Singapore Math & Common Core?

[acsnmama]

So Common Core will affect the Standards edition?

 

Has this already taken place?

 

How will it affect it??

[charcat13]

I'm actually curious about this as well. I planned on using the TBs and HIGs with all three kids so I hope there are not a lot of changes.

[boscopup]

It has not taken place yet. I did see mention of it in a February post on the Singapore forums, but it looked like it hadn't been started yet? Jenny said there wouldn't be very many changes, as they will meet or exceed the standards, just like they do for CA standards already. So the only changes would be adding things in that currently aren't there. If something is being done ahead of CCS, it will stay the same.

 

I imagine we'd have time to buy workbooks as needed, if they stop carrying the regular Standards Edition. I have most of the series now (need grade 3, and we skip grade 6), so I'll still need to buy workbooks for the younger kids.

[acsnmama]

Hmm, what a bummer. I really do like the Standards edition HIG! Which is why I decided to switch, but now I'm thinking I'll just continue on with the US Edition. I noticed the extras from the US Edition to the Standards isn't a whole lot, though I do feel the HIG is pretty worth the extra cost. But if they're going to be adding even more, I don't know that I want it. I guess I'll hold onto my US Editions, and not sell them after all, and I'll just continue on with the US Edition from where I am now, especially if it's going to stay the same.

 

Other than contacting them, how can I get updates on this? I need to know by November/December, which is when we'll buy the next level of one or the other...

 

I'm not on the SM forums, I guess I should join!

[Nart]

They have a chart that links the Standard Edition to the Common Core standards.

http://www.singaporemath.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/ccs-pmstded.pdf

It seems like every common core math standard is already met. I think they will just redesign the cover with a statement that it addresses all the common core standards.

[boscopup]

I don't think you'd need to scrap use of Standards over Common Core. I imagine that when they come out with the new set, you could probably just pick up where you are.

 

I'll continue to use Standards as is. If they come out with a new grade 3 before I buy it, fine. I'll use the new version. It doesn't sound like it would be much different.

[Crimson Wife]

We used the old edition of Singapore Discovering Math 1A and then switched to the new CCS edition of DM 7B. The new edition is every bit as rigorous; it just has additional topics (which is why I made the switch). If they do revamp Primary Mathematics to meet CCS, it will presumably be similar.

[acsnmama]

I don't want extra topics honestly. I like the US Edition, but I like the Standards HIG better. Overall Standards seems great as it is, but if they add MORE topics, I don't particularly want it. It's plenty rigorous as it is, and I don't feel that adding anything else is important, there is enough of extras from US to Standards edition now, I hope for them not to add more.

 

I'm bummed about this. My son is super smart in math from the US Edition, but I don't need it being flooded with more info, whether easy or not. It's plenty. I just wanted a better HIG.

[Mom2TheTeam]

I don't want extra topics honestly. I like the US Edition, but I like the Standards HIG better. Overall Standards seems great as it is, but if they add MORE topics, I don't particularly want it. It's plenty rigorous as it is, and I don't feel that adding anything else is important, there is enough of extras from US to Standards edition now, I hope for them not to add more.

 

I'm bummed about this. My son is super smart in math from the US Edition, but I don't need it being flooded with more info, whether easy or not. It's plenty. I just wanted a better HIG.

 

Agreed!! I'm going to look at the differences in the HIG at the conference when I go in June. I would prefer to stick with the US Edition, but I have heard over and over that the HIG from Standard's is better and I like as much hand holding as I can get especially since I wasn't taught math this way. :)

[Arcadia]

I'll continue to use Standards as is. If they come out with a new grade 3 before I buy it, fine. I'll use the new version. It doesn't sound like it would be much different.

 

If you look at page 48-52 of the comparison between CA standards and common core standards, quite a few items have been push back to higher grades.

Actually won't it make more business sense to change the US version to common core than to change the standards edition which is based on California's standards?

I bought SM2 to SM6 in one short for both my boys so we are good here.

 

They have a chart that links the Standard Edition to the Common Core standards.

http://www.singapore...ccs-pmstded.pdf

It seems like every common core math standard is already met. I think they will just redesign the cover with a statement that it addresses all the common core standards.

 

Some of the Grade 3 Common Core topics are in SM4A according to page 11 and 13 of the pdf.

[SevenDaisies]

This is from Jenny at Singapore Math:

 

"There is a core edition planned. It is hoped levels 1-3 will be out this year.

 

There will not be any issues switching from Standards to this new edition, as far as I can anticipate, when going from one grade level to the next.

 

A final decision on whether the standards edition will be discontinued or not has not been made. There will be plenty of warning should it be discontinued."

 

Sorry, I did not ask about the US Edition.

 

[boscopup]

If you look at page 48-52 of the comparisonbetween CA standards and common core standards, quite a few items have been push back to higher grades.

 

Are you talking about things being taught earlier in the CA standards than in the CCS? Those things would be ok. Singapore "meets or exceeds", so they only have to change things that they haven't met in this or the previous grade level.

 

Some of the Grade 3 Common Core topics are in SM4A according to page 11 and 13 of the pdf.

 

That's a pretty small amount of things though. A bit of fractions and a bit of area stuff. Both of those were things I usually taught ahead of time anyway. By time we got to fractions in Singapore 4, my son had already hit everything taught because I'll sometimes go on a bit past the actual teaching. Obviously, not everyone is like that though. ;) For example, when learning to add like fractions 1/6+2/6=3/6, I went ahead and taught how to reduce the fractions. DS1 was ready for it long before his math curriculum taught it, and he was already noticing that 3/6=1/2, so why not go ahead and reduce it? :)

[acsnmama]

I got an email from Jenny regarding this. She said that there will be some topics taken out of the Standards Edition, and some topics added. The ones that will be added, are few, like line plots. However, she did say that there would be some things removed that don't align with CCS.

 

I just don't know how I feel about this AT ALL. This is frustrating to me. I like it as is. Only thing to do is to stick with the US Edition I guess. I do like the mental math pages in the US Edition, better than those that are added in the Std's. However, the HIG is much better.

[Crimson Wife]

I got an email from Jenny regarding this. She said that there will be some topics taken out of the Standards Edition, and some topics added. The ones that will be added, are few, like line plots. However, she did say that there would be some things removed that don't align with CCS.

 

I just don't know how I feel about this AT ALL. This is frustrating to me. I like it as is. Only thing to do is to stick with the US Edition I guess. I do like the mental math pages in the US Edition, better than those that are added in the Std's. However, the HIG is much better.

 

That is really disappointing. I looked over the comparison between the current CA math standards and the CCS, and the CA standards are in general more rigorous. If Singapore is going to be discontinuing the Standards edition, I will need to purchase the entire set of the textbooks for my younger student before they go OOP and just use them as non-consumables.

[jennynd]

I don't really think we should worry about to align to common core. The fact is when you come out of SM program, you are way above in concept and problem solving. Any gap you miss, I quarantee you can make those up in couple weeks.

[Kathryn]

Sigh. It sounds like I need to buy three years of math now. Why do all the curriculum companies feel the need to pander to this Common Core crap?

[Arcadia]

. If Singapore is going to be discontinuing the Standards edition, I will need to purchase the entire set of the textbooks for my younger student before they go OOP and just use them as non-consumables.

 

Why do all the curriculum companies feel the need to pander to this Common Core crap?

 

 

I think it is because of the below that the Standards edition is the one being changed, The Standards edition probably need to change in time to be in the approved list of math textbooks for California.

"Assembly Bill 1246 (Chapter 668 of the Statutes of 2012), signed on September 27, 2012, authorized the State Board of Education to conduct a primary adoption of kindergarten through grade eight instructional materials in mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards. Assembly Bill 1246 will take effect on January 1, 2013" (bolded mine, link)

[acsnmama]

She did say she doesn't know if they will be discontinuing the standards edition, but she said that there is no telling, and that they will most likely be aligning levels 1-3 this year.

 

I don't want to align with the specific CCS. I like the way Singapore is now. I don't want to add or take out anything. I switched from the US Edition to Standards, but I haven't started Standards yet, and now I doubt I will. My son is sky-rocketing with his math skills, and he loves Singapore. I don't want to add or subtract anything! That's why I'm most bothered. I don't think he will miss anything in particular, but I love the way it is set up, I love the way it's learned (though it has stumped me before, since I didn't learn that way) he has just done great with it. Not to mention, it's not reason enough to switch to a different program, especially being the US Edition is going to be staying the same, and it has worked great so far. Even so, I know MM is comparable, but they too are aligning. I think it's all so ridiculous, though I guess it is to be expected when using a program that is beginning to be popular in the public schools. Singapore will benefit from it, IF this is the route of America's education system.

 

I would buy all years (though it'd break the bank), but my problem is, I have 3 children. I would need to purchase the workbooks too. Then what if I have more children? I guess that doesn't matter, and to get down to detail, that may be over thinking the whole idea on my part. As long as US Edition doesn't go anywhere, I guess that's ok. At this point, I'll continue on with the US Edition, and I'll play by ear I guess. I won't need to buy more math until the end of the year, so by then, we should know one way or the other.

 

The other thing that bothers me, is the lack of knowing WHEN these things will take place. It seems there is so much uncertainty in all of this, and it confuses me. I see the "alignment" chart on their website, and it's dated 2008, so I had hope that the information there was accurate and there wouldn't be a particular need to change anything.

[Arcadia]

I got an email from Jenny regarding this. She said that there will be some topics taken out of the Standards Edition, and some topics added. The ones that will be added, are few, like line plots. However, she did say that there would be some things removed that don't align with CCS.

 

 

That is in conflict with Jenny's response in the forum

" For example, Common Core Standards do not include 3-digit numbers in grade 3, Primary Mathematics does, and that will remain. However, Common Core Standards require line plots and measuring to the nearest quarter inch and half inch, so that will be included. Therefore, the series will remain advanced compared to US standards."

[Kathryn]

I use them with dry erase markers, so I don't need to worry about buying extras for other kids. I have IP, CWP, and the Standards HIG, textbook, and workbook through grade three. So, it sounds like years 4-6 aren't changing this year? Like someone else said, my son is doing very well with the current program and I don't want to change that up halfway through. I guess I'll be on the lookout.

[Crimson Wife]

I think it is because of the below that the Standards edition is the one being changed, The Standards edition probably need to change in time to be in the approved list of math textbooks for California.

"Assembly Bill 1246 (Chapter 668 of the Statutes of 2012), signed on September 27, 2012, authorized the State Board of Education to conduct a primary adoption of kindergarten through grade eight instructional materials in mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards. Assembly Bill 1246 will take effect on January 1, 2013" (bolded mine, link)

 

 

Why can't they just add in the handful of topics where CCS is a bit ahead of the current CA standards and then leave the rest alone? They don't need to dumb the books down in all the places where the SE is ahead of CCS. :thumbdown:

[nmoira]

I got an email from Jenny regarding this. She said that there will be some topics taken out of the Standards Edition, and some topics added. The ones that will be added, are few, like line plots. However, she did say that there would be some things removed that don't align with CCS.

 

I just don't know how I feel about this AT ALL. This is frustrating to me. I like it as is. Only thing to do is to stick with the US Edition I guess. I do like the mental math pages in the US Edition, better than those that are added in the Std's. However, the HIG is much better.

 

 

Without knowing more, there's not much point in speculating. There was a fuss here when topics were being added for the Standards edition (relative to the US) and now there's a fuss because a few topics are being added and a few removed from the Standards in the development of the Core editions. But which topics? If the topics being removed were ones added to the Standards edition, they wouldn't have been in the US edition anyway.

[acsnmama]

 

That is in conflict with Jenny's response in the forum

" For example, Common Core Standards do not include 3-digit numbers in grade 3, Primary Mathematics does, and that will remain. However, Common Core Standards require line plots and measuring to the nearest quarter inch and half inch, so that will be included. Therefore, the series will remain advanced compared to US standards."

 

 

I realized that too!! I'm so confused, here is my email to her:

 

 

 

 

 

"Hi,

 

I was wondering if there are going to be changes to the Singapore Primary Math levels for common core? If so, what types of changes??

 

I just purchased the Standards edition, for the better HIG, but I'm disappointed to know that the curriculum will be changing, and is making me re-think going back to the US Edition, as I don't want even more topics added. When is this change going to take place?"

 

Jenny's Response:

 

We do not have a fixed time frame.

Actually, there will be less topics, particularly in grades 4 and 5. Any topics that were added to the US edition for CA standards that are not needed for Core standards are removed. So, for example, there will be no negative numbers at grade 4 and 5, only grade 6 as dictated by core standards. The original did not have negative numbers at all in 1-6. Core standards do not call for probability before grade 7, those topics will be removed, they are not in the original edition.

 

So it will essentially be US edition with topics for Core Standards added. Thus it will in some areas still be in advance of US standards (since it is in advance of Core standards) but core standards will be met (such as line plots at all grade levels practically).

 

So the basic underlying material will still be the original.

 

Jenny

 

[Crimson Wife]

Hmm, guess I will just have to stock up on the SE for grades 4 & 5 (I skipped 6 with my oldest and just moved straight to DM). I like having an advanced S&S.

[Mama2two]

This is very frustrating! Looks I am also going to have to stock up. I also like the more advanced scope and sequence

 

Sigh, I was hoping they would make their CCS edition separate and leave the Standards alone.

[boscopup]

This is very frustrating! Looks I am also going to have to stock up. I also like the more advanced scope and sequence

 

Sigh, I was hoping they would make their CCS edition separate and leave the Standards alone.

 

 

They said they don't know if they're discontinuing the Standards or not. So I wouldn't rush out and buy everything now necessarily. When they make a decision, then we can rush out and buy things if needed. ;)

 

I definitely want to stick with the original Standards 4 and 5. I like having negative numbers in those grades. My kids learn negative numbers at age 5, so they don't need to wait until prealgebra timeframe to learn them. :tongue_smilie:

[Crimson Wife]

 

They said they don't know if they're discontinuing the Standards or not. So I wouldn't rush out and buy everything now necessarily. When they make a decision, then we can rush out and buy things if needed. ;)

 

 

My DS is currently in 3B, so I probably will just go ahead and purchase all of the 4A-5B textboos & use them as non-consumables rather than as consumable worktexts. We aren't using the workbooks and I can get the HIG's from our charter lending library so it wouldn't be all that expensive to get the 4 at once.

[boscopup]

 

My DS is currently in 3B, so I probably will just go ahead and purchase all of the 4A-5B textboos & use them as non-consumables rather than as consumable worktexts. We aren't using the workbooks and I can get the HIG's from our charter lending library so it wouldn't be all that expensive to get the 4 at once.

 

 

I just have to buy workbooks. We don't consume the textbooks (I do them orally, or the practice parts are done on paper), and we do CWP at the white board. I haven't really been using IP, but I still have them, most of them undone. :D I just need to buy the grade 3 set of TBs/HIGs also.

 

And there is always the chance that my youngest might do Beast Academy, since I think grades 4 and 5 would be out before he needed them, so he could theoretically do grades 3-5 in BA and then hop into AoPS (and as independent as he is... I can totally see him jumping at the chance to do math himself :lol: ). But I suppose unused Standards Edition workbooks would sell well to those who didn't buy them up soon enough. ;)

[Mama2two]

 

They said they don't know if they're discontinuing the Standards or not. So I wouldn't rush out and buy everything now necessarily. When they make a decision, then we can rush out and buy things if needed. ;)

 

I definitely want to stick with the original Standards 4 and 5. I like having negative numbers in those grades. My kids learn negative numbers at age 5, so they don't need to wait until prealgebra timeframe to learn them. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

So, you think there chance they will make a separate Common Core Edition and keep the Standards edition? I thought I was reading that they were changing the Standards to align with the Common Core?

[Mama2two]

 

I just have to buy workbooks. We don't consume the textbooks (I do them orally, or the practice parts are done on paper), and we do CWP at the white board. I haven't really been using IP, but I still have them, most of them undone. :D I just need to buy the grade 3 set of TBs/HIGs also.

 

And there is always the chance that my youngest might do Beast Academy, since I think grades 4 and 5 would be out before he needed them, so he could theoretically do grades 3-5 in BA and then hop into AoPS (and as independent as he is... I can totally see him jumping at the chance to do math himself :lol: ). But I suppose unused Standards Edition workbooks would sell well to those who didn't buy them up soon enough. ;)

 

 

I also would only need to buy the workbooks.

 

I don't think the CWP or IP should be changing though?

[chepyl]

My son also figured out negative numbers 5....he is looking forward to that. I really just need to buy levels 5 and 6 now, plus the workbooks for two more kids. I guess, if we have a.4th, I will be making copies....

 

 

 

 

They said they don't know if they're discontinuing the Standards or not. So I wouldn't rush out and buy everything now necessarily. When they make a decision, then we can rush out and buy things if needed. ;)

 

I definitely want to stick with the original Standards 4 and 5. I like having negative numbers in those grades. My kids learn negative numbers at age 5, so they don't need to wait until prealgebra timeframe to learn them. :tongue_smilie:

[chepyl]

What are the line plots they will be adding?

[acsnmama]

I'm not sure what "line plots" I googled and found some, maybe like graphing? Or just basic number lines? I don't know.

 

I'm trying to rack my brain about how I could use them without having to do the whole dry-erase thing. I guess write the answers in a separate notebook?? It would be a bit of a pain. I do like them being able to just use the workbook as is. Oh, how I wish these were available for download now!! A PDF file would save us all from uncertainty!!

[acsnmama]

 

My DS is currently in 3B, so I probably will just go ahead and purchase all of the 4A-5B textboos & use them as non-consumables rather than as consumable worktexts. We aren't using the workbooks and I can get the HIG's from our charter lending library so it wouldn't be all that expensive to get the 4 at once.

 

 

Have you ever used the workbooks??

 

I'm nervous about ditching the workbooks, I think the workbooks are really good. Though with the changes, I might entertain that idea, and buy all the levels I need.

[nmoira]

Have you ever used the workbooks??

 

I'm nervous about ditching the workbooks, I think the workbooks are really good. Though with the changes, I might entertain that idea, and buy all the levels I need.

 

 

I used the IP books in lieu of the workbooks, along with CWP, with my eldest, but I wouldn't recommend this approach for any but very bright students.

[Crimson Wife]

 

Have you ever used the workbooks??

 

I'm nervous about ditching the workbooks, I think the workbooks are really good. Though with the changes, I might entertain that idea, and buy all the levels I need.

 

 

No, we use the textbooks + IP + CWP.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Have you ever used the workbooks??

 

I'm nervous about ditching the workbooks, I think the workbooks are really good. Though with the changes, I might entertain that idea, and buy all the levels I need.

 

 

You should be nervous. It is a terrible idea.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

You should be nervous. It is a terrible idea.

 

Bill

 

Depends on the student. For mine personally, I'd rather use the single-topic "blue" Math Mammoth worktexts in the handful of PM chapters where my kids need additional grade-level practice than spend tons of money on workbooks that are 80+% useless. The 4 MM blue worktexts I use (Multiplication 2, Division 2, Fractions 1, and Fractions 2) cost a grand total of $18 plus ink & paper. To get the 5 SM workbooks from 3A-5A would cost $62. The MM also have the advantage of a more incremental teaching approach without the "conceptual leaps" of Singapore. The SM workbooks don't have any additional teaching in them, just a bunch of practice problems.

[Mama2two]

 

 

Depends on the student. For mine personally, I'd rather use the single-topic "blue" Math Mammoth worktexts in the handful of PM chapters where my kids need additional grade-level practice than spend tons of money on workbooks that are 80+% useless. The 4 MM blue worktexts I use (Multiplication 2, Division 2, Fractions 1, and Fractions 2) cost a grand total of $18 plus ink & paper. To get the 5 SM workbooks from 3A-5A would cost $62. The MM also have the advantage of a more incremental teaching approach without the "conceptual leaps" of Singapore. The SM workbooks don't have any additional teaching in them, just a bunch of practice problems.

 

 

I can see why MM would be good extra practice, but why do you thimk thw workbooks are worthless?

 

Do you then try and line uo IP and CWP with what you are doing in the textbook?

 

I'm curious b/c we tend to do the opposite. We tend not to use the text-book unless it is something one of the kids are stuck on

 

[boscopup]

I think the workbooks are useful as a confidence building completely independent practice of the concept learned. We use the textbook together (orally) to teach the topic (me holding the HIG and discussing what's in there), then the child does the workbook completely on his own to get basic practice. Is it easy? YES! That's a good thing when learning a new topic. Then we go back and use CWP for the challenge aspect. If we were using IP, that would also be used for challenge. We do CWP together at the white board. I have the IPs and used to use them with MM, but I haven't felt a need to use them since switching to Singapore. And since I'm using the Standards Edition, some topics aren't even in the IP, and I want my kids to have practice on the topics learned.

[Arcadia]

So, for example, there will be no negative numbers at grade 4 and 5, only grade 6 as dictated by core standards. ..... Core standards do not call for probability before grade 7, those topics will be removed, they are not in the original edition.

 

Not happy with these being removed. My younger has finished 4B and I had bought up to 6B for him. Still I am annoyed, and thinking whether to buy DM7 for my older.

 

I didn't use the workbooks for SM4 to SM6. I have a stockpile of math enrichment for my boys to practise on.

[NittanyJen]

DS9 is in 5A... Still have not noticed any of these conceptual leaps I keep seeing mentioned. Singapore seems very incremental and organized.

 

Skipping the workbook could work, but I would do it when subbing in the IP book instead for a bright student; I wouldn't just skip workbook entirely. MM is an excellent program, but its teaching style and problem approach is different enough that I would either tend to use it as a supplement to Singapore or instead of Singapore, but it could be a bit of a mental clash to use it instead of just the workbook-- the pages reteach everything, and in a different way; the Singapore workbooks are for giving the student independent practice of what you already taught him, so the two don't serve the same purpose. Yes, MM is cheaper than Singapore.

 

I agree that it is disappointing to see topics removed. Many kids can already easily cover 2--2.5 "years" per year or more, so adding material should not really be a timing problem, even for public school use. I get (dislike, but get) publishers pandering to the CC, if they quit dumbing things down by removing topics. Being CC compliant is just about market share if your materials are used in schools. Too bad so many districts and publishers misinterpret the cc to be limitations instead of minimum standards.

 

Maybe we need to campaign for "Homeschool Editions" with much higher standards than the school materials?

 

 

[chepyl]

I also don't see any conceptual leaps in SM,but keep hearing it mentioned (and I don't use the HIG). We do the text together, not even all of the problems, just enough for him to get the concept. Then he goes to another room to do the workbook alone. I check his work once a week and we redo missed problems amd assign more problems as needed.

 

Do the conceptual "leaps"come from only partially using the program? I don't use the HIGs, but I am very comfortable with the style of SM and good with manipulatives and real life applications.

[Crimson Wife]

I can see why MM would be good extra practice, but why do you thimk thw workbooks are worthless?

 

Do you then try and line uo IP and CWP with what you are doing in the textbook?

 

I'm curious b/c we tend to do the opposite. We tend not to use the text-book unless it is something one of the kids are stuck on

 

 

The textbook is where the teaching is. The workbook is merely practice. I don't want to skip the conceptual teaching part because that is the whole point to me in using an Asian math program.

 

I take my kids through the chapter in the textbook, then they do the corresponding units in CWP and IP. Most of the time they do not need any additional grade-level practice by the time they finish the textbook, hence the workbook would be unnecessary "busywork". It's hard enough to get them to finish the problems in the textbook practices because they grumble about them being "boring" and "easy-peasy". I'd have a mutiny on my hands if I tried requiring them to complete the workbook as well. For certain topics (1 or 2 chapters per book in 3A-5A on the tricky topics), I take them through MM first and then use the SM textbook as additional practice before using CWP & IP.

[Crimson Wife]

I also don't see any conceptual leaps in SM,but keep hearing it mentioned (and I don't use the HIG). We do the text together, not even all of the problems, just enough for him to get the concept. Then he goes to another room to do the workbook alone. I check his work once a week and we redo missed problems amd assign more problems as needed.

 

Do the conceptual "leaps"come from only partially using the program? I don't use the HIGs, but I am very comfortable with the style of SM and good with manipulatives and real life applications.

 

 

What level are you at and which edition do you use? I haven't noticed any leaps in 1A-2B. I did notice them in 3A & up. Additionally, the U.S. ed. was worse than the SE for this (one of the reasons I switched).

 

The workbooks do not have any additional teaching, so skipping them is NOT the reason why I notice "leaps".

[Mama2two]

 

The textbook is where the teaching is. The workbook is merely practice. I don't want to skip the conceptual teaching part because that is the whole point to me in using an Asian math program.

 

I take my kids through the chapter in the textbook, then they do the corresponding units in CWP and IP. Most of the time they do not need any additional grade-level practice by the time they finish the textbook, hence the workbook would be unnecessary "busywork". It's hard enough to get them to finish the problems in the textbook practices because they grumble about them being "boring" and "easy-peasy". I'd have a mutiny on my hands if I tried requiring them to complete the workbook as well. For certain topics (1 or 2 chapters per book in 3A-5A on the tricky topics), I take them through MM first and then use the SM textbook as additional practice before using CWP & IP.

 

 

make sense, and I also use the textbook for teaching new concepts. I just use the workbook rather than the textbook for the practice problems

[chepyl]

We are in 4a SE. We do the lessons andbpractices orally in the text and he does the work book alone. They only place we struggled was at long division and it was only because he hates to write and long division requires a lot of writing.

 

 

 

What level are you at and which edition do you use? I haven't noticed any leaps in 1A-2B. I did notice them in 3A & up. Additionally, the U.S. ed. was worse than the SE for this (one of the reasons I switched).

 

The workbooks do not have any additional teaching, so skipping them is NOT the reason why I notice "leaps".

 

[Crimson Wife]

DS9 is in 5A... Still have not noticed any of these conceptual leaps I keep seeing mentioned. Singapore seems very incremental and organized.

 

Skipping the workbook could work, but I would do it when subbing in the IP book instead for a bright student; I wouldn't just skip workbook entirely. MM is an excellent program, but its teaching style and problem approach is different enough that I would either tend to use it as a supplement to Singapore or instead of Singapore, but it could be a bit of a mental clash to use it instead of just the workbook-- the pages reteach everything, and in a different way; the Singapore workbooks are for giving the student independent practice of what you already taught him, so the two don't serve the same purpose.

 

I don't see any fundamental differences between the MM way of teaching math and the SM way. The biggest difference is that MM is much more incremental and takes the student through all the in-between steps rather than leaping from point A to point E and expecting the student to be able to follow along. If your kid is "mathy", then the incremental approach of MM would probably seem like Chinese water torture. But if you've got a kid who completely freaks out when he/she comes to something that he/she hasn't been explicitly taught how to do, then MM is much better. It's the same reason why I'm not using AOPS with her now that she's in secondary math- she's quick to catch on when taught something but temperamentally she is ill-suited for the "discovery" approach.