, not hard to get into Purdue.

 

I agree TT is not strong and have cautioned some against using it and always put that caveat in my posts and in my sig that I DO supplement it, that you should test regularly to make sure your scores are where you expect them to be, and that I DO have issues with it. However my kid is NOT dumb and there ARE people for whom it can be the right choice as part of an overall math approach. So a little bit of graciousness with the implications and statements that it's only for the dumb, the less-thans, etc. etc. would probably end the debate. Just because we didn't make the same choice with our bright kids as xyz other person doesn't mean we're doing something poorly or that our kids are DUMB. Just means we made a different CHOICE.

[PeterPan]

 

It's also unfortunate that some people have been so rabidly anti-TT that they have stooped to the level of being insulting to those whose kids use TT. I have read threads and reviews that take the tone that kids who use TT will be math-ignorant dunderheads doomed to a life of menial labor. Not that anyone has actually stated that, but the implication is there: my kids will be more successful than your kids because mine are getting a good math education and yours aren't.

 

I've been reading TT threads and reviews (here and elsewhere) for YEARS. There was definitely a time in the past few years where TT and those who used it were fairly viciously attacked.

 

Tara

 

Beautifully put, thank you. :)

[8filltheheart]

 

 

It's also unfortunate that some people have been so rabidly anti-TT that they have stooped to the level of being insulting to those whose kids use TT. I have read threads and reviews that take the tone that kids who use TT will be math-ignorant dunderheads doomed to a life of menial labor. Not that anyone has actually stated that, but the implication is there: my kids will be more successful than your kids because mine are getting a good math education and yours aren't.

 

I've been reading TT threads and reviews (here and elsewhere) for YEARS. There was definitely a time in the past few years where TT and those who used it were fairly viciously attacked.

 

Tara

 

Tara, this is where I think someone could be stating something factually about the scope/sequence of a program where it is interpreted as personal implication against the users of a specific program vs. a commentary on the content of the program.

 

For example, I can factually state that my oldest ds, who is a successful chemical engineer, did not receive the same level of math education as our 11th grade ds b/c older used a combo of Foerster and Larson while younger ds used AoPS. My oldest simply does not have the same grasp of theoretical math concepts and deriving formulas from proofs. That is factual and directly related to how he learned foundational math concepts in high school. (and it is a fact that I do lament.)

 

It does not mean he can't be successful at what he does. Nor does it mean that he is a failure in his math education. It simply means that his math education was more limited but definitely appropriate for his chosen profession.

 

Different math programs do lead to different levels of conceptual understanding. It is simply false to be under the assumption that all math programs are going to lead to the exact same end. Not everyone needs the level of math that AoPS covers. I think it is equally true that not everyone could even if it was desired. The same is true for any _______ program name you want to insert.

 

Can students using TT go on to be successful STEM majors and professionals? Obviously some will. But, will those students have the same conceptual/theoretical understanding that a student using AoPS has? I can state w/o doubt that only if that individual has developed those skills elsewhere b/c TT is not developing those skills. Same as my ds using Foerster/Larson does not possess them b/c they were not developed in those programs. Foerster developed strong application of concepts to real world problems. Guess what? That is where his strengths are.

 

Those comments are not an implication against the users of TT. They are an assessment of the contents of the program. Just as people post long replies about the success of MUS users in college, having 5 children go from MUS alg/geo to other programs, I have witnessed its strengths and weaknesses and it definitely has weaknesses compared to equivalently labelled courses.

 

I will state that I have never used TT with my children. I have friends that use it and love it and have spent time looking at it extensively with them. I have looked at them with the perspective of someone who has taught those grade levels 5 to 6 times already. I have a basis on which to compare them. I stick with what Janet quoted up in this thread (the only reason I even bothered opening it b/c I received notification of the quote), TT and MUS definitely serve the needs of many math students. Those students are being well-served by the programs if the student is learning from them.

 

However, that is not the same as saying that TT and MUS are equivalent to all other course labeled courses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterPan]

 

So with all this in mind what else is there for these families and kids?

 

Derek, we fiddled with this for a long time, and that combo of TT plus something *else* was what we came to. Sometimes the answer is that there ISN'T one single product out there that fits your dc. You combine a few things and balance out the weaknesses.

[Corraleno]

I think a lot of it is lost in the translation of the internet. You can not hear people's "tones" when you are in a forum. When I read good enough, it gets me annoyed. Usually I hear that as an insult rather than a specific con to something. I hear it from people as meaning that you are settling. Maybe, that is not how Jackie meant it.

 

 

Actually, it was Tibbie — a proponent of TT — who used the term "good enough." I just replied to her post. I'm sure Tibbie did not mean it as an insult and neither did I. Sometimes "good enough" is exactly what a parent wants in a curriculum — there are posts on the HS board all the time asking for a "lite" version of chemistry or American history or foreign language or whatever, for a kid who dislikes that subject and just wants to get it done. There may be subjects where I want a git-er-done program. For me, math isn't one of them, but I recognize that it may be for other people. And that's fine. TT will definitely get math done, with no tears, and if that's what someone's looking for in a math program, they should give it a try.

 

Another reason I think TT is sensitive is that for me (and I think a lot of posters on here) TT was the life raft we found in a stormy sea. For us it saved not only math, but homeschooling. When Math was going badly, everything was bad. The whole process was a fight. TT changed that. TT gave my son confidence in Math, and changed it from tears and a hated subject to one he looks forward to. It did help us catch up. We are now at level, and are using it as part of our program now. For awhile there it was our only program, and it was not good enough, it was great! Just what we needed.

 

And this is exactly the sort of situation where I think TT can be a good choice. I have personally recommended TT to posters here who were asking for a mostly-self-teaching program to help a struggling student. I have never ever said "TT is a lousy program and no one should use it," nor have I ever implied that it's "only for dumb kids" or that parents who use it are guilty of child abuse. I just think that if parents choose it, they should know where it falls on the spectrum of available math programs, so they can make an informed decision as to whether TT will meet their child's needs.

 

Jackie

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Actually, it was Tibbie — a proponent of TT — who used the term "good enough." I just replied to her post. I'm sure Tibbie did not mean it as an insult and neither did I. Sometimes "good enough" is exactly what a parent wants in a curriculum — there are posts on the HS board all the time asking for a "lite" version of chemistry or American history or foreign language or whatever, for a kid who dislikes that subject and just wants to get it done. There may be subjects where I want a git-er-done program. For me, math isn't one of them, but I recognize that it may be for other people. And that's fine. TT will definitely get math done, with no tears, and if that's what someone's looking for in a math program, they should give it a try.

 

 

 

 

Jackie

 

Actually, I didn't mean that TT was good enough. What I really meant was that the child was good enough. Participating in Math Olympiad, doing well in high school math, going to Rose Hulman---this is good enough. He's good enough. His math education is good enough.

 

I posted shortly after reading about Kay, and I think I should have refrained because I was upset so I spoke more forcefully than I usually would about math of all topics. I mean, life is fragile. Families are precious. I'm just not on board with this "better than everyone else" approach to homeschooling all the time. I am raising teens right now and I see how short this journey is, and I see what is happening to Kay and how short a life is...I'm not saying, "Eat, drink, and unschool for tomorrow we may die," but I do think we need to step back when we can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Homeschooled children included TT as part of their overall math education and experience, loved math, did well, went to Rose Hulman...that is good enough. The answer to that is, "How wonderful for them, they are lucky to have a great education and a bright future," not "well, that's not good enough for my kids." Just my opinion and where I'm coming from.

[DarlaS]

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 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, 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

 

The gaming the system thing is why I never could bring myself to buy levels below prealgebra. I have a thing about kids doing math on paper. I'm a mean mom.

 

I haven't upgraded to any of the newer versions either and we do supplement with Khan Academy.

 

Also, has anyone see this blog post? http://thepioneerwoman.com/homeschooling/2013/03/beware-of-turning-educational-tools-into-crutches/

 

It confirms what others are experiencing.

[Corraleno]

It's also unfortunate that some people have been so rabidly anti-TT that they have stooped to the level of being insulting to those whose kids use TT. I have read threads and reviews that take the tone that kids who use TT will be math-ignorant dunderheads doomed to a life of menial labor. Not that anyone has actually stated that, but the implication is there: my kids will be more successful than your kids because mine are getting a good math education and yours aren't.

 

I've been reading TT threads and reviews (here and elsewhere) for YEARS. There was definitely a time in the past few years where TT and those who used it were fairly viciously attacked.

 

Maybe those threads were before my time, because I have never seen TT users being "viciously attacked," nor have I ever seen anyone claim that kids who use TT will be "math ignorant dunderheads doomed to a life of menial labor." What I have seen, repeatedly, in the last 2-3 years, is people posting that, in their opinion, the conceptual explanations in TT are relatively weak and the problem sets are significantly less challenging than comparably labeled programs. And then the TT cavalry arrives and makes statements like this:

 

I think this whole thing of declaring some programs unfit for human use and relegated only to poodles is PATHETIC

 

And then people say, no, that's not what we're saying at all, and then they get dogpiled by people calling them "math snobs" and "math police" for daring to imply that some math programs actually are more rigorous, with deeper conceptual explanations and more challenging problems, than other programs. It's a very effective way of shutting down dissent, because VERY few people are still willing to post any criticism of TT, when they know it will lead to a long drawn out argument where they repeat, over and over, "no, that's not what I said, or meant, or implied, at all."

 

And FWIW, one of the people who was most vocal in a past thread defending TT against the "math snobs," insisting that TT had absolutely given her child a strong conceptual understanding of math, later posted on the HS board asking those same "math snobs" for help after her child did poorly on the "math concepts" portion of a standardized test. I think, for a lot of people, TT teaches math much they way that they themselves learned it, so they don't see anything "missing," because they don't know what exists beyond what's there.

 

Jackie

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Maybe those threads were before my time, because I have never seen TT users being "viciously attacked," nor have I ever seen anyone claim that kids who use TT will be "math ignorant dunderheads doomed to a life of menial labor." What I have seen, repeatedly, in the last 2-3 years, is people posting that, in their opinion, the conceptual explanations in TT are relatively weak and the problem sets are significantly less challenging than comparably labeled programs. And then the TT cavalry arrives and makes statements like this:

 

 

 

And then people say, no, that's not what we're saying at all, and then they get dogpiled by people calling them "math snobs" and "math police" for daring to imply that some math programs actually are more rigorous, with deeper conceptual explanations and more challenging problems, than other programs. It's a very effective way of shutting down dissent, because VERY few people are still willing to post any criticism of TT, when they know it will lead to a long drawn out argument where they repeat, over and over, "no, that's not what I said, or meant, or implied, at all."

 

And FWIW, one of the people who was most vocal in a past thread defending TT against the "math snobs," insisting that TT had absolutely given her child a strong conceptual understanding of math, later posted on the HS board asking those same "math snobs" for help after her child did poorly on the "math concepts" portion of a standardized test. I think, for a lot of people, TT teaches math much they way that they themselves learned it, so they don't see anything "missing," because they don't know what exists beyond what's there.

 

Jackie

 

Jackie, would you please remind me of your credentials and the ages of your homeschooled children? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, and of course personal information is nobody's business so feel free to snub me :) , but I thought I would ask since I'm wondering if you have degrees in mathematics or science, and if you have taught high school level math to homeschooled students.

[Corraleno]

The gaming the system thing is why I never could bring myself to buy levels below prealgebra. I have a thing about kids doing math on paper. I'm a mean mom.

 

I haven't upgraded to any of the newer versions either and we do supplement with Khan Academy.

 

Also, has anyone see this blog post? http://thepioneerwom...-into-crutches/

 

It confirms what others are experiencing.

 

Thank you for posting that link! IMHO it should be required reading for everyone who uses TT. It confirms exactly what I said in my first post on this thread — that parents MUST check the grade book, because TT gives students 2 chances for every problem. A student can be getting "grades" of 90-100% on every lesson, and the parent assumes that the student is totally "getting" it, but when you look at the grade book you may find that their actual score without the second chance guesses could be as low as 60-70%.

 

Jackie

[Alte Veste Academy]

Jackie, would you please remind me of your credentials and the ages of your homeschooled children? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, and of course personal information is nobody's business so feel free to snub me :) , but I thought I would ask since I'm wondering if you have degrees in mathematics or science, and if you have taught high school level math to homeschooled students.

 

Credentials? She is a poster here expressing an opinion. Those listening in can and should feel free to accept or dismiss anyone's opinion as they wish, but the tone here is just plain old infuriating. And, honestly, if she hadn't been challenged to the point of attack multiple times already, I doubt she would still be posting in this thread. I swear, it's like vultures circling in this thread...

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Credentials? She is a poster here expressing an opinion. Those listening in can and should feel free to accept or dismiss anyone's opinion as they wish, but the tone here is just plain old disgusting.

 

 

We have college math professors here, posters with STEM degrees and careers, and parents who have successfully taught math through the high school level. Their opinions on curriculum carry some weight with me, probably more weight than the opinion of people like myself who lack those degrees or experiences.

 

By "credentials" I don't mean, "are you good enough to me," but "credentials" as in academic certifications or the like.

[Alte Veste Academy]

We have college math professors here, posters with STEM degrees and careers, and parents who have successfully taught math through the high school level. Their opinions on curriculum carry some weight with me, probably more weight than the opinion of people like myself who lack those degrees or experiences.

 

By "credentials" I don't mean, "are you good enough to me," but "credentials" as in academic certifications or the like.

 

 

Well, you have been here a while, long enough to have heard her mention any applicable credentials. We know certain posters have credentials because they bring them up when applicable. Good to know, yes. I have to imagine she would have mentioned it already if she has expertise and wanted to share about that. Honestly, knowing all this, your post just read like snarky baiting.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Well, you have been here a while, long enough to have heard her mention any applicable credentials. We know certain posters have credentials because they bring them up when applicable. Good to know, yes. I have to imagine she would have mentioned it already if she has expertise and wanted to share about that. Honestly, knowing all this, your post just read like snarky baiting.

 

Lordy.

 

I said, "Please remind me," because if I ever knew, I have forgotten. I then added the info that I know nobody owes anyone their personal information and I understand if she doesn't want to share.

 

I'm done. I really don't care about this thread anymore.

[8filltheheart]

 

 

We have college math professors here, posters with STEM degrees and careers, and parents who have successfully taught math through the high school level. Their opinions on curriculum carry some weight with me, probably more weight than the opinion of people like myself who lack those degrees or experiences.

 

By "credentials" I don't mean, "are you good enough to me," but "credentials" as in academic certifications or the like.

 

Not Jackie, but since I have offered my opinion, I do not have any degree in math. Personally, I stink at math beyond alg 2. If someone wants to interpret that as invalidating my opinion, please do.

 

I communicate with my kids. I stay on top of what they are doing and even if I can't do the math, I do know whether or not they can and what they understand based on their ability to communicate what they are studying with me. Their performance in university level science and math classes also verifies my perception.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Not Jackie, but since I have offered my opinion, I do not have any degree in math. Personally, I stink at math beyond alg 2. If someone wants to interpret that as invalidating my opinion, please do.

 

I communicate with my kids. I stay on top of what they are doing and even if I can't do the math, I do know whether or not they can and what they understand based on their ability to communicate what they are studying with me. Their performance in university level science and math classes also verifies my perception.

 

I wouldn't see anyone's opinion as invalid, and I never said that if Jackie lacked certain credentials her opinion must be crap. I'm exactly where you are, not great at math beyond Alg. 2 but knowing from my kids' successes in math and science that they are alright. But if somebody is going to say, "No, they can't be, if they use such-and-such curriculum as part of their education they are not learning what they need," I think it's reasonable to know what makes them so sure, above any evidence that's right in front of my own eyes that my kids are doing well in math.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Alright, I have had semi-objective people review this thread...("semi" because technically they are on my side by default, but "objective" because they don't care about curriculum or fights on the internet)...and they say I sound like a jerk.

 

I didn't think I sounded like a jerk. I meant for my "tone" to match the "tone" of everybody else in the thread, which is perhaps a little testy but still just talking. But no, they say I sound like a jerk.

 

If you also feel that I sound like a jerk in this thread, especially Jackie, please accept my apologies. My only excuse is that I started a paleo diet today and perhaps I'm meaner than I think without sugar and carbs?

 

Sigh. I guess nobody's gonna put my posts on their fridge today. I will refrain from posting while dieting, but please believe me that I like WTM'ers and did not intend to sound like a jerk.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Alright, I have had semi-objective people review this thread...("semi" because technically they are on my side by default, but "objective" because they don't care about curriculum or fights on the internet)...and they say I sound like a jerk.

 

I didn't think I sounded like a jerk. I meant for my "tone" to match the "tone" of everybody else in the thread, which is perhaps a little testy but still just talking. But no, they say I sound like a jerk.

 

If you also feel that I sound like a jerk in this thread, especially Jackie, please accept my apologies. My only excuse is that I started a paleo diet today and perhaps I'm meaner than I think without sugar and carbs?

 

Sigh. I guess nobody's gonna put my posts on their fridge today. I will refrain from posting while dieting, but please believe me that I like WTM'ers and did not intend to sound like a jerk.

 

 

Well, LOL!, I will say that it did indeed match the tone of the thread! :tongue_smilie: ;)

 

I am feeling not nice today too. In fact, I should have known better than to open a TT thread when I was already cranky. :lol:

 

:grouphug: to all who need one...

[Corraleno]

Jackie, would you please remind me of your credentials and the ages of your homeschooled children? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, and of course personal information is nobody's business so feel free to snub me :) , but I thought I would ask since I'm wondering if you have degrees in mathematics or science, and if you have taught high school level math to homeschooled students.

 

 

I have a 5th grader and an 8th grader. Neither of them are mathy — in fact my DS pretty much hates math and considers it his worst subject. He has always been headed for a STEM career, though, so I work really really hard to get him where I want him to be. My DD is not a very abstract thinker, and she definitely struggles with math concepts. Math Mammoth is/was hard for both of them.

 

As for me, no I don't have a math or science degree (PhD in Anthro). I was so turned off by my HS math classes that math would have been my last choice of major, despite being very good at it. My math scores on the PSAT/SAT/GRE averaged around 750 though, despite zero prep and not much classroom instruction. I "get" math in a way that, for example, my DH doesn't. And my DH is a computer scientist who did his PhD research at Cambridge, and who has patents in 7 or 8 countries. Obviously, learning math in a very algorithmic way didn't prevent him from getting where he is.

 

But he's looked at a lot of the math resources I have, and he's seen me teach DS, and he has repeatedly said that he so wishes he had learned math that way. He believes that if he had a more conceptual/theoretical understanding of math, he'd be ahead of where he is now. I'm sure most people would say that his math background was plenty "good enough," given where he is today. But the fact is that he wishes that his "good enough" math education had been much better, and that's what we both want for our kids.

 

And that has nothing to do with "one-upsmanship" or trying to seem "better" than other homeschoolers. Math is just a really high priority for me — not just for practical reasons (in the sense of "how will they use this in daily life"), but also for reasons that have to do with analytical thinking and problem solving. My kids are definitely not inherently mathy, but I think that with a lot of hard work on their part, and a great deal of time, effort, and research on my part, I can get them to think about math as if they were mathy. I also recognize that other families have other priorities, and that many people would not have the time or inclination to do what I do; I've never said or suggested that my way is the best or only way to "do math."

 

But I do stand by my assertion that while TT is a fine program for kids who — for whatever reason — need a "lighter" math program, it is not ideal for mathy kids. I agree with Richard Rusczyk (AoPS) that if a student is getting top scores all the time and never struggling, then that math program is too easy. I think ALL kids are best served by a math program that will challenge and stretch them. If TT does that for your (generic your) child, then that's the program for you. If it doesn't, then I'd move on to something that does.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

But if somebody is going to say, "No, they can't be, if they use such-and-such curriculum as part of their education they are not learning what they need," I think it's reasonable to know what makes them so sure, above any evidence that's right in front of my own eyes that my kids are doing well in math.

 

 

FWIW, I have never said that a child who uses TT will not "learn what they need" — all I'm saying is that a mathy kid who uses TT may not learn all they are capable of. There are much deeper layers to math than are taught in TT. Do kids need that in order to get into college, or even to be a successful engineer or computer scientist? Probably not. Would they be better served by understanding math at a deeper level, and having more experience in analyzing and puzzling through challenging problems? I think yes. Others are free to disagree.

 

 

I didn't think I sounded like a jerk. I meant for my "tone" to match the "tone" of everybody else in the thread, which is perhaps a little testy but still just talking. But no, they say I sound like a jerk.

If you also feel that I sound like a jerk in this thread, especially Jackie, please accept my apologies.

 

 

No problem, Tibbie. I respect your opinion, and I "like" tons of your posts. No hard feelings. :)

 

Jackie

[8filltheheart]

Alright, I have had semi-objective people review this thread...("semi" because technically they are on my side by default, but "objective" because they don't care about curriculum or fights on the internet)...and they say I sound like a jerk.

 

I didn't think I sounded like a jerk. I meant for my "tone" to match the "tone" of everybody else in the thread, which is perhaps a little testy but still just talking. But no, they say I sound like a jerk.

 

If you also feel that I sound like a jerk in this thread, especially Jackie, please accept my apologies. My only excuse is that I started a paleo diet today and perhaps I'm meaner than I think without sugar and carbs?

 

Sigh. I guess nobody's gonna put my posts on their fridge today. I will refrain from posting while dieting, but please believe me that I like WTM'ers and did not intend to sound like a jerk.

 

(((hugs))) I wouldn't have even posted in the thread if I weren't in a totally crappy mood myself. Try reading Lisa's (swimmermom3) thread http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/457924-moments-of-grace/

[PeterPan]

Just for some balance, they also get posts on the hs board like this: http://forums.welltr...ks#entry4553945

 

where moms tell that their particular dc were FINE on these tests. It just isn't reasonable to compare test scores of individuals, because your dc might be totally different and interact with the material totally differently. You'd have to look at a large sample, and then you'd realize your dc is not a population but an individual and that all that matters is how HIS/HER test scores are.

 

Test your kids, people. That's the real moral of the story. When I repped for a math curriculum at conventions, I talked with kids doing Saxon pre-algebra who couldn't do basic fraction games you might play with a 2nd grader. So maybe we should start ripping Saxon next... Oh wait, I know someone who did BJU and has a remedial child, time to rip BJU... Oops, that nasty Abeka, all rote and no conceptual, too advanced for development, let's rip them... Better yet Horizons, I know people who rip Horizons to shreds because it left their GIFTED IQ kids with no understanding, only rote. How could it POSSIBLY be that it's so lauded on the boards when I KNOW someone had this happen? (This list could go on and on you realize, with horror stories for EVERY curriculum.) Test your kids.

[dereksurfs]

I think part of the problem is the nature of the question which I'm sure Jen didn't intend to come across this way. But at least for me it tends to lead one to consider TT as either wonderful or terrible. Are you a lover or hater and if so why? :p Maybe a bit more objective question would be what are the Strengths and Weaknesses of TT? And a follow-up would be how do you address some of the known weaknesses if using it? This would provide helpful info for those considering usage. It also would help those currently using it to avoid certain pitfalls like the one described in the blog dealing with 2nd tries and the grading system. I think all programs have their strengths and weakness including AoPS which many agree does not work for all students. I tend to do a lot of research before choosing a curriculum, especially math. But if all I find are fabulous praises no matter how sincere or negative generalities its harder to assess objectively and as a consequence I tend to avoid it.

[Corraleno]

Just for some balance, they also get posts on the hs board like this: http://forums.welltr...ks#entry4553945

where moms tell that their particular dc were FINE on these tests.

 

 

So if a student uses TT and does badly on tests, it's the parent's fault, but if a student does well (after also using 5 yrs of Singapore & a yr of DO Precal), then TT gets the credit? :confused1:

 

Anyway, my point in mentioning the student who did poorly on the math concepts test was not to say that all kids who use TT will test badly in math concepts. My point was that if the parent doesn't necessarily recognize the difference between a conceptual understanding of math and a procedural understanding of math, then they may think their child is getting the first when they're really only getting the second.

 

But I really don't want to argue about this any more.

 

Jackie

[Haiku]

I think, for a lot of people, TT teaches math much they way that they themselves learned it, so they don't see anything "missing," because they don't know what exists beyond what's there.

 

That's another implication that really rubs me the wrong way: parents who chose TT just don't get that it's not a good program.

 

My daughter uses Math Mammoth. Is TT as hard? Nope. As rigorous? Nope. As in-depth? Nope. As conceptual? Nope. As challenging? Nope.

 

Is TT simply an easier math program? You betcha. That's why I chose it. I want my son, who has learning challenges (he's not unintelligent, but he does have learning challenges) and struggles mightily with math, to learn the basics. That's what I am aiming for right now. Trying to teach conceptually and have him work out hard (or even average) word problems resulted in me dragging him through math lessons, basically saying, "Do this. Now do this. Ok, now do this." And he learned nothing. He was not accomplishing math even reasonably independently. It was just too hard for him, no matter how we approached it.

 

My son is 10. He has a lot of maturing to do. I hope he catches up some day. But if he doesn't, he will do just fine in life with a solid foundation in basic math. There are plenty of fabulous careers he can choose that don't require high-level math or deep conceptual understanding of such. I hope, as he gets older, that we can investigate math more conceptually. But my main concern right now is that my son learn the basics of arithmetic and not cry and feel stupid because he can't accomplish what his sister accomplishes.

 

I have read a ton of "my kid could never ... if they'd been relegated to TT for math." Well, good for you and your kid. Not every kid wants to or is cut out to do that. My son wants to be a firefighter, not an engineer.

 

Tara

[Meriwether]

My point was that if the parent doesn't necessarily recognize the difference between a conceptual understanding of math and a procedural understanding of math, then they may think their child is getting the first when they're really only getting the second.

 

But I really don't want to argue about this any more.

 

Jackie

 

 

Jackie, I've read this thread with interest. I have never used or seen TT so I don't have a dog in this fight. The above comment makes me, I don't know, doubt myself, bristle, shrug. I am NOT trying to argue with you. I am not attacking what you wrote. I don't even know that I disagree with it. My kids have always used Saxon. If I had a penny for every time someone said "drill and kill" or "procedural" when Saxon is mentioned, I'd be able to buy next year's curriculum. And, to be clear, I don't mind the drill and kill approach. I'm the one who sat my Dd (four years old at the time) on the couch and told her not to get up until she knew the oddball (3+8, 5+7, etc) facts by heart. Fifteen minutes later she told them all to me and got up. But I would say my kids have a conceptual understanding of math. Am I deluding myself?

 

Ds6 recently learned addition with carrying. When teaching this, I give the kids a problem before explaining how to work it. I gave Ds the problem:

 

27

+34

 

and waited to see what he would do when he realized the 7 and 4 would equal 10 or more.

 

Ds6 tends to be mischievous by nature. He kind of drew the paper over to the other side and started erasing the problem. He wrote something down and passed the paper back to me. He had written:

 

31

+3

------

61

 

I would say he understands the concept of place value.

 

Dd9 had a lesson on ratios last week. The example showed cross-multiplying but gave no explanation for it. Usually, Dd understands why things are done, but she didn't get this - so she asked me why they did that. I asked her how she would solve for n in that situation (n was the numerator). She said that she would make the denominator 1 by multiplying both sides by 27. I explained that by cross multiplying they were really multiplying both sides by both denominators and showed her an example. It was a quick and easy explanation from a not-so-mathy mom to a not-so-mathy student, and I didn't think anything of it until I was looking through the AoPS Pre-Algebra book and they explained it the way I did.

 

So I read a comment like yours saying that some parents think their kids are learning concepts but they are really only learning procedures, and I have mixed emotions. There is "Oh, no! What if that is me? What if I am ruining my kids?" and "My kids understand the concepts, thank you very much." and a careless, lighthearted "Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks."

 

I think you might be right about some parents overestimating their children's understanding. I might even be one of those parents. I also think, though, that parents have to trust themselves to evaluate where their kids are at. I learned to muffle the Saxon hate several years ago. I look at what my kids can understand and do, and I can't let myself get worried about their progress. I have to trust myself to know my kids and what they understand or struggle with.

[Corraleno]

That's another implication that really rubs me the wrong way: parents who chose TT just don't get that it's not a good program.

...

I have read a ton of "my kid could never ... if they'd been relegated to TT for math." Well, good for you and your kid. Not every kid wants to or is cut out to do that. My son wants to be a firefighter, not an engineer.

 

Tara this is exactly the kind of hyperbole/straw man argument that makes people refuse to post in these threads anymore. NO ONE SAID THOSE THINGS.

 

There was a very long thread here a couple of years ago, where some people were saying, repeatedly, that TT was "equal, just different" compared to other math programs, and that if you just use it "a year ahead" then it's the same as using Foerster's or Larson or any other text. There were people who did not seem to understand that "explaining the problems well" was not the same as "explaining the concepts well." One of those people, who was absolutely adamant that TT taught math conceptually, later discovered otherwise.

 

NO ONE has said that ALL parents who use TT "just don't get that it's not a good program." That is not the same thing at ALL as saying that SOME parents may not understand the difference between a conceptual and procedural understanding of math. I have seen those parents on this board and IRL, and that is a FACT. If you are not one of those parents, then that doesn't apply to you does it?

 

NO ONE has said that no student can be an engineer, or whatever, if they use TT. That is not the same thing as saying that TT may not be the best program for mathy or STEM kids, and that students should have a math program that challenges and stretches them.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

If someone on the HS board posts "I'm looking for a chemistry program, and my neighbor recommended Program X, what do you think?" and some people reply that Program X is at the light end of the spectrum, and that it's a good get-it-done program for kids who dislike the subject, but probably not the best choice for future STEM majors, NO ONE jumps in saying "Oh, so you think Program X is a total piece of crap suitable only for stupid kids, and that parents who choose it are total idiots who don't know any better???"

 

Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom, it is impossible to criticize TT without people jumping in to say "oh, so you think TT is only suitable for idiots headed for menial labor and that parents who use it are just too stupid to know any better, huh?"

 

It's ridiculous, but sadly it's been very effective in almost totally shutting down dissent.

 

Jackie

[Haiku]

I never said that the discussions and reviews I have read of TT are exclusively on TWTM; in fact, I said quite the opposite.

 

However, the idea that you are bringing up, that people are afraid to speak against TT for fear of being castigated, is the SAME issue that people who want to try TT encounter: an avalanche of negativity and questioning of the parents' motives and understanding of the issues.

 

I don't feeling using hyperbole. I am reporting things I have read and heard. And it does apply to me because I put my son through a year of math torture because I was afraid to try TT even though I suspected it would be good for him because I was cowed by those who were so strident in their opposition. I don't want other parents and children to experience that.

 

Tara

[Dolphin]

...Gently....

 

Maybe it is time for this thread to die off. It was revived from January. I think it has gone from an information about TT thread to a how we discuss teaching textbooks.

 

It is not going to end well, and emotions are high. Go back and read the forum guidelines. Sometimes it is better to walk away then to have the last word.

 

We are all her to support each other after all. Why don't we go back to that. Let's just give everyone the benefit of the doubt that we were all using nice "tones" and that none of us meant to make anyone feel bad.

 

I am full of hope as I say...

 

"Bye, Bye thread!"

[dereksurfs]

Is it possible to have a rational discussion about the pros/cons of TT from an objective point of view? Or is it just too emotionally charged to do so in this thread? Maybe Northwest Mama is correct.

 

The things I am curious about are really the same things I would ask of any Math curriculum:

 

1. Scope and Sequence

2. Depth in which it covers each topic

3. Methods in which it teaches

4. Mathematical concept development

5. Alignment with CC and other standards which tests are based upon

6. Retention of problem solving skills by students vs. copy/memorize and forget

7. Recent changes and goals going forward

8. How it compares with other math programs covering similar subjects (e.g. Algebra I/II, Geometry, Pre-Calc)

9. Any known weaknesses

 

These are the things which an objective review would cover similar to a review of a new car, camera, laptop, phone, etc... You might say but those things are not as personal. Oh, but then you've haven't read the auto or photography forums. Folks get very upset when they feel their *beloved* car or camera or <fill in the blank> is being badly spoken off. So usually it is better to get an objective review from a third party, like a professional reviewer. Though sadly those are much harder to find for homeschool products, especially ones which honestly go into details of pros and cons, contrasting with other products. That said I do realize its hard to just talk about the *thing* itself when one's kids are involved.

[TracyP]

.....So usually it is better to get an objective review from a third party, like a professional reviewer. Though sadly those are much harder to find for homeschool products, especially ones which honestly go into details of pros and cons, contrasting with other products. That said I do realize its hard to just talk about the *thing* itself when one's kids are involved.

Which is exactly why SWB quit reviewing homeschool products. She got tired of defending herself. It is too bad. These conversations could be really helpful...

[PeterPan]

Is it possible to have a rational discussion about the pros/cons of TT from an objective point of view? Or is it just too emotionally charged to do so in this thread? Maybe Northwest Mama is correct.

 

 

 

Derek, I hope you take this right, but I'm just laughing here, lol. Come on a board that is largely WOMEN and ask if they'll put aside their HORMONES, ANXIETIES, PMS, ETC. ETC. and just have this nice, rational discussion of the intellectual pros and cons.

 

What a hoot.

 

 

Derek, doesn't take me half a sec to know *you* would never be content with TT. If you want to know those things, go look at the extensive, extensive samples TT has. Everything is there and it's EXACTLY like the samples. You can see the weaknesses right away, and after you watch it a while you might start to notice little things that are novel about it that can work really well for some kids.

 

But no, if you set up the type of tests and interrogation approach with TT that you've used with your other stuff, you're never going to be happy with TT. That's not what it is or what it's for. It's sort of a niche product (imho). It has some distinct issues you can see perfectly well just by looking at the available online samples. The only shame is when it *can* be a useful part of a person's math approach and they don't use it because it has been snubbed. But no, it's not going to pass your smell test, awesome test, or any other parameters you set up. I can already tell you that. Move on and get Dolciani and AOPS and whatever else you're dreaming of. I was taught with Dolciani, and I know how math should look. TT plus the stuff I add in makes the perfect mix for my dd right now. That doesn't mean it's right for anyone else's dc. Just look at the samples and decide for yourself. We all have brains here. You can look at the samples and see exactly what it is.

 

And that my friends is the perfect way to end this thread, with a song. :)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

FWIW, I don't recommend TT to anybody because I know what my kids add to it, AND I know exactly what shape their math skills were in when they began TT at Algebra level or above. I know all the extra math and science incorporated into their lives on a daily basis. But I've never used TT with a student without all those extras or without the foundation that I so carefully laid, so I don't have any evidence for myself that it's fine on its own, so I wouldn't recommend it on its own. With the rest of the picture, I'm confident my children can succeed in their future careers if they choose STEM careers.

[dereksurfs]

Derek, I hope you take this right, but I'm just laughing here, lol. Come on a board that is largely WOMEN and ask if they'll put aside their HORMONES, ANXIETIES, PMS, ETC. ETC. and just have this nice, rational discussion of the intellectual pros and cons.

 

What a hoot....

And that my friends is the perfect way to end this thread, with a song. :)

 

'Why is logic something never even tried?' Hilarious! :)

 

Yeah, I believe I've had this conversation with my dw at least once or twice over our 22 years of marriage. :laugh: And yes, I've wondered the same things! Hahaa

 

I must admit to having a little fun with this one. So sorry if I asked for anything too strange or unusual. :p

[regentrude]

My point was that if the parent doesn't necessarily recognize the difference between a conceptual understanding of math and a procedural understanding of math, then they may think their child is getting the first when they're really only getting the second.

 

I completely agree, Jackie.

And to evaluate the distinction is very difficult and IMO only possible for people who possess the conceptual insight themselves.

 

Since most math programs are not designed in such a way that correct answers can only be obtained if the student possesses the in-depth conceptual understanding, getting correct answers on practice problems not a sufficient indicator for conceptual understanding.

[regentrude]

Is it possible to have a rational discussion about the pros/cons of TT from an objective point of view?

The things I am curious about are really the same things I would ask of any Math curriculum:

 

1. Scope and Sequence

2. Depth in which it covers each topic

3. Methods in which it teaches

4. Mathematical concept development

5. Alignment with CC and other standards which tests are based upon

6. Retention of problem solving skills by students vs. copy/memorize and forget

7. Recent changes and goals going forward

8. How it compares with other math programs covering similar subjects (e.g. Algebra I/II, Geometry, Pre-Calc)

9. Any known weaknesses

 

These are the things which an objective review would cover similar to a review of a new car, camera, laptop, phone, etc.

 

 

 

Derek, I find your list immensely reasonable and would approach any curriculum evaluation precisely like this - just like I would approach the purchase of any other item.

I guess I might quite possibly be a man.

[dereksurfs]

Derek, I find your list immensely reasonable and would approach any curriculum evaluation precisely like this - just like I would approach the purchase of any other item.

I guess I might quite possibly be a man.

 

 

:laugh: :D Thanks, and btw I'm pretty sure you *are not* a man. But I'm going on intuition here. lol :p

[Corraleno]

So I read a comment like yours saying that some parents think their kids are learning concepts but they are really only learning procedures, and I have mixed emotions. There is "Oh, no! What if that is me? What if I am ruining my kids?" and "My kids understand the concepts, thank you very much." and a careless, lighthearted "Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks."

 

 

I highly recommend Liping Ma's book, Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics. If I could only recommend one book to every homeschooler, it would be this one. It provides clear, detailed examples of the differences between procedural and conceptual understanding. I'm sure that most of the American elementary math teachers who were interviewed in the book were fully confident in their conceptual understanding of math. In most cases, that confidence was misplaced; there were stark differences in the level of understanding, and the ability to teach math concepts, between (most of) the American and (most of) the Chinese teachers.

 

Here is a review of the book:

"...Ma has done a masterful job of showing how the conceptual approach of Chinese elementary school teachers succeeds where the procedural approach of their American counterparts flounders....I highly recommend this brief volume to elementary school teachers who wish to improve their teaching of mathematics. I also recommend it to all university teacher educators who want their students to develop that 'profound understanding of fundamental mathematics' that allows Chinese students to outscore their American counterparts in international assessments."

—Mathematics Teaching in the Middle Schools

 

Here is a quote from the preface of the book:

The responses of the Chinese teachers also presented a significant depth with regard to conceptual understanding. The examples in the book show that when explaining the rationale underlying the arithmetic algorithms they used, the Chinese teachers were significantly more cogent, articulate, and detailed than their US counterparts. Their understanding of the rationale underlying the algorithms indeed gave these teachers a clear and correct direction in which to lead their students' learning of mathematics.

 

The reactions that I have heard in the two countries to the book echo these differences. My friends in Chinese mathematics education were puzzled. Why did I discuss the Chinese teachers' knowledge in such detail? It is so common and so obvious. Everybody in math education knows it. US teachers were also puzzled. That kind of knowledge makes a lot of sense. Why were we never taught it?

 

You may read the Chinese teachers' explanations and think "well of course that's how you would teach that — where on earth were those other teachers educated?" Or you may read it and think "Whoa, I never understood [fill in the blank] that way before. Why wasn't I taught this way?"

 

Either way, you'll have an answer to your question.

Jackie

 

ETA: I don't know why the book is so expensive; perhaps your library can get it for you, or you may be able to find a used copy of the 1st edition (1999) on another used book site. Unfortunately, the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon only shows the first few pages.

[nukeswife]

Just wanted to clarify that TT does give 2 chances on problems, but not on t/f or multiple choice questions, so I'm not sure how you would guess for the 2nd choice on a problem where you have to work a problem.

[Meriwether]

 

You may read the Chinese teachers' explanations and think "well of course that's how you would teach that — where on earth were those other teachers educated?" Or you may read it and think "Whoa, I never understood [fill in the blank] that way before. Why wasn't I taught this way?"

 

Either way, you'll have an answer to your question.

Jackie

 

ETA: I don't know why the book is so expensive; perhaps your library can get it for you, or you may be able to find a used copy of the 1st edition (1999) on another used book site. Unfortunately, the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon only shows the first few pages.

 

I have the book. I bought it a couple of years ago when I first saw it recommended. I didn't get why it was so popular because it seemed like common sense. I remember ranting at Dh that they must have looked for the worst teachers they could find. It did make me more purposeful in checking the kids for understanding (I figured that if those teachers didn't understand multidigit multiplication or area and perimeter, my kids might not naturally pick up on it either), so it wasn't a waste.

[Corraleno]

The things I am curious about are really the same things I would ask of any Math curriculum:

 

1. Scope and Sequence

2. Depth in which it covers each topic

3. Methods in which it teaches

4. Mathematical concept development

5. Alignment with CC and other standards which tests are based upon

6. Retention of problem solving skills by students vs. copy/memorize and forget

7. Recent changes and goals going forward

8. How it compares with other math programs covering similar subjects (e.g. Algebra I/II, Geometry, Pre-Calc)

9. Any known weaknesses

 

With the exception of the CC standards (which weren't out then), this is exactly what I did. I compared TT Prealgebra & Algebra I (both of which I own) to the following programs (all of which I own):

Prealgebra: Lial's BCM, Aufmann (Chalkdust), Thinkwell, Kinetic Books, MUS, LOF, AoPS

Algebra I: Jacobs, Foerster, Larson (Chalkdust), Lial, Dolciani, Gelfand, EPS (DIscovering Algebra), Thinkwell, Kinetic Books, MUS, LOF, AoPS

 

My conclusion was that TT and MUS were significantly "lighter" than the others in terms of the depth of conceptual explanations and the challenge level of the problem sets. In a past thread, I posted examples of how four different Prealgebra programs (TT, MM6, Lial's BCM, and Auffman/Chalkdust) taught a particular concept, with both the conceptual explanation and associated problems. However, it was VERY time consuming to do that (and it was hard to type up the math problems in a way that made sense); I wouldn't want to take on that task for every concept in all of the above texts!

 

It's possible to pick up used copies of many math texts very cheaply, though, so anyone who wants to do their own comparison can do so without much expense, and then just resell the books they don't use. (I tend to keep mine, because I'm nerdy like that. :tongue_smilie:)

 

Jackie

[Angel]

Wow! I had no idea this thread was still going on. I just wanted to chime back in and say for those who may still be hanging around and wondering...

 

1). My dd does not struggle with math nor is she a math hater. I chose TT as a fit for her personality and learning style (and ease of use for me). We test yearly. Dd tests above average in both computation and application.

 

Just wanted to clarify that TT does give 2 chances on problems, but not on t/f or multiple choice questions, so I'm not sure how you would guess for the 2nd choice on a problem where you have to work a problem.

 

 

2. :iagree: When we began TT I wasn't sure whether or not to use their grade or my own. Then I realized that she was reworking all of the problems she missed. If she didn't get it right the 2nd time then it was counted incorrect anyway. If she truly doesn't understand a concept, she is not going to get it the 2nd time around either. And I'm going to know that and spend some time going over the concept with her. In our particular case, dd likes to rush or not read a question thoroughly and that sometimes accounts for her mistake. Other times all that happened was she typed the wrong digit. She shouldn't be penalized for that and I'm glad that she then has a 2nd chance to type it in.

[Corraleno]

I have the book. I bought it a couple of years ago when I first saw it recommended. I didn't get why it was so popular because it seemed like common sense. I remember ranting at Dh that they must have looked for the worst teachers they could find. It did make me more purposeful in checking the kids for understanding (I figured that if those teachers didn't understand multidigit multiplication or area and perimeter, my kids might not naturally pick up on it either), so it wasn't a waste.

 

I wish that were true, but IME they were pretty typical of the teachers that my kids, my kids' friends, and my nieces and nephews have had. :( What seems "obvious" to some people is a total mystery to others.

 

I have a friend who teaches 6th grade, and one day I was ranting about Everyday Mathmatics, and she said that's what she used and she didn't understand what was wrong with it. I loaned her MM6 and Singapore 6, and she gave them back a week later saying she didn't understand it and couldn't teach that way.

 

When my son was in PS, he was crying over math every night because he had no clue what his teacher was talking about. I met with her after class and asked if she could please explain to me the concepts he was supposed to be learning, so I could help him with his homework. After 20 minutes of rambling which made so sense whatsoever, I realized why he was having so much trouble! (I fact, that was the precise moment I decided to research homeschooling...)

 

Anyway, re: Liping Ma's book, obviously you don't have to worry about whether your kids are getting a solid conceptual understanding. :thumbup1:

 

Jackie