I read that TT is "missing key concepts", what am I missing?

[PentecostalMom]

I have read in the past that teaching Textbooks was and is frequently used a grade ahead, but I have never seen that it is "missing key concepts" until today. Note, I did not read this here, I read it where some others were "helping" someone choose math curriculum. I have never used it, but dh and I looked it over and our plans are to switch dd7 over to a MUS/TT combo as soon as she has completed Horizons 1.

 

What do you think? Obviously, I am most concerned about the lower levels at this point, but we hope to use it all the way through. I have look at the TOC for 3rd and I don't see anything amiss.

[Jennay]

What key concepts is it supposedly missing?

[mytwomonkeys]

I had heard that it was behind as well, but we still decided to use it at grade level because I wanted the review. Although it is definitely behind CLE (which was our previous curriculum), it is not behind our public schools. My kids are studying FCAT material throughout the summer (our standardized public school test) and there is nothing on it that we have not covered in Teaching Textbooks. So in my opinion, it isn't really "missing" much.

[ByGrace3]

I have read that it is not very "deep" meaning it teaches a concept and it is only surface deep. I have read it does not prepare you for higher level math.

 

I know it is a touchy subject and TT is a gift for some families that have tried everything and this is the ONLY way to do math for them. But for me, I have heard way too many things about it, -- 2 years behind, not deep enough, missing key concepts -- from MANY sources, that I wouldn't try it unless it was a last resort for my child. But my goals may be different than someone else's, and I can accept that. ;)

[PentecostalMom]

What key concepts is it supposedly missing?

 

I have no idea. When I read I see "others have said", etc. No one quotes a specific source. I have read reviews on (what I think are) reputable sites including Cathy Duffy, Home Educating Family, and the like. I don't see details like it is missing A, B, C. Just that it is lacking. That is what I want to know. What is it lacking? How is it lacking? I know there are people that have posted here in the WTM forums about great test scores (not that that is my only concern) and great success at the college level having used TT, then I see others say it's "behind", "lacking concepts", etc. Where is this coming from?

 

I have read that it is not very "deep" meaning it teaches a concept and it is only surface deep. I have read it does not prepare you for higher level math.

 

I know it is a touchy subject and TT is a gift for some families that have tried everything and this is the ONLY way to do math for them. But for me, I have heard way too many things about it, -- 2 years behind, not deep enough, missing key concepts -- from MANY sources, that I wouldn't try it unless it was a last resort for my child. But my goals may be different than someone else's, and I can accept that. ;)

 

I don't think it is a "touchy subject" just that different people use different curricula for different reasons. Personally, I am not all that gung-ho about a complete mastery curriculum and have heard negative things about every curriculum on the market. I have not read that TT is two years behind, only that some are able to use it a year ahead, but not everyone does that. I still am trying to figure out what key concepts it is missing. I compared the TT3 TOC with Abeka's Scope & Sequence for 2nd and 3rd grade. There is some overlap there, meaning that TT3 has some of Abeka's 2nd grade concepts, but I don't see anything missing. I haven't compared the higher levels.

 

There are other "newer" curricula on the market that that I choose not to use based on the fact that there is no proven track record. I don't take opinions into account (not that this is you specifically) of people that read about things and have never tried them. However, there are things I refuse to try because I don't want my dc to be a guinea pig for the next biggest, hottest, thing.

 

One example, I saw something that I was interested in on the Classifieds. It was an older version so I emailed the creator of this curriculum and asked about the older version as compared to the newer one. She replied that she "couldn't recall" the differences and "wasn't sure" what was offered less than five years ago. That made me turn down the purchase. If the creator of the curriculum does not remember what happened with the thing she created, I certainly do not want to be the one to figure it out.

[wapiti]

Ditto what ByGrace3 said. I don't remember reading about "missing" concepts as much as a sequence shifted behind in terms of the grade levels, though my caution would be that sequence is a separate consideration from depth of instruction on concepts. TT has a reputation of being on the more shallow end for concept instruction and challenge practice. There's a long, old thread discussing some of the pros and cons, particularly at the higher levels, here.

 

Like a lot of math programs, TT may provide one or more pieces that you're looking for, though you may wish to add in other pieces from other sources to round out your student's math education. (Examples of different types of pieces: type of concept instruction, type of procedure instruction, organization of instruction, amount and timing of regular practice, more challenging practice, amount and timing of review.)

[msjones]

My husband teaches high school math. He teaches the 9th graders algebra, and he teaches the upper-grade math-y kids AP Calculus.

He is a math-y guy.

 

He likes Teaching Textbooks and we are using Pre-Algebra and Math 7. He thinks it teaches the concepts very thoroughly. He thinks that every curriculum is missing something. And he strongly believes that an 'advanced' program is hardly worth it if your child hates it.

 

If your child is longing for constructivist math or math with interesting and challenging 'rabbit trails' then TT might not be your best pick.

 

But, if you want your child to have a solid instruction in routine math, TT might be for you.

 

In my opinion, a major strength of TT is that as soon as you miss a problem, you are able to view the solution. The kids can watch the solution again and again, refer to the text, re-watch the lecture. It has taught my kids to work through a problem and lesson with some confidence.

 

I'm sure TT has its problems, like any curriculum.

 

And, I'd say, be careful of high-horse-y folks telling you how lame a curriculum is when, probably, they haven't even used it.

[Mom in High Heels]

What msjones said. We love TT at our house and Indy has a firm grasp on the concepts for a non-mathy kid. There are some things he doesn't understand, but then I step in and help and it's no problem. The best curriculum is the one that gets completed and that the kids don't moan every time it comes out. I'm not a big math person, so TT has been great. There aren't a LOAD of "complicated" word problems, so we do 1 a day from the Saxon math WP workbook. I don't even know how to do half those problems! Thank goodness there are answers with explanations in the back. Like msjones said, one good thing about TT is that the student can look at the solution right away if they get it wrong. They get 2 (IIRC) chances to try the problem, then if they get it wrong, the solution can be seen.

[TXMary2]

I don't think TT is "behind" - whatever that means. I don't see anything missing. The only reason I can surmise why people say it is "behind" is that the problems when introducing new concepts, aren't "difficult" - aka they don't have big numbers. I think it brilliantly introduces hard concepts, but gently. For example, the word problems - a difficult word problem for 3rd grade has several steps, but it uses simple/smaller numbers. If the numbers were big and the concept hard, how is that confidence building? I think TT is great at building math confidence while still introducing concepts that prepare for upper level math. My .02

[boscopup]

Does it really matter what's missing (if anything), since you plan to use it with MUS? Won't MUS fill any perceived holes?

[PentecostalMom]

I'm sure TT has its problems, like any curriculum.

 

And, I'd say, be careful of high-horse-y folks telling you how lame a curriculum is when, probably, they haven't even used it.

 

I completely agree with the above, thanks for your input.

 

There aren't a LOAD of "complicated" word problems, so we do 1 a day from the Saxon math WP workbook.

 

What is the Saxon WP workbook? I used Saxon for middle and up and I don't recall this, but then again, I wasn't looking for anything extra.

 

Does it really matter what's missing (if anything), since you plan to use it with MUS? Won't MUS fill any perceived holes?

 

I don't know. I have never used either of these programs. My husband is an engineer and loves the look of MUS. I have a couple of other friends that are engineers also and swear by MUS. I know that my 7yo dd is doing her work cheerfully because that is what she was taught to do. However, I also know that she is more visual and "gets" things better when she sees it as with MUS and TT. Dh wants to find something we can use long term, to avoid switching (as much as possible). I also know that curriculum hopping leads to gaps. MUS is a complete mastery program which is not a bad thing in itself, but we move quite a bit due to dh's work and if we are in a state that requires testing, I don't want to have to deal with that whole drama if she tests poorly because she hasn't learned something, hence the combining on the two

[ByGrace3]

 

 

I have no idea. When I read I see "others have said", etc. No one quotes a specific source. I have read reviews on (what I think are) reputable sites including Cathy Duffy, Home Educating Family, and the like. I don't see details like it is missing A, B, C. Just that it is lacking. That is what I want to know. What is it lacking? How is it lacking? I know there are people that have posted here in the WTM forums about great test scores (not that that is my only concern) and great success at the college level having used TT, then I see others say it's "behind", "lacking concepts", etc. Where is this coming from?

 

 

 

I don't think it is a "touchy subject" just that different people use different curricula for different reasons. Personally, I am not all that gung-ho about a complete mastery curriculum and have heard negative things about every curriculum on the market. I have not read that TT is two years behind, only that some are able to use it a year ahead, but not everyone does that. I still am trying to figure out what key concepts it is missing. I compared the TT3 TOC with Abeka's Scope & Sequence for 2nd and 3rd grade. There is some overlap there, meaning that TT3 has some of Abeka's 2nd grade concepts, but I don't see anything missing. I haven't compared the higher levels.

 

There are other "newer" curricula on the market that that I choose not to use based on the fact that there is no proven track record. I don't take opinions into account (not that this is you specifically) of people that read about things and have never tried them. However, there are things I refuse to try because I don't want my dc to be a guinea pig for the next biggest, hottest, thing.

 

One example, I saw something that I was interested in on the Classifieds. It was an older version so I emailed the creator of this curriculum and asked about the older version as compared to the newer one. She replied that she "couldn't recall" the differences and "wasn't sure" what was offered less than five years ago. That made me turn down the purchase. If the creator of the curriculum does not remember what happened with the thing she created, I certainly do not want to be the one to figure it out.

 

It may not be touchy to you, but it has gotten heated discussions here on the boards, and I have been witness to heated discussions of homeschool moms. I don't get involved in those. ;)

 

I don't have to try it/use it to have an educated opinion on it. We don't have to try everything to have an idea of whether it is or is to what we are looking for.

 

A local classical school used to use TT, last year ALL of their seniors did horribly on standardized tests after a few years with TT. They all had been doing just fine a few tears before with Saxon. The school switched back to Saxon.

 

I have no doubt that some students do well with TT. Some kids are math intuitive and will get it no matter how you present it. Some kids will not go on to higher level math at all.

 

My point is, while there are people who have had success with it, there are MORE people who have not.

 

If TT works for you and meets yours need, go for it. Other people's experiences don't really matter then, it works for you. Great.

 

If it not being deep enough or missing key concepts is important to you, enough people have made those claims that I would be very cautious.

 

We look at reviews for a reason. I agree I wish someone who has used it and found it lacking would be gracious enough to detail their findings... Maybe they have... And someone could find it and link it here. :) I have a hard time believing ALL those people who say it and have switched from TT are making it up.,..who wouldn't want a mostly independent easy to use math curriculum that grades itself and teaches conceptually?!? :)

 

 

I also agree that MUS would probably cover anything missing if you used them together...fwiw

[shinyhappypeople]

 

MUS is a complete mastery program which is not a bad thing in itself, but we move quite a bit due to dh's work and if we are in a state that requires testing, I don't want to have to deal with that whole drama if she tests poorly because she hasn't learned something, hence the combining on the two

 

 

You know, another (much, much cheaper) option is to use MUS in conjunction with something like Learn Math Fast or even Kitchen Table Math.

 

I don't have a bone to pick with TT (DD is doing well with it at the moment), but it's pretty expensive if you're using it as a supplement. Plus, it has 20+ questions after every lesson. Combining that with MUS... wow, that's A LOT of math for a little kid.

 

Anyway, you know your DD best. Just thought I'd toss in a few other options :)

[TracyP]

I have not used it, but I did look at the placement tests at one point. My two oldest both placed 2 grade levels higher in TT than they did in the year they were in with CLE, ymmv. As to missing concepts, I have heard that as well. I'm not sure what they are/were but I believe that has been fixed in the newest version.

[Crimson Wife]

Our virtual charter will only give Algebra 1 credit after the student finishes TT Algebra 2. To get Algebra 2 credit, the student has to finish TT Pre-Calculus. So there are definitely missing topics in the Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 levels compared to the CA standards for those courses.

[PentecostalMom]

Our virtual charter will only give Algebra 1 credit after the student finishes TT Algebra 2. To get Algebra 2 credit, the student has to finish TT Pre-Calculus. So there are definitely missing topics in the Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 levels compared to the CA standards for those courses.

 

 

Are the concepts "missing" or just taught later? To me, these are separate things. I understand what you are saying and that is possibly part of the reason that many use TT a year ahead. I am not trying to get into an argument with anyone, I am simply trying to make sure I understand what I am getting into should I choose to make this investment. If concepts are truly missing, that is something different altogether than taught later than Saxon (or another curriculum).

 

Thanks for your input. :)

[Crimson Wife]

Are the concepts "missing" or just taught later? To me, these are separate things. I understand what you are saying and that is possibly part of the reason that many use TT a year ahead. I am not trying to get into an argument with anyone, I am simply trying to make sure I understand what I am getting into should I choose to make this investment. If concepts are truly missing, that is something different altogether than taught later than Saxon (or another curriculum).

 

Thanks for your input. :)

 

They are missing from the course labeled Algebra 1 or 2 but are taught in the Algebra 2 or Pre-Calc course. So TT Algebra 1 + 2 = a standard Algebra 1 and TT Algebra 2 + Pre-Calc = a standard Algebra 2. This is not necessarily a problem, but it is something for parents to be aware of, particularly if their student might want to do dual-enrollment at a community college. A student who had finished TT Algebra 2 could not go straight away into CC Pre-Calc but would need to finish out Intermediate Algebra.

 

ETA: This is my understanding based on what I have read in my charter's handbook. My kids are doing Singapore so I have no personal experience with TT's secondary math courses.

[hsmom2011]

n/m

[NASDAQ]

It depends on the standards where you are.

 

California is going to be the toughest state. I think TT would be a year behind those standards.

[CatholicMom]

To the OP: What you're saying about hearing a lot of negative reviews about the mysterious "gaps" and "missing concepts" that TT has, but not being able to find out what they are is exactly why I'm skeptical that they really exist in any significant way. Sometimes I wonder if parents encounter a program that is well thought out and teaches a subject in such a way that it's "easy" for most kids to grasp, and in turn they conclude it's not "rigorous" enough. Not saying that's always the case, of course, but sometimes I wonder if it plays in.

 

My husband teaches high school math. He teaches the 9th graders algebra, and he teaches the upper-grade math-y kids AP Calculus.

He is a math-y guy. (snip...) And he strongly believes that an 'advanced' program is hardly worth it if your child hates it. (snip...)

 

And, I'd say, be careful of high-horse-y folks telling you how lame a curriculum is when, probably, they haven't even used it.

 

 

Zactly.

 

And "high-horse-y folks" made me lol. :lol:

 

It may not be touchy to you, but it has gotten heated discussions here on the boards, and I have been witness to heated discussions of homeschool moms. I don't get involved in those. ;)

 

I don't have to try it/use it to have an educated opinion on it. We don't have to try everything to have an idea of whether it is or is to what we are looking for.

 

A local classical school used to use TT, last year ALL of their seniors did horribly on standardized tests after a few years with TT. They all had been doing just fine a few tears before with Saxon. The school switched back to Saxon.

 

I have no doubt that some students do well with TT. Some kids are math intuitive and will get it no matter how you present it. Some kids will not go on to higher level math at all.

 

My point is, while there are people who have had success with it, there are MORE people who have not.

 

 

I don't know about that. That's a pretty bold claim.

 

Also, there could be other reasons than the TT curriculum itself for those particular students doing poorly on their exams after switching to TT. One reason I can think of is if a teacher got a bit too excited about the kids working independently and wasn't diligent about making sure they were getting high scores on each lesson. You could technically have your kid "use TT" and bomb every lesson, or start having a hard time and since it's a spiral program, they could gradually do worse and worse on each lesson and then they have a very poor understanding of the concepts by the end of the level. That's user error, IMO. I make sure my kids get at least a 90% on each lesson and if they don't, I go in and delete all the missed problems and they re-do them (and I may have to watch the lecture with them and help them understand the part they didn't get the first time) until they can get a 90% on each lesson. That doesn't take much effort for us at all, BUT if you don't do it and turn the kids completely loose, I can totally see it ending in epic failure, but it wouldn't be the fault of TT, IMO. I don't see how a student can possibly end up having a really hard time with math if they are getting an A on each individual lesson. That would just be bizarre.

 

Another reason those kids might have done poorly that would have nothing primarily to do with TT is if the school was using a standardized test that covered material that TT doesn't cover until the next level. TT was not even developed for public schools. It was specifically developed for homeschoolers. So if a public school tests on material that they didn't even cover in their math class that year because they chose to use that particular level of TT, that means nothing to me. (Note: No wonder a lot of homeschool curriculum providers refuse to attach a number to their levels.) The obvious answer is to test on the material you expect your students to know.

 

Who knows what the explanation is, but I'm just pointing out that there are definitely other possible reasons for that failure than "they used Teaching Textbooks."

 

Just sayin.

 

Are the concepts "missing" or just taught later? To me, these are separate things. I understand what you are saying and that is possibly part of the reason that many use TT a year ahead. I am not trying to get into an argument with anyone, I am simply trying to make sure I understand what I am getting into should I choose to make this investment. If concepts are truly missing, that is something different altogether than taught later than Saxon (or another curriculum).

 

Thanks for your input. :)

 

 

I agree. Unless they clarify, you never know if someone who claims "missing concepts" or "behind" is actually just expressing the fact that the sequence isn't the same as another curriculum, not that the concepts are never covered. If that's the case, usually it's a "So what?" for me.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you find some actual missing concepts (not just a difference in order of presentation) that someone can name. With another subject I'd understand that it might be hard to nail down, but with math it would seem someone should be able to name exactly what it is missing.

 

TT has been a great blessing to my family and my kids seem to be doing well. (We are using TT3 and TT4 with my 3rd and 4th graders.)

 

As far as "surface level" versus in depth, I think that's another area where TT has a LOT to offer, but it's up to you to make sure it is utilized. What other curriculum allows you to see a blow-by-blow solution to EVERY problem as it is worked out? In upper levels I can imagine that it would be a life-safer to not only have an answer key but, instead of trying the problem over and over and lamenting "but how did they get that?", you can literally watch every solution being worked out with explanation. That is an incredible resource, IMO. I don't know of any other math curriculum that offers that. But it's up to you to make sure it gets used if your child needs it.

 

We are using TT3 and TT4 this year with my 3rd and 4th graders and I'm no math expert, but I don't see anything that is obviously missing at all. In fact, I think it also covers the "fringe math subjects" that often get overlooked (time, dates, measurements, reading a scale on a map) more thoroughly than some other math programs do. My kids are doing well and I'm soooo glad we tried it.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

The upper level first version books were behind. They have since upgraded (v2.0) and I see nothing behind nor does anybody else I know. Teaching Textbooks is awesome. My kids do AMAZING with testing and understanding of math using it.

[PeterPan]

Are the concepts "missing" or just taught later? To me, these are separate things. I understand what you are saying and that is possibly part of the reason that many use TT a year ahead. I am not trying to get into an argument with anyone, I am simply trying to make sure I understand what I am getting into should I choose to make this investment. If concepts are truly missing, that is something different altogether than taught later than Saxon (or another curriculum).

 

Thanks for your input. :)

 

As another person said, because this has gotten so hot in the past, people are reluctant to post. Look at my thread. I'm very pro-TT. I've used a couple levels now, and it has been WONDERFUL for my dd. I don't use it ALONE, and I don't use it BLINDLY.

 

Yes, it's missing things (challenging problems, etc.), and yes standards are changing. The BJU math right now is exceptional in the new editions. They've done what some people characterize as a grade level jump in the newest editions, but it's not really. It's that they did a *conceptual* grade level jump. They get to MUCH harder problems and scenarios that TT never gets to. No, the BJU and TT algebra 1 are not equivalent, not on any level. BJU upgraded/updated so you can use their curriculum ANYWHERE and test well.

 

I'm kind of confused why you're going with your dh's opinion on the math. He's an engineer; my dh is an engineer. There are a number of math curricula out there that do an exceptional job of teaching conceptually at the elementary level. I used RS with dd and plan to use it again with ds. I don't know if I'll need to supplement and get the spiral in for him. I may have to, and yes in that case TT is awesome. I went to BJU after RS, and that was a good move. That's my generic plan, not being there yet. (conceptual program plus TT for spiral, definitely with sessions with me doing manipulatives with him and making sure he's thinking, no matter what) At this point Beast Academy (only saw for a few minutes at the convention, but wow) and BJU (new edition) have some of the strongest math on the market. Singapore is fine, but I still have my CWP books from dd's go-round.

 

Anyways, my concern with pairing MUS with TT is that I'm not sure you're getting that next level of thinking. What ability level of dc do we have here? I totally agree with you that kids need hands-on math until they no longer need the manips and that visualization of the math is vital. Totally with you. It's just that if you pair a non-standard progression that focuses on one thing and doesn't hit all the things a standardized test will cover AND a program that is generally on the weak side and CAN result in poor test scores with some students (students who don't infer readily/naturally and apply those concepts to the harder problems they see on the tests), you could REALLY get in hot water on tests.

 

So go by your gut and make sure you do testing to make sure you're happy with your progress. Like I said, we LOVE TT in our house, but we don't love it blindly. We do test, every single year, and I do supplement with BJU to make sure her conceptual understanding is where I want it. If you're going to combine things, think through what is the manipulative part, what is the spiral part, what is your conceptual/stretch part. It's actually kinda hard to find one program that has *all 3* and some kids really do need all that. The explanations in TT for concepts fit well my dd who is sort of this right-brained, humanities person. Tell her the math in the context of a story, and she's all the way there. If I explain math (being a more mathy and linguistic person), it's NOTHING like the way she thinks. She has NO issues going into the C level problems of BJU for stuff she has covered in TT. It's covering the basics. You just have to supplement if you want to take it farther. And no, *I* wouldn't relegate a young dc's understanding solely to what they get on the computer. I'm with you that they need manipulatives, interaction, someone who asks them questions and really makes them think.