Reassurance about CLE Math?

[Wonder]

I was just reading the thread regarding mental math supplementation for CLE math. Reading the post by 'ondreeuh' has made me feel a bit uneasy about CLE math. Can others share their experiences with the program - good or bad? And HOW do you KNOW it's a good math program? (or bad)

 

I recently switched my third grader to CLE from Saxon (although we went "backward" to 300). So far, CLE is going better than Saxon 3. I was planning on working through some of 300 over the summer and eventually get caught up to "grade level." I was also planning to add in some Singapore Challenging Word Problems at some point. I thought this would be enough?

 

Thanks for any input!

[mrs.m]

Keep in mind that CLE is a popular curriculum. It will have people that love it and hate it and both will "loudly" express their opinions and experiences. Generally the negative experiences are enough to make one doubt their choice and panic that their math future is doomed. (it isn't!) There is also the traditional vs. conceptual math debate and CLE gets dinged for leaning more toward the traditional side. Maybe that is the case, but it "works" for enough families that don't find the more conceptual math programs to be a good fit. It wasn't for us.

 

Our experience with CLE has been great. My kids score high on standardized tests which to me is a good way to know that we are on the right track. Well, that, and we are making progress each year without much need to go back and review. Another way I know is by using placement tests for other programs. My son placed two grade levels above for TT and could skip a grade level if we moved to Saxon.

 

It's true that CLE doesn't teach things like Singapore and other more conceptual mathematics, i.e. the scope and sequence are very different, the concepts are still there in CLE but you cannot let the kids do the lessons on their own which I believe is tempting because it is sooooo easy to do and the curriculum is marketed as such too. Kids will only teach themselves the steps because they may not be able to grasp the greater concept which takes some maturity to identify and then emphasize. CLE is incremental also which means that the conceptual part may have been taught in an earlier grade and isn't always retaught when it is brought up again a later grade. When the concept (rarely) falls out of their head, I will hit Khan Academy or I will purchase a unit from Math Mammoth.

 

And, not every curriculum works for every kid. Sometimes it just doesn't work for the parent. So, if you start noticing a lack in understanding or a lot of missed problems in an area, it is time to review and maybe even try teaching the concept using a different curriculum. It might even be time to just switch curriculum.

 

So, yes, your plan is enough. Go with your plan and don't read the forums about math because someone will always be around to say CLE didn't work. I can say Singapore was a bust for us. That doesn't make it a bad program. It just means it didn't work for us.

[MolleenCarie]

I switched my two oldest to CLE Math this January, and so far they are thriving. DD is a Perfect Paula and enjoys the predictability and filling in the speed drill chart. They both needed the review.

 

I like that it gets done. They can check their own work if needed.

 

From using many different approaches over the years, I have learned how to teach math and can now make most anything work in our homeschool. I have used the following with my kids: the My Father's World approach for K and 1st, A Beka 2nd, Singapore 1st-3rd, Ray's 1st & 3rd, Math Mammoth 2nd & 4th, Beast Academy 3A, and Math-U-See Gamma and Delta. I also have read but not formally used the Miquon books.

 

Many people recommend picking something and sticking with it, which is good advice, but I would also add that the teacher can learn other ways to approach the subject and pass that on to the student.

[mhaddon]

Why we are switching is because my son has been struggling so much. He told me after switching the colorful pages hurt his eyes and distract him. If a curriculum isn't working for a child, then how good is it? Find something that works and make sure you are teaching, not just giving busy work.

[LBoogie]

Well, I don't know the future outcome, but in one month time, my daughter went from crying at math (MM) to saying, "Math is so fun!"

 

I'm sold.

[travelgirlut]

I'm the original poster from the other thread, and while I am looking for a supplement for CLE, I still think it is a great program for my daughter. She scores in the 90th percentile on testing, so I know she's learning the things she needs. It's a very thorough program, though sometimes that's hard to see since it's so incremental. It's the exact style of learning my daughter needed and it has been perfect for her. But I have to say, my son would hate it! So keep in mind it won't be perfect for everyone, but I think it is great on its own. I'm just wanting to push her a bit more. :)

[I.Dup.]

We switched from Singapore to CLE because Singapore just didn't work for us. Sure it was all mental math, but there were very few explanations and the conceptual leaps were just too high for my oldest to make. She needs things spelled out and to have plenty of practice so she remembers how to do it, and CLE provides all of that. There are mental problems, it's just not the entire curriculum. I feel confident that she is solid with mental math, even though mental math does not come naturally to her at ALL, like it does for my son. CLE enabled her to learn that, not Singapore.

 

We will be sticking with CLE through middle school, we are very pleased with it. She went from being very insecure with math and behind, to being right on target and able to do it almost completely independently.

[dereksurfs]

We switched from Singapore to CLE because Singapore just didn't work for us. Sure it was all mental math, but there were very few explanations and the conceptual leaps were just too high for my oldest to make. She needs things spelled out and to have plenty of practice so she remembers how to do it, and CLE provides all of that. There are mental problems, it's just not the entire curriculum. I feel confident that she is solid with mental math, even though mental math does not come naturally to her at ALL, like it does for my son. CLE enabled her to learn that, not Singapore.

 

We will be sticking with CLE through middle school, we are very pleased with it. She went from being very insecure with math and behind, to being right on target and able to do it almost completely independently.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Tailoring a program to the child is really what is key. More widely known conceptual programs work better for some children than others. We started all our kids with MUS. But it was a disaster for our two dds. They were not retaining the concepts and were hating math. So we switched them to CLE and its made a huge difference. We had to go back first. But now they have moved ahead and gained a sense of confidence and accomplishment they never had before.

 

I would say if you are still concerned with learning more concepts its perfectly fine to supplement as needed.

[ondreeuh]

I am the one who said it was not good for my son. I agree that CLE is easy for kids to do fairly independently and is easy to get done. But just look at other math programs and compare the problems that are asked. Not only is MIF way deeper, but even Math Connects requires much more reasoning. You can download the Math Expressions workbooks for free. The area and perimeter questions were much more complicatd than anything my son saw in CLE.

 

My kid didn't do well on standardized testing after using CLE. He scored lower in math than reading (and he's very dyslexic!) and felt he bombed the state benchmark test. Haven't gotten that scor back yet, but he said it was mostly story problems.

 

If you have a kid who can take what they learn in CLE and extend it on their own to more complex problems, then you might be fine. But I wouldn't just assume because your kid likes CLE and scores well on CLE's own tsts that he is developing mathematical reasoning skills.

[MorningGlory]

CLE has been a blessing to us. After using CLE for 4 years, my younger son went from low 60% math achievement test scores to high 90th percentiles for two years running. It has worked well for him. He *needs* the constant review in math (and grammar...this same kid excels with Hake grammar).

 

CLE would have made my older son put his head through the wall. :) He did better with a traditional mastery approach (BJU). So again...one of the beauties of homeschooling is being able to match a kid with a curriculum. I'm sure my daughter will require a 3rd math program! lol!

[mhaddon]

If story problems are a weakness you can always add in Evan Moor or Singapore word books for practice in that area. The best part of testing is that it shows us homeschool parents the ares we need to improve in. Every child will do differently with the same program.

[Wonder]

Thanks for sharing your experiences, everyone. So far, my DD is doing very well with CLE, but most at this point is still review for her (but has given her good practice). I only got 300 through 303, so I'll see how those books go before ordering more. Thanks to those who mentioned the need to teach the lessons. I guess I thought that, as children progress, there isn't as much need for that, but it seems it wouldn't take very long to teach anyway (compared to Saxon3). We aren't required to do state testing, but I'm interested in doing that "just to see." I have no idea how to go about that, though. Ondreeuh, I'll look into the Math Connects resources you mentioned. :) Thanks!

 

Also, has anyone used CLE math at the 1st grade level? And what was your experience?

[Wonder]

Ondreeuh, I went to Math Connects online, set up an account, and can't find where there are free materials.

[ondreeuh]

ACK - sorry, Math Expressions. Go here: http://www.iusd.org/student_resources/mathematics.html

 

The first thing I saw when previewing it was that the grade 5 book asked for kids to find the area and perimeter of irregular shapes. The child has to see that it is composed of smaller rectangles, and he can add up the area of the small rectangles to find the complete area. CLE 500 just has kids find the area of rectangles and triangles. Math Expressions takes it further. It's like that through the book - and there are pages of story problems throughout. Now, this is just the practice book so I can't say how the concepts are actually taught. But if he truly understood the concepts taught in CLE, he should be able to do this activity book.

[thowell]

So can someone give a comparison on CLE and BJU? My dd9 has been using CLE since the beginning. She just finished CLE 300 and while it is going good, she is very bored with it. I was looking at BJU but when i pulled up the TOC alot of the 4th grade looked like review.

[Mommy22alyns]

CLE has worked very well here. I've used 2-400 with Rebecca and 1-200 with Sylvia. Rebecca has tested very highly into TT and Saxon. She also is good at math now and has no more tears. I add in Singapore CWP for Rebecca and also HOE. She's had no problems transferring her knowledge outside of the curriculum. Sylvia has also had nothing but positive experiences.

[Wonder]

CLE has worked very well here. I've used 2-400 with Rebecca and 1-200 with Sylvia. Rebecca has tested very highly into TT and Saxon. She also is good at math now and has no more tears. I add in Singapore CWP for Rebecca and also HOE. She's had no problems transferring her knowledge outside of the curriculum. Sylvia has also had nothing but positive experiences.

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but what is HOE?

[Spy Car]

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but what is HOE?

 

 

Hands On Equations. It is a manipulative based program designed to introduce basic algebra (linear equations and word problems) to young people. The lower levels now come as both physical manipulatives and (as of recently) iPad apps.

 

Bill

 

[Wonder]

Hands On Equations. It is a manipulative based program designed to introduce basic algebra (linear equations and word problems) to young people. The lower levels now come as both physical manipulatives and (as of recently) iPad apps.

 

Bill

 

 

Just had a brief look at HOE at Rainbow Resource. Which particular materials are generally recommended?

[Spy Car]

 

 

Just had a brief look at HOE at Rainbow Resource. Which particular materials are generally recommended?

 

 

We only have the three iPad apps. I never ordered the physical materials as they seemed pricey for what you get. I am not 100% sure about differences.

 

I know there is a "verbal problems" book that many say is the meat of HOE. That is not in the "apps." I'm not sure if the basic level is exactly the same as the apps, or not.

 

There are also DVDs for the printed version. I have read conflicting opinions of whether people found them necessary, but they are pricey too. The iPad apps have little demos, and then children do more of the same.

 

I wish I would be of more help, but my direct experience is limited to the apps.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

ETA: two more resources for introducing algebra that are really good at the Primary Grade Challenge Math book by Ed Zaccaro, and the DragonBox apps (5+ and 12+).

 

The Zaccarro book contains several chapters on basic algebra (done in an easy to understand way) and covers other "complex topics" made simple for kids. It is a great book for extending mathematical thinking.

 

Bill

[Wonder]

We only have the three iPad apps. I never ordered the physical materials af they seemed pricey for what you get. I am not 100% sure about differences.

 

 

I don't have an iPad unfortunately. After looking at some other threads, I get the idea that you personally aren't a big fan of CLE math. I don't know what experience you have as far as trying different math programs, etc. But I was wondering...what might you recommend for a 3rd grader (going into 4th next year)/ this was 1st year homeschooling/ Saxon 3 didn't go well after a while/ Doing better with CLE 302 right now

[Spy Car]

 

 

I don't have an iPad unfortunately. After looking at some other threads, I get the idea that you personally aren't a big fan of CLE math. I don't know what experience you have as far as trying different math programs, etc. But I was wondering...what might you recommend for a 3rd grader (going into 4th next year)/ this was 1st year homeschooling/ Saxon 3 didn't go well after a while/ Doing better with CLE 302 right now

 

 

What are your goals? What is your child like?

 

Bill

[Wonder]

What are your goals? What is your child like?

 

Bill

 

 

I guess my goals are for my DD to learn math well and enjoy it. :) She loved math at public school, but they played a lot of games and didn't necessarily do a math worksheet everyday. They did do Rocket Math, which she liked, but now at home she doesn't always enjoy speed drills. Up until now, I thought she was a more "mathy" kid than "language/reading." She has always scored higher on math than reading/lang. I also have two upcoming 1st graders next year. So I want to use something that will work well for them as well. I thought CLE with some supplements would work well. I like how the drills (at least in 300) are scheduled each day. With Saxon3, my DD hated the worsheet paper (low quality tan that tore easily)...and she was just bored with it, although I tried my hardest to make it fun. Starting out went well, but as time went on she started hating math time. Having her re-write problems on a separate paper (how Saxon 5/4 would be) would be complete drudgery for her. She also gets overwhelmed if the pages are "too busy." CLE is nice in that way as the content is well spaced out on the page.

[Spy Car]

 

 

I guess my goals are for my DD to learn math well and enjoy it. :)

 

Forgive me for being annoying (:D), but we would need to further parse this answer. Because what people consider "math" and "learning it well" can have very dramatically different understandings.

 

Have you read the Liping Ma book? If not, you might consider seeing if your library has a copy, or if there is a cheap used copy of the old edition on Amazon. In her book Ma draws sharp contrasts between different sorts of math education. One, roughly speaking, being the procedurally-oriented approach common in the USA (that primarily emphasizes "how" to solve arithematic problems in elementary school) vs approaches that taught for depth of mathematical understanding (including the revelent laws of mathematics) behind mathematical operations in addition to developing procedural competence. Her examples make the differences pretty clear.

 

In addition, some people (such as myself) see "math" as an opportunity to promote inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and creative problem solving can make "math" a highly interesting subject for the students, where endless arthematic sheets or drill done "procedurally" can be pretty darn boring.

 

I happen to be believe that giving children appropriate mental challenges (tests of their logic and reasoning skills) helps build better brains. It also keeps the interest high, and gives them a reason for getting better at the more prosaic basic level math skills they need to solve challenging problems.

 

She loved math at public school, but they played a lot of games and didn't necessarily do a math worksheet everyday. They did do Rocket Math, which she liked, but now at home she doesn't always enjoy speed drills. Up until now, I thought she was a more "mathy" kid than "language/reading." She has always scored higher on math than reading/lang. I also have two upcoming 1st graders next year. So I want to use something that will work well for them as well. I thought CLE with some supplements would work well. I like how the drills (at least in 300) are scheduled each day. With Saxon3, my DD hated the worsheet paper (low quality tan that tore easily)...and she was just bored with it, although I tried my hardest to make it fun. Starting out went well, but as time went on she started hating math time. Having her re-write problems on a separate paper (how Saxon 5/4 would be) would be complete drudgery for her. She also gets overwhelmed if the pages are "too busy." CLE is nice in that way as the content is well spaced out on the page.

 

I have not used CLE. I did spend significant about of time looking at every problem at every level in the extensive previews on-line. As you say, the lay-out looked "clean" and uncluttered. But I didn't see any problems that were challenging. The approach seems like the one-step highly procedural sort of arthematic that I, personally, am not enamoured. It makes people mad when I say so. I have not used CLE, it has lots of fans.

 

I want something different that what I've seen in the Light Units (or in Saxon math, which sufferers similar deficiencies from my POV). I like math that makes the kid's brains crackle. Programs that teach for depth of understanding. Ones that promote inductive reasoning and creative problem solving. And that are fun and efficient.

 

There are a number of math programs that aim more in this direction. Each has it's own strengths and personalities. Some I know first-hand, and some only by reputation.

 

Reading Liping Ma would be a good start. If the alternative she describes seems like rubbish to you, then finding a "traditional" math program that fits your style (or sticking with CLE) might make sense. If reading the book crystallizes a gut-feeling you have that someting is not quite right about the "traditional approach" there are a number of really good options available to you.

 

Bill

[TracyP]

I have not used CLE. I did spend significant about of time looking at every problem at every level in the extensive previews on-line. As you say, the lay-out looked "clean" and uncluttered. But I didn't see any problems that were challenging. The approach seems like the one-step highly procedural sort of arthematic that I, personally, am not enamoured. It makes people mad when I say so. I have not used CLE, it has lots of fans.

Bill

 

 

I have used CLE from the 100's - 500's (I just bought the 600's for my dd, so have looked through those a bit as well. I find Bill's assessment to be correct. Compared to MM or SM, CLE is not as conceptual or challenging. That doesn't mean that kids using CLE in elementary school won't be accepted into college. It is just something to be aware of. As others said, you need to teach the lessons and it is definitely a good idea to add in something like CWP.

 

For us, CLE makes a great base from which we can add some deeper, more conceptual, fun stuff. My dd knows arithmetic in and out and has a great deal of confidence because of CLE. It is this that allows her to tackle the other stuff with excitement, when she used to just melt into a puddle whenever math got a tad bit hard. We started with Singapore, and it was a disaster. I am taking a different approach with my ds, because he is a very different kiddo w/ different strengths and weaknesses.

 

Good luck with your own dc, OP.

[Wonder]

Thank you, SpyCar, for your honest assessment. The things you've brought up (along with other math commentary I've read recently) DO cause me to want to delve deeper into the world of "math" possibilities. As I have had some health issues myself, especially related to stress, I don't want to stress too much about doing "the right/wrong thing." I also don't know that I'm ready to dive into a math curriculum that would be difficult for me to understand/incorporate. At this point, I do think something like CLE with supplements might be the "better" way for our family as a whole. But I will continue to re-evaluate as we go along. And, who knows, I may even change my mind before I finally decide on something and order it. :) Thank you for your thorough input!

[Mom0012]

Love CLE here. I just received my kids' standardized test results (they take the test through the local school system). My dd scored in the 94th percentile overall, and in the 98th for problem solving. What brought her score down was her lack of exposure to probabilities at this point. CLE does not hit on this until the 800 LUs. My son scored very similarly.

 

I think Singapore is great for some kids, but it was not a good fit for mine. I'm sure that Singapore is a stand alone program for many, but others use another full program alongside it as well. I do like the CWP as a supplement.

 

My son is in the 800 series and will finish that. He has also just started trying out TabletClass to see where we will go once he is done with CLE.

 

My dd is switching to Saxon next year. She is going from CLE 600 to Saxon 8/7 because I wanted her to move onto something that would take her all the way through high school and this seems to be a good transition point. I could see her reviewing over the summers with something like TabletClass just for a different perspective.

[profmom]

Forgive me for being annoying ( :D), but we would need to further parse this answer. Because what people consider "math" and "learning it well" can have very dramatically different understandings.

 

Have you read the Liping Ma book? If not, you might consider seeing if your library has a copy, or if there is a cheap used copy of the old edition on Amazon. In her book Ma draws sharp contrasts between different sorts of math education. One, roughly speaking, being the procedurally-oriented approach common in the USA (that primarily emphasizes "how" to solve arithematic problems in elementary school) vs approaches that taught for depth of mathematical understanding (including the revelent laws of mathematics) behind mathematical operations in addition to developing procedural competence. Her examples make the differences pretty clear.

 

In addition, some people (such as myself) see "math" as an opportunity to promote inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and creative problem solving can make "math" a highly interesting subject for the students, where endless arthematic sheets or drill done "procedurally" can be pretty darn boring.

 

I happen to be believe that giving children appropriate mental challenges (tests of their logic and reasoning skills) helps build better brains. It also keeps the interest high, and gives them a reason for getting better at the more prosaic basic level math skills they need to solve challenging problems.

 

 

 

I have not used CLE. I did spend significant about of time looking at every problem at every level in the extensive previews on-line. As you say, the lay-out looked "clean" and uncluttered. But I didn't see any problems that were challenging. The approach seems like the one-step highly procedural sort of arthematic that I, personally, am not enamoured. It makes people mad when I say so. I have not used CLE, it has lots of fans.

 

I want something different that what I've seen in the Light Units (or in Saxon math, which sufferers similar deficiencies from my POV). I like math that makes the kid's brains crackle. Programs that teach for depth of understanding. Ones that promote inductive reasoning and creative problem solving. And that are fun and efficient.

 

There are a number of math programs that aim more in this direction. Each has it's own strengths and personalities. Some I know first-hand, and some only by reputation.

 

Reading Liping Ma would be a good start. If the alternative she describes seems like rubbish to you, then finding a "traditional" math program that fits your style (or sticking with CLE) might make sense. If reading the book crystallizes a gut-feeling you have that someting is not quite right about the "traditional approach" there are a number of really good options available to you.

 

Bill

 

 

Bill, is there a curriculum that combines built-in review with more conceptual teaching? Not all of my kids can handle a mastery approach for long-term retention, so CLE has worked well for them. Also, what would you have done with a child who could not make the conceptual leaps in Singapore math? We tried to make it work for a couple of years before switching this one to CLE, where he thrived. (We used SM PM 1-6 with a sibling.)

[jer2911mom]

:lurk5:

[Mommy22alyns]

 

Bill, is there a curriculum that combines built-in review with more conceptual teaching? Not all of my kids can handle a mastery approach for long-term retention, so CLE has worked well for them. Also, what would you have done with a child who could not make the conceptual leaps in Singapore math? We tried to make it work for a couple of years before switching this one to CLE, where he thrived. (We used SM PM 1-6 with a sibling.)

 

 

 

Not Bill, but if CLE is working for them, I wouldn't go roaming around and trying every other math program. It really is okay to NOT use Singapore. It's not going to work for all kids. CLE is NOT an inferior curriculum. I tried Singapore and it didn't work here either. CLE was a breath of fresh air. I add in some other things to make it well-rounded and Rebecca is doing extremely well. If your child doesn't fit in the Singapore box, don't force it.

[Five More Minutes]

 

Bill, is there a curriculum that combines built-in review with more conceptual teaching? Not all of my kids can handle a mastery approach for long-term retention, so CLE has worked well for them. Also, what would you have done with a child who could not make the conceptual leaps in Singapore math? We tried to make it work for a couple of years before switching this one to CLE, where he thrived. (We used SM PM 1-6 with a sibling.)

 

 

Not Bill, but MEP is conceptual while being more spiral in approach.

 

I've heard of some using Math Mammoth with students who find they need more explicit, step-by-step instruction.

[AimeeM]

 

Not Bill, but MEP is conceptual while being more spiral in approach.

 

I've heard of some using Math Mammoth with students who find they need more explicit, step-by-step instruction.

 

I have a child inherently good with math but due to learning differences (dyslexia/working memory problems) also needs a spiral approach.

I would NOT say that Math Mammoth provides enough review, without much more work from the parent to provide it, for a child needing a spiral approach.

[Five More Minutes]

I have a child inherently good with math but due to learning differences (dyslexia/working memory problems) also needs a spiral approach.

I would NOT say that Math Mammoth provides enough review, without much more work from the parent to provide it, for a child needing a spiral approach.

 

I agree with you.

 

I had read (possibly incorrectly) profmom's post as containing two separate questions: one about a conceptual program that was spiral (in which case MEP came to mind); and the other about a program that was more incremental than Singapore (which Math Mammoth seems to be).

 

But agreed that, unless you find a way to review units, Math Mammoth does not have the same amount of continual review that a spiral program would have. And if it is a child who would benefit from both a spiral and an incremental approach, then Math Mammoth won't work without the parent doing some extra work. Hmmm ... I wonder if MEP would?

[Spy Car]

 

 

Bill, is there a curriculum that combines built-in review with more conceptual teaching? Not all of my kids can handle a mastery approach for long-term retention, so CLE has worked well for them. Also, what would you have done with a child who could not make the conceptual leaps in Singapore math? We tried to make it work for a couple of years before switching this one to CLE, where he thrived. (We used SM PM 1-6 with a sibling.)

 

 

I am Bill, but have been negligent about responding.

 

I dn't know that I have "an answer" other than sometimes a hybrid of resources (especially ones that further parent re-education) may be what is necessary.

 

Part of what I like about the Standards Edition of Primary Mathematics is the greater built-in review. I don't know if you used it or the UE Edition, but there is a good deal more review in the SE. Then if one adds the Intensive Practice one gets more review at increased challenge, and then there are the Extra Practice practice books (which we have not used) that give more basic level practice/review.

 

You ask about what I would do with a child who could make the conceptual leaps in PM. I guess I don't have a child like that; however, we did (do) introductory work using concrete methods (such as work with Cuisenaire Rods, etc) using Miquon or Miquon-like methods to try to make sure there was no "leap" in terms of understanding the concepts. I do like having some " thinking leaps" or work that takes some mental work to solve, but also feel like it important to make sure the child understands what they are doing.

 

Currently we are working on basic algebra, using things like the Zaccaro books, DragonBox, Hands on Equations, and things like that.

 

I'm not sure this is a great answer. I just think sometimes it takes a parent/teache to figure out what their child knows (and doesn't know) an then maybe figuring out how to make the thing they are struggling with comprehensible. And that might be different for different people.

 

Bill