Saxon vs Singapore (or something else?)

[DesertBlossom]

As of 2 weeks ago I'm homeschooling my 7 (almost 8) year old. He's been bored in school and really needs to be moving through things faster. He loves math and his "number sense" is pretty incredible.

 

I had given him a Saxon placement test I found online and so we started in the Saxon 5/4 book. Last week I gave him the first 3 tests (without teaching anything) and he did really well on them. So this week we started on lessons 21-25, but I still feel like nothing is really new for him yet. I can see how the repetition of Saxon math is good to cement the concepts, but I'm having a hard time find a starting point for him in the book that isn't mostly review of stuff he already really understands.

 

I feel like we just need to jump ahead to multiplication and division. He does need to work on memorizing all of the multiplication facts, but he understands multiplication and can do most problems by skip counting in his head. Also, he can do simple double-digit multiplication like 20X30.

 

I've heard good things about Singapore math. Since we're just getting started, is it worth switching over?  Since he loves math I want something that is new and interesting to him. So far it's all been, "Mom, I already know this!"

[sbgrace]

I would use a more conceptual program, like Singapore or Miquon, with a child like that. Actually, I would try to use a conceptual math with any child!

 

But, yes, I would switch to Singapore or something similarly conceptual.

[DesertBlossom]

Thank you!

 

Is there a placement test for Singapore or Miquon? I found this online, but I'm still not sure where to start.

[mathwonk]

i found these free placement tests for singapore math:

 

http://www.singaporemath.com/Placement_Test_s/86.htm

[Crimson Wife]

He might really like Beast Academy from Art of Problem Solving: http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Store/beastacademy.php

[kbutton]

Thumbs up for Singapore here. You might want to check http://www.educationunboxed.com/ (free videos) for fun ways to practice facts and introduce concepts. If your son looks like he's going to fall in the middle of Singapore levels (our son landed between them), Singapore is flexible enough that you can go quickly through what he knows and spend more time on the things that he didn't master or wasn't exposed to previously. Be sure to consider the Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems books (usually harder than the text). We didn't end up needing the Extra Practice and regular workbooks (usually easier or same as text). We use the text, IP, and CWP. Our younger son uses Miquon, and we love it. I have no idea how to go about placing a child in the middle of it. It's inexpensive though, so you might just take an educated guess if you want to go that route.

[kiana]

Singapore's good.

 

If he likes math, I also highly recommend Math for Smarty Pants as a supplement. I love that book.

[La Texican]

I was just looking at Saxon because I'm going to homeschool my niece and my sister remembers liking Saxon math. I already bought the textbooks from the swap board for Singapore math for my kids. The Saxon homepage says their program "Math in Focus" is based on Singapore math. I told my sister I think that Saxon Math is spiral based, it teaches a little of sometging and gets back to it. Singapore math is mastery based. It teaches you something until you know it and then you move on. That's what I thought I've read on this forum. Now that I've looked at the homepage Saxon says it is now based on Singapore math.

 

My son has memorized a lot of his math facts using Bedtime Math word problems. I like it that way because it's kind of like drilling the math facts, but not really because the facts are becoming automatic from repeatedly applying arithmatic to solve word problems. Another thing I use is a free online game called SumDog. You can always try switching between those two to drill the facts, Khan academy to explain the "whys", and keep your Saxon Math for practice doing the paperwork of math, if you don't want to buy new books, but you don't want him to hate math. The variety helps when you know you only have to do a certain program a day or two a week and you get a day or two of SumDog games.

[sbgrace]

I was just looking at Saxon because I'm going to homeschool my niece and my sister remembers liking Saxon math. I already bought the textbooks from the swap board for Singapore math for my kids. The Saxon homepage says their program "Math in Focus" is based on Singapore math. I told my sister I think that Saxon Math is spiral based, it teaches a little of sometging and gets back to it. Singapore math is mastery based. It teaches you something until you know it and then you move on. That's what I thought I've read on this forum. Now that I've looked at the homepage Saxon says it is now based on Singapore math.

 

My son has memorized a lot of his math facts using Bedtime Math word problems. I like it that way because it's kind of like drilling the math facts, but not really because the facts are becoming automatic from repeatedly applying arithmatic to solve word problems. Another thing I use is a free online game called SumDog. You can always try switching between those two to drill the facts, Khan academy to explain the "whys", and keep your Saxon Math for practice doing the paperwork of math, if you don't want to buy new books, but you don't want him to hate math. The variety helps when you know you only have to do a certain program a day or two a week and you get a day or two of SumDog games.

 

Did you purchase math in focus or Saxon math? Math in Focus is published by Saxon, but it's a different approach than Saxon math. It is a Singapore math approach (so conceptual math) marketed to public schools. I use Math in Focus myself. I like it.

[kiana]

I was just looking at Saxon because I'm going to homeschool my niece and my sister remembers liking Saxon math. I already bought the textbooks from the swap board for Singapore math for my kids. The Saxon homepage says their program "Math in Focus" is based on Singapore math. I told my sister I think that Saxon Math is spiral based, it teaches a little of sometging and gets back to it. Singapore math is mastery based. It teaches you something until you know it and then you move on. That's what I thought I've read on this forum. Now that I've looked at the homepage Saxon says it is now based on Singapore math.

 

My son has memorized a lot of his math facts using Bedtime Math word problems. I like it that way because it's kind of like drilling the math facts, but not really because the facts are becoming automatic from repeatedly applying arithmatic to solve word problems. Another thing I use is a free online game called SumDog. You can always try switching between those two to drill the facts, Khan academy to explain the "whys", and keep your Saxon Math for practice doing the paperwork of math, if you don't want to buy new books, but you don't want him to hate math. The variety helps when you know you only have to do a certain program a day or two a week and you get a day or two of SumDog games.

 

Math in focus is not Saxon -- the Saxon math your sister remembers predates math in focus by a long while. I guess you're looking at Saxonhomeschool and they do sell both their original program and Math in Focus (MIF is a pretty decent program)

[DesertBlossom]

This all has been so helpful. DS7 just took the Singapore 2B test, and I assumed he'd get about 1/2 of it right  He did really well and only missed 3 problems and I know if I asked him to double check his work, he'd realize the simple mistake he made.  So I'm thinking we need to start at 3A.

 

What is the difference between all the books? (IP, CWP, etc) Some of what's in 3A looks like it'll be review for DS, but some of it I know he needs. So I don't  want to spend a lot of money on all the books if we're going to be skipping through some of it.

 

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

What is the difference between all the books? (IP, CWP, etc) Some of what's in 3A looks like it'll be review for DS, but some of it I know he needs. So I don't  want to spend a lot of money on all the books if we're going to be skipping through some of it.

FWIW Singapore 3B covers pretty much the same topics as 2B. You might want to consider using some of the Math Mammoth single-topic "blue" worktexts to cover the parts of Singapore 3A/B that he doesn't already know and then going directly into 4A.

 

For a bright child I would use at minimum the textbook, IP, and CWP. The workbook is easier than the textbook and quite a bit easier than the IP & CWP problems. Some kids need the additional practice and others don't.

[Spy Car]

This all has been so helpful. DS7 just took the Singapore 2B test, and I assumed he'd get about 1/2 of it right  He did really well and only missed 3 problems and I know if I asked him to double check his work, he'd realize the simple mistake he made.  So I'm thinking we need to start at 3A.

 

What is the difference between all the books? (IP, CWP, etc) Some of what's in 3A looks like it'll be review for DS, but some of it I know he needs. So I don't  want to spend a lot of money on all the books if we're going to be skipping through some of it.

The Textbook (as one would expect) is designed to be used with the parent/teacher working with the student. There are HIGs (home instructor guides) to help parents round out the Textbook lessons with ideas, activities, games. etc.

 

The Workbooks are designed for the students to work problems independently (or semi-independently in early years). this is when they show they know it (or don't, and one re-teaches).

 

The IPs (Intensive Practice) books are designed to provide an extra degree of challenge after the basic level work in the Workbooks has been mastered. They are not designed to replace the Workbooks, and people who advise this are IMO spreading (generally) bad advice.

 

The CWP (Challenging World Problem)books focus on using the Singapore bar-diagram method for solving word problems.

 

Bill

[kbutton]

The Textbook (as one would expect) is designed to be used with the parent/teacher working with the student. There are HIGs (home instructor guides) to help parents round out the Textbook lessons with ideas, activities, games. etc.

 

The Workbooks are designed for the students to work problems independently (or semi-independently in early years). this is when they show they know it (or don't, and one re-teaches).

 

The IPs (Intensive Practice) books are designed to provide an extra degree of challenge after the basic level work in the Workbooks has been mastered. They are not designed to replace the Workbooks, and people who advise this are IMO spreading (generally) bad advice.

 

The CWP (Challenging World Problem)books focus on using the Singapore bar-diagram method for solving word problems.

 

Bill

 

According to Shelagh Gallagher (credentials here: http://www.rfwp.com/pages/shelagh-gallagher/biography/), gifted kids (even moderately gifted kids) learn things 4 times faster than kids with an average IQ. In addition, she says that drill or review beyond 2-3 repetitions can actually cause gifted children to remember concepts incorrectly. This is not an absolute, but the point is that not all kids need the review in the workbook. If a child can do all the hardest problems in the TB without effort, asking them to do the workbook is cruel, in my experience. My math anxious Aspie has gained tremendous confidence and made large forward gains this year by using the IP instead of the workbook (he even uses it for some independent practice), and I am so glad that people on this board mentioned that strategy. Some kids are all-or-nothing learners that seem to do best when stretched to their max first rather than given incrementally harder work. No one is suggesting that every child skip the workbook for the IP.

[Spy Car]

According to Shelagh Gallagher (credentials here: http://www.rfwp.com/pages/shelagh-gallagher/biography/), gifted kids (even moderately gifted kids) learn things 4 times faster than kids with an average IQ. In addition, she says that drill or review beyond 2-3 repetitions can actually cause gifted children to remember concepts incorrectly. This is not an absolute, but the point is that not all kids need the review in the workbook. If a child can do all the hardest problems in the TB without effort, asking them to do the workbook is cruel, in my experience. My math anxious Aspie has gained tremendous confidence and made large forward gains this year by using the IP instead of the workbook (he even uses it for some independent practice), and I am so glad that people on this board mentioned that strategy. Some kids are all-or-nothing learners that seem to do best when stretched to their max first rather than given incrementally harder work. No one is suggesting that every child skip the workbook for the IP.

So if they can do all the Textbook work without breaking a sweat they are probably working way behind their level.

 

I still think it is a generally bad idea to skip the Workbooks—this is not how the program was designed to be used—even if some exceptional outlier children may exist.

 

Bill

[kbutton]

So if they can do all the Textbook work without breaking a sweat they are probably working way behind their level.

 

I still think it is a generally bad idea to skip the Workbooks—this is not how the program was designed to be used—even if some exceptional outlier children may exist.

 

Bill

 

Maybe moving up a level would work, but I am afraid he'd be missing topics--other than money, he's never used decimals. He also makes big mental leaps and then can't figure out how he got there or how to repeat the thought process. The IP seems to fill in the missing thought processes for him while the TB gives the basis for the concept but stops short of what he leaped over. I think the difference between the text and IP is exactly where he's at, but I say that knowing absolutely nothing about what the 5A/5B textbooks are like. I am now officially curious about what the 5A/5B textbooks are like.

 

This is the board for the exceptional outliers, if I am not mistaken. ;-) I would not have commented on your objection to the IP substitute if we were on a different board.

[Spy Car]

Maybe moving up a level would work, but I am afraid he'd be missing topics--other than money, he's never used decimals. He also makes big mental leaps and then can't figure out how he got there or how to repeat the thought process. The IP seems to fill in the missing thought processes for him while the TB gives the basis for the concept but stops short of what he leaped over. I think the difference between the text and IP is exactly where he's at, but I say that knowing absolutely nothing about what the 5A/5B textbooks are like. I am now officially curious about what the 5A/5B textbooks are like.

 

This is the board for the exceptional outliers, if I am not mistaken. ;-) I would not have commented on your objection to the IP substitute if we were on a different board.

A child would not necessarily need to skip material, so much as accelerate their work (by doing it faster, not skipping it).

 

If the work is so "easy" it should not be difficult to complete in a spritely manner so they can get to appropriately challenging work. And/or fly some harder stuff in from other sources as they accelerate through to provide some brain candy.

 

Bill

[DesertBlossom]

FWIW, today I ordered the textbook, HIG, IP and CWP.  I had a read a few other threads that suggested skipping the workbook as well. We'll see how it goes and I can always go back and order the WB if I feel he needs it. Once he catches on to a concept he instantly wants to go above and beyond that so I'm not worried, especially since I know some of the material in 3A he already understands well.

[kbutton]

A child would not necessarily need to skip material, so much as accelerate their work (by doing it faster, not skipping it).

 

If the work is so "easy" it should not be difficult to complete in a spritely manner so they can get to appropriately challenging work. And/or fly some harder stuff in from other sources as they accelerate through to provide some brain candy.

 

Bill

 

I think that would work for a lot of kids, and it's what we tried last year only to bog down in anxiety (I save the easy topics for meltdown days). I might have to take a look at the 5A/5B books though since I'll be getting them next year anyway. I know some kids do the IP one level behind the books they are in.

[Spy Car]

FWIW, today I ordered the textbook, HIG, IP and CWP. I had a read a few other threads that suggested skipping the workbook as well. We'll see how it goes and I can always go back and order the WB if I feel he needs it. Once he catches on to a concept he instantly wants to go above and beyond that so I'm not worried, especially since I know some of the material in 3A he already understands well.

It is not many "threads" that suggest this, it is one poster who repeats the suggestion in many threads. Big difference. It might take the onus off a generally bad bit of advice (to eliminating using a "core" portion of the program) if the strategy actually worked favorably for this poster (but such is not the case).

 

The same poster complains, constantly, that Primary Mathematics (one of the most methodical and carefully built programs you will ever encounter) is full of "conceptual leaps," and she suppliments PM by using Math Mammoth because she finds her daughter needs the incremental steps that she's missing by not doing the work in the Workbooks.

 

I hope this works for you, but I don't believe you've chosen a wise course.

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

It is not many "threads" that suggest this, it is one poster who repeats the suggestion in many threads. Big difference. It might take the onus off a generally bad bit of advice (to eliminating using a "core" portion of the program) if the strategy actually worked favorably for this poster (but such is not the case).

 

The same poster complains, constantly, that Primary Mathematics (one of the most methodical and carefully built programs you will ever encounter) is full of "conceptual leaps," and she suppliments PM by using Math Mammoth because she finds her daughter needs the incremental steps that she's missing by not doing the work in the Workbooks.

 

I hope this works for you, but I don't believe you've chosen a wise course.

 

Bill

Show where the workbook contains additional TEACHING rather than just additional exercises, and I'll gladly concede you were right. The problem I have with Singapore is not that there is a lack of practice problems (which obviously is easy to solve via adding the workbook and EP) but rather that the TEACHING is not incremental enough. The HIG's help somewhat but what frustrates the heck out of Singapore is when they jump from point A to point E without first taking the child through the intermediate points B-D like a program such as Math Mammoth does. If the workbook taught the intermediate steps then you'd be right that skipping them would lead to leaps. But the workbook doesn't have the additional teaching. SM just assumes that either the child can follow along or that the teacher has the conceptual understanding to help him/her bridge the gaps (which is probably the case for Singaporean teachers but most Americans like me experienced very procedural math instruction themselves).

[Alte Veste Academy]

A child would not necessarily need to skip material, so much as accelerate their work (by doing it faster, not skipping it).If the work is so "easy" it should not be difficult to complete in a spritely manner so they can get to appropriately challenging work. And/or fly some harder stuff in from other sources as they accelerate through to provide some brain candy.Bill

Although some gifted children are compliant "pleasers" who might cheerfully speed through (what to them is) busywork in a "spritely manner" just to check the box, many (more?) need challenge and balk at what is too easy. Their brains just plain disengage. Attempting to force these kids into mindlessly completing entire workbooks of math is to practically beg for behavioral challenges. Making kids do easy work so they can get to the "appropriately challenging work" is ironic at best and just plain mean at worst. For some kids, the "brain candy" needs to be the main course.

 

I think of how you always talk about FLL, criticizing how the definition of a noun is repeated over and over. You talk about how artful MCTLA is and how MCT respects that a child can get a concept without endless, mindless repetition. I agree! But the same is absolutely true for some kids with math. As you know, some people have lots of success with FLL and love it. It doesn't mean their kids are automatons; it just means their kids have different needs. For some kids, the SM workbook is to math what FLL is to grammar. Maybe your son needs the workbook and/or maybe you are just blessed that he doesn't completely shut down when faced with the monotony of math that he already gets (or that he assumed he invented himself, he understands it so well, LOL), but I assure you that some kids do not need the workbook. In fact, before I let go of my type-A need to make my oldest do the workbook, he would say (loudly, to anyone who would listen!) how much he hated math. Instead, I adjusted for his needs, to great benefit for both of us.

 

It is not many "threads" that suggest this, it is one poster who repeats the suggestion in many threads. Big difference. It might take the onus off a generally bad bit of advice (to eliminating using a "core" portion of the program) if the strategy actually worked favorably for this poster (but such is not the case).

 

The same poster complains, constantly, that Primary Mathematics (one of the most methodical and carefully built programs you will ever encounter) is full of "conceptual leaps," and she suppliments PM by using Math Mammoth because she finds her daughter needs the incremental steps that she's missing by not doing the work in the Workbooks.

Nah, I have said it before many times as well. And I know other people have besides CW. Is it a great idea for every child? No. In fact, two of my children do not do the workbook and one does. I have learned to judge for each child what is the best course, the biggest benefit of homeschooling. Is it generally bad advice? For the general child, maybe. But, you know, I don't see this advice given in every SM thread. It is something that has worked out really well here, but I don't go onto every SM thread and recommend it to everyone (and neither does CW, for that matter). On the contrary, I prefer to stay quiet about our math path, precisely because it doesn't fit every child. But in cases that sound reminiscent of my own experience, I offer my thoughts with the hope that it might help someone, just as you do. My advice is not better. Your advice is not better. We all just give advice based on our personal experiences with our own kid(s), so it is all valid and worthy of consideration. It gets exhausting to know that whenever we offer that advice/experience, we are going to be insulted as offering bad advice.

 

Really, I find the whole thing silly though. It is not rocket science, kid ruining kind of stuff. If a child can solve the problems in the TB/IP/CWP, that child has grasped the concepts just fine. If a child struggles with those problems, then working through the WB is obviously going to be a good idea.

 

Also, while my kids have not struggled with conceptual leaps in SM, I will say that when I purchased and supplemented with MM years ago, it was obvious to me that the MM instruction was significantly more incremental than that on SM. So, for some kids, not having that level of step-by-step detail might make a kid (or parent/instructor) feel like a leap was made. Not your experience, great. Not mine either. In fact, oldest DS disliked MM because he felt he was being spoon fed the learning, leaving little room for puzzling anything out. Different kids, different needs, different experiences, all valid.

[Spy Car]

Show where the workbook contains additional TEACHING rather than just additional exercises, and I'll gladly concede you were right.

Children learn (and internalize concepts) by applying lessons they have been taught by using the skills in practice. This is the oldest pedagological model in existence. You flout the basics and ignore the way the program was designed to work and then you complain about there being "leaps" as a result. Then you adive people to follow a path that has not worked for you. I can not fathom this course.

 

The problem I have with Singapore is not that there is a lack of practice problems (which obviously is easy to solve via adding the workbook and EP) but rather that the TEACHING is not incremental enough. The HIG's help somewhat but what frustrates the heck out of Singapore is when they jump from point A to point E without first taking the child through the intermediate points B-D like a program such as Math Mammoth does.

Primary Mathematics is an extremely methodical program. If it not incremental enough for your child, why use it when you think MM is a better fit? And why advise people to leave out one of the vital and incremental parts of PM when that strategy has not worked for you? My mind boggles.

 

 

If the workbook taught the intermediate steps then you'd be right that skipping them would lead to leaps. But the workbook doesn't have the additional teaching.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are stuck on the word "teaching" when you should focus on "learning." The students "learn" to use the skills they ought to be introduced to with the aid of a teacher/parent (in the Textbooks) in an independent (or semi-independent in younger years) way by doing the Workbook exercises. This is the expectation of sequence. You are willfully skipping a core sequence and complaining when you don't like the result. Then—to make matters worse–you are constantly advising the unsuspecting to follow a course that has not lead to success for you.

 

 

SM just assumes that either the child can follow along or that the teacher has the conceptual understanding to help him/her bridge the gaps (which is probably the case for Singaporean teachers but most Americans like me experienced very procedural math instruction themselves).

Primary Mathematics was written for use by highly trained teachers in Singapore. That is true. A parent is well advised to spend time doing self-study into the Singapore method is he or she hope to have the best success teaching it well (and not falling back on "old habits" of American-style math). The HIGs help with that, but there are additional resources as well.

 

A parent might find MM (because it is written to the student) an easier program to implement if they (the parent) does not want to fully invest themselves in the background math education outside the main workbook, I don't know, I don't use MM. If that's the case, no problem. But having a good teacher is pretty critical to success in math. I hear Maria Miller does a good job of "being the teacher) in MM. In our math program being the teacher is my role.

 

Chosing a math program based on the realities of ones life (and ones child's needs) makes sense. Choosing a program based on someone else's preferences (when they don't fit your situation) doesn't. But skipping core elements of a methodical program like Primary Mathematics is a generally bad idea. It undercuts the likelihood of success when one of the core elements is just tossed aside.

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

I wonder if it might be a better use of time to just cut and paste from any one of half a dozen (or more) past threads in which Spy Car and Crimson Wife had almost exactly the same exchange. :lol: Think of the time gained and the frustration avoided... :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

Although some gifted children are compliant "pleasers" who might cheerfully speed through (what to them is) busywork in a "spritely manner" just to check the box, many (more?) need challenge and balk at what is too easy. Their brains just plain disengage. Attempting to force these kids into mindlessly completing entire workbooks of math is to practically beg for behavioral challenges. Making kids do easy work so they can get to the "appropriately challenging work" is ironic at best and just plain mean at worst. For some kids, the "brain candy" needs to be the main course.

You say this "as if" I was some sort of advocate of unchallenging brain-disengaging work, when I have a pretty long history on this forum of championing the opposite.

 

If the work they are doing is "too easy" it is a good idea to accelerate through it so they get to more (appropriately) challenging stuff. If the parent/teacher has concerns about topics being "missed" it is a good idea to cover the topics quickly (which should not be difficult is the work is easy. What's difficult to understand about that?

 

If there is some drudgery in that, I suggested balancing that drudgery with some outside challenge to provide some balance, and to alleviate boredom.

 

I think of how you always talk about FLL, criticizing how the definition of a noun is repeated over and over. You talk about how artful MCTLA is and how MCT respects that a child can get a concept without endless, mindless repetition. I agree! But the same is absolutely true for some kids with math.

Yes, I agree. I don't think it is a good approach to load a child up with endless amounts of mindless math work either. That is, and has consistently been, my position. Primary Mathematics is the best programs that I've seen with regards to not overdoing repetition and having not having a mindless plug and chug approach (BA, MEP, and Miquon are also notable in this regard). Doing the sets in PM is not like putting a kid through Saxon.

 

As you know, some people have lots of success with FLL and love it. It doesn't mean their kids are automatons; it just means their kids have different needs. For some kids, the SM workbook is to math what FLL is to grammar.

No, I don't think this is a valid comparison. The more proper analogy would be doing MCT and skipping the Practice books, and then complaining that the lessons (the Practice books were intended to drive home) didn't settle in.

 

Maybe your son needs the workbook and/or maybe you are just blessed that he doesn't completely shut down when faced with the monotony of math that he already gets (or that he assumed he invented himself, he understands it so well, LOL), but I assure you that some kids do not need the workbook.

Well, we work ahead and mix up the practice and acquisition of procedural skills with a lot of fun, challenging, and interesting diversions that capitalize on his growing proficiencies in "basic skills" so he can see how the more mundane elements pay off in being able to do more interesting problem solving with the every developing tools. I strive not to make math monotonous, but not every topic is a trip to the circus. Just like learning piano, there are times one needs to play scales if you want to learn to make music.

 

Nah, I have said it before many times as well. And I know other people have besides CW. Is it a great idea for every child? No. In fact, two of my children do not do the workbook and one does. I have learned to judge for each child what is the best course, the biggest benefit of homeschooling. Is it generally bad advice? For the general child, maybe.

Yes, generally bad advice. Are there exceptions to everything? Sure. But as a general rule thoosing out a core element of PM strikes me as a bad starting point. If a child's needs, gifts, or limitations proves exceptional, then adjust. But starting out with a dice-roll that a student will be that one rare child who is better off skipping the Workbook is to my mind a very bad bet.

 

 

But, you know, I don't see this advice given in every SM thread. It is something that has worked out really well here, but I don't go onto every SM thread and recommend it to everyone (and neither does CW, for that matter).

Actually she has posted this advice numerous times, and this is not the first time I've objected to that advice. In her case it would be different if the advice was based on something that worked for her, but it didn't.

 

 

On the contrary, I prefer to stay quiet about our math path, precisely because it doesn't fit every child. But in cases that sound reminiscent of my own experience, I offer my thoughts with the hope that it might help someone, just as you do. My advice is not better. Your advice is not better. We all just give advice based on our personal experiences with our own kid(s), so it is all valid and worthy of consideration. It gets exhausting to know that whenever we offer that advice/experience, we are going to be insulted as offering bad advice.

When the advice offered is not based on "success" and is totally at variance with the way a highly methodical program was designed to be used, I'd say it falls into the category of generally bad advice (especially to new users of PM). Are there exceptions to everything? I suppose. But better to ditch core elements of programs based on demonstrated lack of need rather than on some "hope" you are the exception.

 

Really, I find the whole thing silly though. It is not rocket science, kid ruining kind of stuff. If a child can solve the problems in the TB/IP/CWP, that child has grasped the concepts just fine. If a child struggles with those problems, then working through the WB is obviously going to be a good idea.

Who said it was "kid ruining?" I said if the core books were "too easy" it would be wise to accelerate.

 

Also, while my kids have not struggled with incremental leaps in SM, I will say that when I purchased and supplemented with MM years ago, it was obvious to me that the MM instruction was significantly more incremental than that on SM. So, for some kids, not having that level of step-by-step detail might make a kid (or parent/instructor) feel like a leap was made. Not your experience, great. Not mine either. In fact, oldest DS disliked MM because he felt he was being spoon fed the learning, leaving little room for puzzling anything out. Different kids, different needs, different experiences, all valid.

No arguement. If a more incremental approach is what a child and parent need it is wise to chose a program that works. But to chose a program that is less incremental, and then skip over one of the most important steps in the progression, and then complain about the lack of incrementalism is a bizarre way of thinking to me. The student who needs the gaps filled a little more is the LAST one that ought to skip the Workbooks.

 

Bill

Edited October 29, 2013 by Spy Car

[kbutton]

I wonder if it might be a better use of time to just cut and paste from any one of half a dozen (or more) past threads in which Spy Car and Crimson Wife had almost exactly the same exchange. :lol: Think of the time gained and the frustration avoided... :tongue_smilie:

 

I have to say that I've learned a lot from the exchanges even though they are a bit repetitive. I think your comparing this issue to MCT and FLL is spot on, lol!

[Spy Car]

I have to say that I've learned a lot from the exchanges even though they are a bit repetitive. I think your comparing this issue to MCT and FLL is spot on, lol!

Not at all. One can either like or not like FLL. It may or may not suit. It is what it is. Likewise MCT is what it is. If you skip elements of either, and then complain that the program lacks the elements you skip, the problem is you—not the program you've chosen not to follow.

 

Because I see I'm going to need to qualify every post on this thread, it is obvious that programs can be modified to suit the individual student (so it serves the person and not vice versa). Now maybe there is some child somewhere that can hear the grammar and writing books from MCT and never need to touch the Practice books. I've never heard of such a child, but let's just say. That does not make skipping the Practice books a good general idea. And if someone skipped the Practice book and complained there wasn't enough practice, one would have to scratch ones head.

 

Bill

[raptor_dad]

We don't use Singapore here. I have reviewed the entire set of primary math TBs and own CWP3-6 for supplementing but have never seen the WBs or IPs.

 

In both Miquon and MEP, there are lots of problems that would be easy to skip once your child understands the concept. However, often they are doing something clever in these problems to allow the child to discover deeper number relationships. The problems may be "too easy" but they highlight useful concepts that can be used later on. This isn't additional instruction per se, but certainly is a form conceptual scaffolding. Perhaps the Singapore WBs have similar exercises that help bridge the conceptual leaps? I would be interested to hear Spycar or other Singapore users views on that...

[Spy Car]

We don't use Singapore here. I have reviewed the entire set of primary math TBs and own CWP3-6 for supplementing but have never seen the WBs or IPs.

 

In both Miquon and MEP, there are lots of problems that would be easy to skip once your child understands the concept. However, often they are doing something clever in these problems to allow the child to discover deeper number relationships. The problems may be "too easy" but they highlight useful concepts that can be used later on. This isn't additional instruction per se, but certainly is a form conceptual scaffolding. Perhaps the Singapore WBs have similar exercises that help bridge the conceptual leaps? I would be interested to hear Spycar or other Singapore users views on that...

The approaches in the series you mention are slightly different. In PM the Textbooks are designed as the "interactive" time when parent/teacher ought to be working together exploring the concepts and the objectives of new lessons. It is a good idea (generally) to "round" these lessons on the pages of the Textbooks with other concrete learnng, activities, and such. The Textbook largely leaves out the "concrete" phase (in favor of the "pictorial" phase (but the designers expect these things will be covered by the teacher). Since this latter expectation is not "obvious" to many, a Home Instructors Guide was written state-side to make some of these activities "explicit." some of these are similar to things that are built-into Miquon, or akin to the MEP lesson plan ideas (both of which are great resources to add to Singapore if one has the bandwidth).

 

The Workbook provides independent (as possible) practice. Most of them are not especially difficult, they are not intended to be. But they do lead a child through the progression in a very orderly fashion, and one that internalizes the lessons. Do I believe there are children of parent's on the Accelerated Forum that can either breeze though this basic work, or who find it "boring?" For sure. It is why I try to balance dryer material with more challenging material. But there is, IMO, a kind of scaffolding in independent basic level work that is beneficial for most kids. When the basic work is too easy I try to accelerate and/or mix it up.

 

Some problems and practice is just not that fun. People can gauge their students better than I can from afar (and not knowing the child) than I can. But to answer your question, I do feel that for most students the Workbooks (high are not burdensome compared to most) are an import part of cementing the concepts and procedures. There is LEARNING that happens in the Workbooks, even if it is not presented as "new teaching" ideas. I think you are seeing that correctly. Yes.

 

If there are "exceptional students" I'd use my own judgement (and urge others to do the same). If something is unnecessary or counterproductive, don't use it. But I would just not leave out a core component of a higly successful program until it was proven to be a detriment.

 

The Intensive Practice books are more challenging (and more fun) than the Workbooks. But if a child is struggling with "conceptual leaps" it would be illogical to skip the component that helps clear up the difficulties and jump to a book that is designed to require greater critical thinking skills. It is not a wise path. Does it mean no children can go from Textbook to IPs? No. But they may very well be working behind their level (or they may be expeditionally intuitive and quick). There are all sorts.

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

You say this "as if" I was some sort of advocate of unchallenging brain-disengaging work, when I have a pretty long history on this forum of championing the opposite.

 

If the work they are doing is "too easy" it is a good idea to accelerate through it so they get to more (appropriately) challenging stuff. If the parent/teacher has concerns about topics being "missed" it is a good idea to cover the topics quickly (which should not be difficult is the work is easy. What's difficult to understand about that?

 

If there is some drudgery in that, I suggested balancing that drudgery with some outside challenge to provide some balance, and to alleviate boredom.

 

Yes, I agree. I don't think it is a good approach to load a child up with endless amounts of mindless math work either. That is, and has consistently been, my position. Primary Mathematics is the best programs that I've seen with regards to repetition and havng a mindless plug and chug approach (BA, MEP, and Miquon are also notable in this regard). Doing the sets in PM is not like putting a kid through Saxon.

 

No, I don't think this is a valid comparison. The more proper analogy would be doing MCT and skipping the Practice books, and then complaining that the lessons (the Practice books were intended to drive home) didn't settle in.

 

Well, we work ahead and mix up the practice and acquisition of procedural skills with a lot of fun, challenging, and interesting diversions that capitalize on his growing proficiencies in "basic skills" so he can see how the more mundane elements pay off in being able to do more interesting problem solving with the every developing tools. I strive not to make math monotonous, but not every topic is a trip to the circus. Just like learning piano, there are times one needs to play scales if you want to learn to make music.

 

Yes, generally bad advice. Are there exceptions to everything? Sure. But as a general rule thoosing out a core element of PM strikes me as a bad starting point. If a child's needs, gifts, or limitations proves exceptional, then adjust. But starting out with a dice-roll that a student will be that one rare child who is better off skipping the Workbook is to my mind a very bad bet.

 

Actually she has posted this advice numerous times, and this is not the first time I've objected to that advice. In her case it would be different if the advice was based on something that worked for her, but it didn't.

 

When the advice offered is not based on "success" and is totally at variance with the way a highly methodical program was designed to be used, I'd say it falls into the category of generally bad advice (especially to new users of PM). Are there exceptions to everything? I suppose. But better to ditch core elements of programs based on demonstrated lack of need rather than on some "hope" you are the exception.

 

Who said it was "kid ruining?" I said if the core books were "too easy" it would be wise to accelerate.

 

No arguement. If a more incremental approach is what a child and parent need it is wise to chose a program that works. But to chose a program that is less incremental, and then skip over one of the most important steps in the progression, and then complain about the lack of incrementalism is a bizarre way of thinking to me. The student who needs the gaps filled a little more is the LAST one that ought to skip the Workbooks.

 

Bill

 

"What's difficult to understand about that?" Do you ever hear the condescension in your posts? "...not every topic is a trip to the circus." Good to know. Having homeschooled three children from the beginning, I had no idea that it wasn't supposed to be non-stop fun. :rolleyes:

 

Actually, thanks for asking! LOL I find it very difficult to understand why you post as if your limited experience should somehow supplant that of others. I find it difficult to understand why you are so very dismissive of others' opinions. Why you can't just speak from your own experience and, instead, seem to feel the need to tear down the contributions of others (who are frequently more experienced).

 

You are throwing your arguments with Crimson Wife into with your reply to me. And I did not say she has not given the advice to skip the WB many times; I said she doesn't go willy-nilly into all the SM threads and throw that advice out without discernment. I have read most of the SM threads since about August, 2008 and this only comes up a handful of times a year (memorable because you almost always bicker about it).

 

Speaking for myself, as I wish you would learn to do, I have had enormous success ditching the SM workbooks with two children. And I'm not complaining of any of the results of that. On the contrary, I have many complaints about what life was like here before I decided to ditch the workbooks. You say accelerate. Uh, yep. We ditched AND accelerated. Using the workbooks on top of the IP/CWP (which were also accelerated) really...uh...slows down the acceleration process. So, frankly, your advice here to simultaneously do the workbooks and accelerate is just bizarre. It shows you haven't walked my path, and that is entirely the point here, again, that we give advice based on our own paths. (And seriously, please don't respond with talk about CW's path not working here, because I am talking about me and my path and my kids and the fact that I have absolutely no regrets.) Doing the WB sets in SM may not have been like putting a child through Saxon for your child, but you don't know my kids, or the OP's kid. It's hard for me to imagine DS10 being more miserable than he was, but I guess it's possible.

 

We'll have to disagree about the analogy between FLL and the SM WB. Here it is spot on. But it seems that you have a hard time recognizing that people can have different, equally valid experiences. (And here was another place you were mixing up your arguments with CW with me, because I'm not complaining about anything not working out.) For what it's worth, I think your scales analogy is valid, except that my kids who skip(ped) the WB had already mastered their scales. They simply benefit(ed) from practicing them with symphonies instead of Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star. ;)

 

For the record, I didn't say you used the term "kid ruining" or it would have been in quotes. I was speaking to your overall tone, how you not so subtly suggest that anyone who does not use the workbooks is making a terrible mistake (OMG!) and most likely doomed to regret that choice (you fools!). No, you have not said this...in words. Your tone, however... 

[Alte Veste Academy]

Not at all. One can either like or not like FLL. It may or may not suit. It is what it is. Likewise MCT is what it is. If you skip elements of either, and then complain that the program lacks the elements you skip, the problem is you—not the program you've chosen not to follow.

 

Because I see I'm going to need to qualify every post on this thread, it is obvious that programs can be modified to suit the individual student (so it serves the person and not vice versa). Now maybe there is some child somewhere that can hear the grammar and writing books from MCT and never need to touch the Practice books. I've never heard of such a child, but let's just say. That does not make skipping the Practice books a good general idea. And if someone skipped the Practice book and complained there wasn't enough practice, one would have to scratch ones head.

 

Bill

 

Bleh. This is a confusion of my analogy with your argument with CW. I've not got any complaints about leaving out the SM WB. I was simply saying that, for some kids, the SM WB feels like as much drudgery as FLL does to others. But, LOL, not every second of homechooling should be a circus, so maybe you should make your son work through FLL before you let him use MCTLA.

 

:lol:

 

 

[kbutton]

In both Miquon and MEP, there are lots of problems that would be easy to skip once your child understands the concept. However, often they are doing something clever in these problems to allow the child to discover deeper number relationships. The problems may be "too easy" but they highlight useful concepts that can be used later on. This isn't additional instruction per se, but certainly is a form conceptual scaffolding. Perhaps the Singapore WBs have similar exercises that help bridge the conceptual leaps? I would be interested to hear Spycar or other Singapore users views on that...

 

I'm using Miquon with my younger son and Singapore with the older one. I think the IP does what you're describing from Miquon's point of view. Also, I think Miquon offers less repetition than Singapore, but I have not used levels of Singapore before 3A/3B, so I can't directly compare first grade work to first grade work in each curriculum. I think the Singapore TB starts the ball rolling with the concepts, and the IP continues to add nuance to those ideas. I don't see that in the workbook. I think the WB offers problems that are simply more practice (usually easier than the harder TB problems) and nothing else at all. Maybe part of the issue is that kids differ in which concepts they need scaffolding for. Maybe kids who benefit from the workbook need scaffolding so that the basics are automatic for them to gain confidence. My son seems to need things shown from every angle (like in the IP). Then, the lightbulb comes on, and he feels confident that he understands something. The "little" mistakes he might make in the basics virtually disappear once he's done the IP. Adding more practice in the basics instead of the IP increases his likelihood of making more "little" mistakes in the basics. I will grant that my son is a law unto himself. ;-)

[kbutton]

Bleh. This is a confusion of my analogy with your argument with CW. I've not got any complaints about leaving out the SM WB. I was simply saying that, for some kids, the SM WB feels like as much drudgery as FLL does to others.

 

Yes, I think you missed Alte Veste's point. This is exactly what I thought she meant.

[Spy Car]

 

 

"What's difficult to understand about that?" Do you ever hear the condescension in your posts? "...not every topic is a trip to the circus." Good to know. Having homeschooled three children from the beginning, I had no idea that it wasn't supposed to be non-stop fun. :rolleyes:

 

As opposed to the complete lack of condescension in quotes like:

 

"Maybe your son needs the workbook and/or maybe you are just blessed that he doesn't completely shut down when faced with the monotony of math that he already gets (or that he assumed he invented himself, he understands it so well, LOL), but I assure you that some kids do not need the workbook."

 

 

Actually, thanks for asking! LOL I find it very difficult to understand why you post as if your limited experience should somehow supplant that of others. I find it difficult to understand why you are so very dismissive of others' opinions. Why you can't just speak from your own experience and, instead, seem to feel the need to tear down the contributions of others (who are frequently more experienced).

 

I said it was bad general advice. Which is something (I think you agree with). I grant that there are "exceptions." But exceptions are "exceptional" (to be tautological for a moment).

 

 

You are throwing your arguments with Crimson Wife into with your reply to me. And I did not say she has not given the advice to skip the WB many times; I said she doesn't go willy-nilly into all the SM threads and throw that advice out without discernment. I have read most of the SM threads since about August, 2008 and this only comes up a handful of times a year (memorable because you almost always bicker about it).

 

Believe me, it is a conversation I'd rather not have. I think it is generally bad advice. I think you do too.

 

 

Speaking for myself, as I wish you would learn to do, I have had enormous success ditching the SM workbooks with two children. And I'm not complaining of any of the results of that. On the contrary, I have many complaints about what life was like here before I decided to ditch the workbooks. You say accelerate. Uh, yep. We ditched AND accelerated. Using the workbooks on top of the IP/CWP (which were also accelerated) really...uh...slows down the acceleration process.

 

If I feel problems are unnecessary, I cut them. But it is rare. There are not so many problems in PM and working quickly, efficiently, and accurately are important skills from my POV. If the problems are not difficult I don't have a problem asking *my child* to do some work that is of the less-than-most-fun sort if I feel it will do good. If someone else follows their inner-intelligence and skips some (or all) of the problems I assign based on their understanding of their own child, I have no quibble with that. That is smart is that is what works. What is not smart is to skip books when the approach isn't working, or to do so without having a demonstrated need to skip a core component of a program just because. That is unwise IMO.

 

 

So, frankly, your advice here to simultaneously do the workbooks and accelerate is just bizarre.

 

Not bizarre at all. It just means you put in the work necessary to move ahead. If it is easy, that should not be hard. If you think it is detrimental and unnecessary skip it.

 

 

It shows you haven't walked my path, and that is entirely the point here, again, that we give advice based on our own paths.

 

Of course I haven't walked you path. How could I? I'm not telling you what your doing is "wrong," you know that better than I do what works for you.

 

 

 

Doing the WB sets in SM may not have been like putting a child through Saxon for your child, but you don't know my kids, or the OP's kid. It's hard for me to imagine DS10 being more miserable than he was, but I guess it's possible.

 

The amount of problems in PM is on the low end of the spectrum. I like that about PM. It is a good balance for us. If it proves to be too much repetition for an exception kid, then modifying the expectations if reasonable. Starting out by tossing a core element based on no experience is not what I'd call reasonable. It may work, it may not.

 

 

We'll have to disagree about the analogy between FLL and MCTLA. Here it is spot on.

 

Yes, we will need to disagree as is is not "spot-on" in the least. Like MCT, Primary Mathematics is a program that has multiple components that are designed to work together. Some people skip elements, I think it undermines the complementary nature of MCT. Same (generally speaking) of Singapore. The Workbooks are designed to be a "core" element of PM, just as the Practice books are a core in MCT.

 

 

But it seems that you have a hard time recognizing that people can have different, equally valid experiences.

 

I don't know how you reach this conclusion when I've stated the opposite in every post.

 

 

For what it's worth, I think your scales argument actually is valid, except that my kids who skip(ped) the WB had already mastered their scales. They simply practice(d) them with symphonies instead of Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star. ;)

 

So to repeat, if your inner-intelligence tells you it is time to move on, I think you are wise to listen to yourself. I still think that without a demonstrated proof of mastery that skipping core books as a matter of course is a generally good idea.

 

 

For the record, I didn't say you used the term "kid ruining" or it would have been in quotes. I was speaking to your overall tone, how you not so subtly suggest that anyone who does not use the workbooks is making a terrible mistake (OMG!) and most likely doomed to regret that choice (you fools!). No, you have not said this...in words. Your tone, however...

 

This is your invention as I keep repeating myself (over and over and over again) to the contrary. if students are exceptional then modify programs to fit the exceptional student. But assuming one is the exception, based on no evidence of use, and ditching a core portion of a highly methodical (and highly respected) program like PM is (to my mind) a bad idea to start with. If it proves to be different, then act according to your situation.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Bleh. This is a confusion of my analogy with your argument with CW. I've not got any complaints about leaving out the SM WB. I was simply saying that, for some kids, the SM WB feels like as much drudgery as FLL does to others. But, LOL, not every second of homechooling should be a circus, so maybe you should make your son work through FLL before you let him use MCTLA.

 

:lol:

There is so little work in the Workbooks that it is not remotely similar to comparing something like FLL. If the amount of work in the Workbooks is "drudgery" then they are a special case.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Yes, I think you missed Alte Veste's point. This is exactly what I thought she meant.

I understood her point. I don't think it is objectively valid, as the two things are incomparable.

 

If, on a subjective level, a student is intolerant of any degree of mundane work, that is another discussion and problem entirely. But the analogy does not hold in any objective sense.

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

There is so little work in the Workbooks that it is not remotely similar to comparing something like FLL.

 

For your child.

 

I find that mildly amusing though, because I cannot conceive of how 300-400ish pages (an admittedly guesstimated total for the two workbooks per level) could be comparatively referred to as "so little work," especially when you consider that it is completed after HIG instruction and TB work and before IP/CWP (not to mention supplementation with Zaccaro, BA, LoF, and countless other sideways mathematical adventures).

 

By comparison, the FLL Level 1 WB has 188 pages. Level 2 has 258 pages. Levels 3 and 4 have 350ish, so getting closer. But to be fair, they also seem to move more quickly and cover more material. At any rate, that workbook is the whole kit 'n' caboodle, no before and after added to the sum total.

 

If the amount of work in the Workbooks is "drudgery" then they are a special case.

 

Well, I like to think they are all special, even that third child who does the workbooks (and is most certainly not a dullard...is, in fact, the child most like me). ;)

[Alte Veste Academy]

I understood her point. I don't think it is objectively valid, as the two things are incomparable.

 

If, on a subjective level, a student is intolerant of any degree of mundane work, that is another discussion and problem entirely. But the analogy does not hold in any objective sense.

 

Bill

 

Now this is just flat out rude. I suggest you stick with what you know instead of working digs and assumptions into all your posts. But I'm sure you didn't mean my personal subjective kid(s). :glare:

 

And not incomparable at all, except by your own perception. Indeed, you can compare page numbers quite easily. Anything else is your subjective opinion of suffering caused by the different programs.

[Spy Car]

Now this is just flat out rude. I suggest you stick with what you know instead of working digs and assumptions into all your posts. But I'm sure you didn't mean my personal subjective kid(s). :glare:

 

And not incomparable at all, except by your own perception. Indeed, you can compare page numbers quite easily. Anything else is your subjective opinion of suffering caused by the different programs.

Are you kidding me? I think you are trying to take every comment over-personally. You've repeatedly made comments about my child (who you do not know) but bristle when it is suggested the drudgery of the Workbooks is "subjective." Almost everyone, including the school children in Singapore that once used the series, did the Workbooks, and to good effect.

 

If something else works for you, fine. But please cut the hypocrisy and over-sensitivity.

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

As opposed to the complete lack of condescension in quotes like:

 

"Maybe your son needs the workbook and/or maybe you are just blessed that he doesn't completely shut down when faced with the monotony of math that he already gets (or that he assumed he invented himself, he understands it so well, LOL), but I assure you that some kids do not need the workbook."

 

:confused1: How is this condescending exactly? I've said two of my kids don't do them and one does. This is not an insult, to say a child needs the workbook. My kid who uses it is, frankly, probably my most gifted child.

 

I said it was bad general advice. Which is something (I think you agree with). I grant that there are "exceptions." But exceptions are "exceptional" (to be tautological for a moment).

 

You also said you wouldn't argue if the person posting had been successful, yet here you are arguing with me. Why, I can't figure out. Why my experience can't speak for itself without needing your correction is beyond me.

 

Believe me, it is a conversation I'd rather not have. I think it is generally bad advice. I think you do too.

 

You think wrong. And you are ridiculously presumptuous to boot. I think it is fantastic advice for those who need it and, as I said, I have not seen anyone giving this advice willy-nilly to every Tom, Dick, or Harry on the board. When I saw a second child start down the same sick-of-math road that my first did, I dropped that WB like a hot potato, knowing darn well that it would be easy as pie to pick up again if it turned out to be needed again. And I know you are thinking AHA! I modified after I saw it not working, but the point here is that I don't see it as a problem to start where you think your child is and then pick up the additional resource if it becomes necessary.

 

If I feel problems are unnecessary, I cut them. But it is rare. There are not so many problems in PM and working quickly, efficiently, and accurately are important skills from my POV. If the problems are not difficult I don't have a problem asking *my child* to do some work that is of the less-than-most-fun sort if I feel it will do good. If someone else follows their inner-intelligence and skips some (or all) of the problems I assign based on their understanding of their own child, I have no quibble with that. That is smart is that is what works. What is not smart is to skip books when the approach isn't working, or to do so without having a demonstrated need to skip a core component of a program just because. That is unwise IMO.

 

Is rare...for you? This is not condescension but confusion. You are posting on the accelerated board. This is absolutely not a rare problem on this board.

 

My kids do TONS of stuff that is not fun. I certainly am not going to bother to list those things for you because, frankly, it is not worth the time and it is flat out none of your business.

 

Please stop talking to me about when the approach isn't working because that isn't the case with me. Also, I don't know how hard you think it is to buy a WB if a child starts without one and then begins struggling, but in 2013, the ordering/delivery process is pretty doggone efficient. This is not a "bad bet" or a "dice-roll" irretrievable situation if the WB ends up being needed.

 

Not bizarre at all. It just means you put in the work necessary to move ahead. If it is easy, that should not be hard. If you think it is detrimental and unnecessary skip it.

 

Golly. Thanks. I think that for two of my children the SM WB is detrimental and unnecessary so I skip(ped) it. Thanks for your approval?

 

Of course I haven't walked you path. How could I? I'm not telling you what your doing is "wrong," you know that better than I do what works for you.

 

Then why don't you leave me alone now. ;)

 

The amount of problems in PM is on the low end of the spectrum. I like that about PM. It is a good balance for us. If it proves to be too much repetition for an exception kid, then modifying the expectations if reasonable. Starting out by tossing a core element based on no experience is not what I'd call reasonable. It may work, it may not.

 

I am happy it is a good balance for you. It is a good balance for one of my kids too. The thing is that it is not your call to say whether or not something is reasonable. I think it is absolutely reasonable for a parent to take what they know of their child and start at y, because it is a perfectly easy thing to add or subtract as necessary. You act like things can only be modified is someone does the WB from the start, but that's not so.

 

Yes, we will need to disagree as is is not "spot-on" in the least. Like MCT, Primary Mathematics is a program that has multiple components that are designed to work together. Some people skip elements, I think it undermines the complementary nature of MCT. Same (generally speaking) of Singapore. The Workbooks are designed to be a "core" element of PM, just as the Practice books are a core in MCT.

 

OMG. Spot on FOR ME. You really hear what you want to hear. It is SPOT ON FOR ME. For two of my kids. I don't give a flying fig if you disagree. In our case, it is flat out wrong that doing SM without the WB undermines anything.

 

I don't know how you reach this conclusion when I've stated the opposite in every post.

 

Because your tone is incredibly dismissive. But I'm starting to realize you don't see it and probably never will.

 

So to repeat, if your inner-intelligence tells you it is time to move on, I think you are wise to listen to yourself. I still think that without a demonstrated proof of mastery that skipping core books as a matter of course is a generally good idea.

 

No one said they should be skipped as a "matter of course" here. This particular poster was given this advice because of her particular circumstances. But no matter what the circumstances, I have NEVER seen you agree with the idea. NEVER. Always in these discussions, you throw out the of course you should make decisions for your own kids bone, but it is always with the same sky-is-falling tone of but you will almost certainly regret it. Again, even on the accelerated board.

 

This is your invention as I keep repeating myself (over and over and over again) to the contrary. if students are exceptional then modify programs to fit the exceptional student. But assuming one is the exception, based on no evidence of use, and ditching a core portion of a highly methodical (and highly respected) program like PM is (to my mind) a bad idea to start with. If it proves to be different, then act according to your situation.

 

Not my invention, my perception. But I do see how increasingly you are offending people on these boards. This is not my imagination. Your words and your tone do not match.

 

Modification works both ways. You seem so rigid to me. If the OP doesn't buy the WB in the beginning, she has not given up her chance to buy it EVER. Seriously.

 

[Crimson Wife]

Primary Mathematics is an extremely methodical program. If it not incremental enough for your child, why use it when you think MM is a better fit?

Because while the actual teaching in MM is IMHO better, it lacks the challenging problems found in the Singapore CWP and IP books. If I'm still going to be using the CWP and IP books anyways, I might as well keep Singapore as the "spine" and then just supplement the topics (1-2 chapters per semester book in 3A-5A) where SM is not incremental enough with MM "blue".

 

Whether an incremental approach is seen as "spoon feeding" vs. avoiding frustrating conceptual leaps totally depends on how math-intuitive a student is. Some kids are "mathy" and can figure out stuff without specifically being taught (my DS is like this). Other kids may be bright and catch on quickly after being taught but need the step-by-step-by-step walking through the concept that a program like MM does (this is my oldest DD). I just spent a good hour last week going through a friend's copies of AOPS Pre-Algebra and AOPS Intro to Algebra and it confirmed my impression that DD would *HATE* that approach. I might still get the algebra book to use as a source of Friday review problem sets, but no way would she tolerate it as her "spine".

[Alte Veste Academy]

Are you kidding me? I think you are trying to take every comment over-personally. You've repeatedly made comments about my child (who you do not know) but bristle when it is suggested the drudgery of the Workbooks is "subjective." Almost everyone, including the school children in Singapore that once used the series, did the Workbooks, and to good effect.

 

If something else works for you, fine. But please cut the hypocrisy and over-sensitivity.

 

Bill

 

:confused1: What comments have I made about your child? I said maybe he needed the workbook. That wasn't a dig. See my post above. Seriously though, show me my repeated comments about your child. And I don't bristle at the suggestion that "the drudgery of the Workbooks is 'subjective.'" I take offense at the insinuation that because two of my kid(s) do not need the SM WBs that they are "intolerant of any degree of mundane work," which is "another discussion and problem entirely." No, no more of a problem than if your DS balked about doing FLL. But, again, you refuse to see the relationship.

 

And Singaporean children are highly disciplined in a culture/way I would imagine you would frown on, no? Great math, harsh punishments...

 

 

[Spy Car]

:confused1: What comments have I made about your child? I said maybe he needed the workbook. That wasn't a dig. See my post above. Seriously though, show me my repeated comments about your child.

 

And Singaporean children are highly disciplined in a culture/way I would imagine you would frown on, no? Great math, harsh punishments...

If you feel I was rude, I'm sorry. I don't think you've been fair to me or my position on things in this thread. You know very well I am not a proponent of busy work, and have repeatedly said if something works for you that you know best what is good for your child. So I'm more than a little frustrated with the comments that suggest the contrary.

 

The comments about harsh punishments is a red herring. Most students who use Primary Mathematics use the Workbooks. That is the way the series is designed to be used. If you find a way that works better for an exception child I applaude you for modifying the typical use to your child. It is not the starting point I would recommend to people who have never used PM as a matter of course. I don't think you would either.

 

I don't wish to offend you, or your child.

 

Bill

[Alte Veste Academy]

If you feel I was rude, I'm sorry. I don't think you've been fair to me or my position on things in this thread. You know very well I am not a proponent of busy work, and have repeatedly said if something works for you that you know best what is good for your child. So I'm more than a little frustrated with the comments that suggest the contrary.

 

The comments about harsh punishments is a red herring. Most students who use Primary Mathematics use the Workbooks. That is the way the series is designed to be used. If you find a way that works better for an exception child I applaude you for modifying the typical use to your child. It is not the starting point I would recommend to people who have never used PM as a matter of course. I don't think you would either.

 

I don't wish to offend you, or your child.

 

Bill

Well, likewise on thinking you have not been fair to me or my position. I should have known better than to enter this discussion. It has never ended well on these boards.

 

Don't really care about the Singapore red herring because what thousands (millions?) of other kids do is irrelevant to me anyway. Again, the beauty of homeschooling.

[chiguirre]

Pulling on my hip waders....

 

I personally think that once you get to the levels of SM that include extensive problem sets in the TB, you could use those in place of the WBs. I think these started in 3A, but it might have been 4A. 5A includes quite a few problems in the TB. The problems in the TB are at a similar level to the WB and are plentiful enough for that level of practice if your child is not struggling. Personally, we skip those problem sets and use only the WB unless Trinqueta needs more practice or there are any cool problems I'd like her to do. I've only had her do the whole problem set once and we usually do a couple of the word problems. Most kids probably prefer using the WB over copying out problems from the TB, but if you have budget constraints or weird kids the TB would work just fine. Of course, you should use your own experience with your own kid to decide what will work best for you.

[Crimson Wife]

FWIW, if the Primary Math workbooks were similar to the Discovering Math workbooks, I'd definitely use them. At the 7th grade level & up, the workbooks are more similar to the PM IP books in that they have multiple challenge levels within each problem set. There is a "basic practice" section (which I may or may not assign depending on how well DD did with the topic in the textbook exercise), a somewhat harder "further practice" section, then a word problems section, and finally an "enrichment" section that is really challenging.

 

I think the difference between the format of PM and DM has to do with how Singapore chooses to do educational tracking. All students use the same elementary level books, but after 6th grade there is an exam that places students into different tracks. DM is used for the Express track, which I believe is the highest one. So obviously the Singaporean Ministry of Ed. realizes that not all students require the same number of basic level practice exercises.

[kiana]

FWIW, Bill

 

I think that if you'd said something more like "I'd really recommend at least getting the workbook so that you have it available if your child ends up needing it. Some very bright children may do better without it, but I think it's beneficial for most people" it would have been fine. This would clearly have been you expressing your personal opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Where things get really contentious is where you seem to feel the inexplicable urge to proclaim "This is my opinion. And btw, anyone who doesn't agree with my opinion is wrong. Don't listen to them."

 

If you worked on shifting your posts to the first format, not only would you find more listeners (because there are things worth listening to in many of your posts, once you get past the tone), but I strongly believe you would find less argumentation as well.

 

FWIW, there were four of us in my family. Only one of us would sit down and do easy problems because they were easy and quick. As a matter of fact, she would have done well in Saxon. The oldest two of us did much, much better with minimal practice problems and then the really hard stuff. As a matter of fact, the school thought I was stupid in math because I'd daydream when the problems were too easy. I'm not sure if SM + IP would have been enough, because what she ended up doing with me was pulling me out of second grade and going directly to a pre-pre-algebra course (using an old edition of this book -- http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Fundamental-College-Mathematics/9780321613424.page). The year after that I did pre-algebra, the year after that algebra 1 + 2, the year after that geometry + precalculus. I would rarely, rarely recommend this course to anyone. I have occasionally mentioned it on the rare occasions when someone has a child who seems to be in a similar situation.

[DesertBlossom]

If it makes anyone feel better-- I gave DS7 the test for 3A today and he did fairly well. I do know the WB is just one click away should I decide he needs it. After looking at the material covered in 3B, I will buy that WB when we're ready for it.

[lewelma]

Boy am I late to the party!  I just read about this thread in the multiple math curricula thread so I had to come see what it was all about.

 

Bill, you are going to HATE me.  My son did SM without the workbook OR the textbook.  In fact, he created a discovery approach for himself before I had ever even heard of AoPS, by not letting me teach him *anything*.  He considered it cheating. He just derived it all on his own, and did a mighty good job from what I can tell. So over here, *just* the IP and without a teacher. :huh:

 

But as you might be aware, my older is that exceptional outlier you refer to, and I would only give advice to skip the WB to parents of students clearly more than mildly gifted and only on the accelerated board.

 

And just to make your heart go pitter patter, ds came jumping into the room this morning *glowing* because he had derived the formula of the volume of a sphere by way of geometric proof, when AoPS Geometry said the proof was too difficult to include in the book!

 

Ruth in NZ

[Spy Car]

Boy am I late to the party! I just read about this thread in the multiple math curricula thread so I had to come see what it was all about.

 

Bill, you are going to HATE me. My son did SM without the workbook OR the textbook. In fact, he created a discovery approach for himself before I had ever even heard of AoPS, by not letting me teach him *anything*. He considered it cheating. He just derived it all on his own, and did a mighty good job from what I can tell. So over here, *just* the IP and without a teacher. :huh:

 

But as you might be aware, my older is that exceptional outlier you refer to, and I would only give advice to skip the WB to parents of students clearly more than mildly gifted and only on the accelerated board.

 

And just to make your heart go pitter patter, ds came jumping into the room this morning *glowing* because he had derived the formula of the volume of a sphere by way of geometric proof, when AoPS Geometry said the proof was too difficult to include in the book!

 

Ruth in NZ

But Ruth, why would I hate you?

 

If truely exceptional children (and their parents) find exceptional or unusual ways to learn that work well for that person, I think that's great. I don't think every should be treated as if they were cast from the same mold (expecially when it is clear they were not). That is one of the beauties of home education.

 

Where I would caution people is (when considering how to approach an unfamiliar program) is that an experience like yours is extremely exceptional. That does not mean their experience won't be exceptional too (either is similar ways, or ones that are very different), but that these are extremely unlikely situations.

 

I've said repeatedly that if experience proves that some portions of the books are too repetitive it might be wise to either accelerate through them or skip over them. As general rule having a student tackle Singapore without a teacher runs counter to the way the program is designed to be used, and is not generally advised. If that worked for your child, who can argue with success?

 

But one unusual child's success ought not become ipso facto the new standard for use IMO, especially when there is no real-world experience by a prospective user. As they are, the PM materials are written with a well-thought through method and paedogological underpinnings that have proven to be quite successful when used as directed. Before ditching core elements of the program I, personally, would want to see cause for that decision (as opposed to basing the decision on anecdotes about very unusual and exceptional children).

 

That doesn't mean I would not consider those experience of others if my child's experience lead me to think modification of use was desirable and the circumstances seemed similar. It would just not be the starting place I'd advise without proof of experience.

 

Bill