Is Teaching Textbooks all through high school acceptable for good SAT scores and college prep?

[Based on Faith Academy]

I recently discovered that TT offers free over-the-phone tutoring. My 9th grader started having trouble in algebra and it's been a big help to get those calls.

 

Hope this is a helpful tid bit in your decision making. :)

Wow! Thanks for this information. I've used TT for three years and never knew that. My ds loves math and it started to get to the point where curriculums were just expecting him to know how to do the work. We switched to TT and he likes that it teaches him and in detail. He has scored higher on all parts of his testing in the past two years than ever before.

[goldberry]

Since this thread is resurrected, DD finished Alg II and Geometry with TT.  On the Accuplacer she qualified for Pre-Calc, but decided to go with College Alg because she is not planning a math career.  She is in her 4th week at the CC and is doing great. :)

[daveswife]

Since this thread is resurrected, DD finished Alg II and Geometry with TT.  On the Accuplacer she qualified for Pre-Calc, but decided to go with College Alg because she is not planning a math career.  She is in her 4th week at the CC and is doing great. :)

 

My daughter had the same experience. She was shocked she placed into Pre-Calc, considering all the negativity surrounding TT's high school courses. I definitely consider it solid enough for a non-stem student. :)

[Murrayshire]

For what it is worth, my 11th grade ds has used Teaching Textbooks from Math 7 through Precalculus. He scored well enough on the ACT and the SAT to qualify for the honors program and merit scholarships at the colleges he is looking at. And he is definitely a non-mathy kid. Like other posters have stated, TT is the curriculum that allowed math to happen at our house every day and without a battle. If I had it to do all over again, I would still choose Teaching Textbooks.

 

Aug. 2015 update - ds was accepted at all four universities he applied to, and is heading off to college in a few weeks with four academic scholarships. I'm still a Teaching Textbooks fan.

 

Thank you for the update!! That is great news!

[Shellydon]

My experience with TT is with co-op classes.  Our co-op offers all high school math and all high school sciences.  The teachers consistently (over the last 5 years) tell me that students that come into their classes having used TT, or currently using TT in the case of Chemistry and Physics are significantly behind their peers.  Would those kids be behind or have a limited math understanding no matter what curriculum they choose?  I don't know. 

[JadeOrchidSong]

My experience with TT is with co-op classes. Our co-op offers all high school math and all high school sciences. The teachers consistently (over the last 5 years) tell me that students that come into their classes having used TT, or currently using TT in the case of Chemistry and Physics are significantly behind their peers. Would those kids be behind or have a limited math understanding no matter what curriculum they choose? I don't know.

Ds used 2/3 of Jacobs Elementary and stopped when it got too hard for him. Then he did TT algebra 1. I didn't feel comfortable when he finished TT. For some topics, TT just touched on them lightly and ds didn't retain well. So I have been having him go over Foerster algebra 1 now since early February. TT kind of reminds me of Life of Fred in that there is not enough practice for my boys. We plan to use TT geometry, but ds will also do some selected Jurgenson geometry after he finishes TT geometry for one semester.

Disclaimer: Math has always been challenging for this boy. With TT, he just watched how to do the practice problems and copy the method without fully grasping the concepts, especially in the case of word problems. I am running through Foerster with him so that "I" can model to him the process and walk him through the concepts and procedures.

Edited March 29, 2016 by JadeOrchidSong

[BlsdMama]

I'm one of the TT haters.

 

I was sure it wasn't rigorous or useful.

 

However....

DD is not a math kid.

We used Saxon and R & S through Pre-Algebra.  She hit a wall on Algebra I.

We switched to something else.  It didn't help.  

We did Life of Fred.  It was wonderful for her.  We then did TT Alg. 1 and 2 with TT for the exact reason you're stating - because it needed to get done every day and she's not a STEM student.

 

Fine.

 

Move onto DS.

DS is an intended STEM kid.  Loves math.  Did Foerester's Alg 1.  But then didn't place high enough on the Compass (and hadn't taken the ACT or SAT yet) to get into College Algebra (Alg. 3) - not really very surprising.  So we made the decision to use the Community College's Alg. 2 text that they have in their Int. Alg. class - assuming if he completed it that he would be ready for College Algebra.  Did the entire Hawkes program as recommended.  NOT ONE POINT MOVEMENT.

 

Honestly?  He would have spent his time so much better off by taking TT Pre-Calc. :(  I think it was a very stupid decision on my part that cost him.  Now he'll be taking College Algebra his senior year along with Trig.  But  you know what he won't be able to do?  Get Calc I under his belt as a senior in high school before taking it at the university.  I feel my choice cost him.

 

So, my attitude is changed.

I think the math you do consistently every day is far superior to the math you don't do.  I really want to be a math snob.  But since I can't teach anything beyond about 1/2 way through Algebra II, my options are limited.

They are clear, concise, and the auto-correct ensures that EVERY time they get something wrong, they know it and they can watch how to do it correctly.  That's valuable.

 

[GoodGrief]

BlsdMama's post is why I consistently speak up during these Teaching Textbooks debates. It's not the curric for every kid, but it CAN work well for many.

 

My STEM kid used TT through Algebra 2 with great results, and if they had a Calc 1 option, we would have continued with them. Her result was high test scores, high grades in university math classes, and exceptional college admission results (the most recent being a DIRECT admit to the civil engineering major at University of Washington, and an admit to Harvey Mudd with a significant merit award.)

 

We do people a disservice by dismissing it as "too light". For many kids, it may be just what they need.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Gr8lander

[creekland]

BlsdMama's post is why I consistently speak up during these Teaching Textbooks debates. It's not the curric for every kid, but it CAN work well for many.

 

My STEM kid used TT through Algebra 2 with great results, and if they had a Calc 1 option, we would have continued with them. Her result was high test scores, high grades in university math classes, and exceptional college admission results (the most recent being a DIRECT admit to the civil engineering major at University of Washington, and an admit to Harvey Mudd with a significant merit award.)

 

We do people a disservice by dismissing it as "too light". For many kids, it may be just what they need.

 

My three are like yours, except two of them aren't STEM and youngest stopped after Alg 1 when he went to ps.  

 

TT worked very well for us  (Alg 1 - Pre-Calc)  no complaints and no regrets.  My top math kids got top or tippy top scores on their SAT/ACT tests and easily moved on to getting top grades in Calc.  Middle son got the highest score his cc placement adviser had ever seen from a student who hadn't yet taken Calc.  He's my STEM lad and used no other Alg, Geom, or Pre-Calc source (except for a couple of topics I augmented in Pre-Calc like matrices).

 

Youngest was considered a very top math student when he entered Geometry at our ps.  Unfortunately, his ability slipped when he discontinued TT and he wouldn't work on it at home to fill in gaps.  He's not a math lover.  His SAT score was still high in basic Alg  (most of which he had at home with TT), but was lower on Geom and Alg 2 topics.

 

As with all curricula, fit the source to the kid.  No one curricula (any subject) is ideal for all students.

[hornblower]

 

They are clear, concise, and the auto-correct ensures that EVERY time they get something wrong, they know it and they can watch how to do it correctly.  That's valuable.

 

TT was working very well for my ds for exactly the reasons you said - it got done, and he loved the auto marking & instant feedback. 

 

Alas, the pre-calc doesn't have that feature.  He refuses to do it without the auto correcting so he's trying Thinkwell for pre-calc right now because he really wants instant marking. 

 

 

[Haiku]

I have no experience with TT at the high school level. But I agree with the comments that math that gets done is vastly superior to math that doesn't get done. Math that doesn't produce tears is vastly superior to math that causes tears. I plan to have my son use TT all the way through high school because it works for him. I do not think it is the most rigorous program out there, but I don't care, because not every kid needs rigorous math. My dd's math is more rigorous; my ds's is not.

[Sandragood1]

My dd is just about to finish Geometry. We will take a week off then move into Algebra 2.

 

While she likes the explanations, I think the immediate feedback on the problem is the key for her. I dread getting to Pre-Calc. I wish Teaching Textbooks would implement the autocorrect for that level!!!

[momtofive]

I heard they were supposed to come out with an updated Pre-Calculus 2.0 version this fall?!? I read that someone emailed them (TT), and that was their reply. I hope they do, that would be great!! :)

Edited April 1, 2016 by momtofive

[Liza Q]

As with all curricula, fit the source to the kid.  No one curricula (any subject) is ideal for all students.

 

ITA. My oldest is a writer (can I call her a poet if she is published but not paid?) who majored in Psych and TT prepared her well for college. She did well enough on the SAT to get some nice scholarships and did very well in College Algebra and all her Statistics classes.

 

My next did so poorly on the SAT and ACT math that she took remedial math at the CC, and she even followed up TT with LoF Trig (TT didn't yet have pre-calc then). She would have done much better with a class and teacher. Yet she is also not a STEM student - her passion is German - and after finishing math at the CC has done very well in Statistics/Economics/Business classes.

 

Our third found even TT too hard and is working through ALEKS veeeerrrrryyyyy slowly. Our last is bright enough to do more than TT but I would not have hesitated to use it with him if I thought it was best. He talks of engineering - I doubt that he is really STEM minded (I think he likes the idea of good $$ lol)  but I am giving him as much math as he can handle, just in case.

 

IOW - #1. Bright but not STEM - did very well. TT was about right for her. #2. Bright but not STEM - struggled. TT was not a good fit for her. #3. Average academically (she is our artist) - really struggling. TT goes too fast for her. #4. Bright, not sure about STEM. TT is not enough for him.

[JBJones]

I'm so glad this thread has been revisited. I have an artsy-Lit non-stem student who struggles in math and I'm pondering what the academic future holds for us. We are using Saxon (8/7--odds/evens) and TT Pre-Algebra this year. My student (Aspie) needs to come at concepts/topics from different angles and is also a perfectionist. Math class can be very interesting on some days. Thank-you to everyone that commented. :thumbup1:  

[6packofun]

My dd always thought she was a mathy kid.  She got straight A's in TT math up to pre-calc and felt confident.  ACT performance?  Eh in math.  :(

[OnMyOwn]

I think what I am taking away from this thread is that if you are super mathy, TT may be enough for you to do extremely well. But, overall, the wide range of reviews makes me categorize it as risky and not something I'm going to take a chance on with my kids. Too bad, because I've seriously considered it because of it's ease of use and I think it would really appeal to my son. I just can't get comfortable with it.

[lmrich]

I used TT as a review often in the summer. It is so easy to use and can be done quickly that the kids did not complain too much. 

[creekland]

My dd always thought she was a mathy kid.  She got straight A's in TT math up to pre-calc and felt confident.  ACT performance?  Eh in math.   :(

 

This happens often in ps - except, of course, that our school doesn't use TT.

 

Our A level kids often get 500 scores on the SAT and low to mid 20s on the ACT.

 

This brings up another point.  It's really good (for most) to prep for the ACT/SAT to get used to the variety of questions they will be asked.  It doesn't matter which curricula they use.

[IfIOnly]

This happens often in ps - except, of course, that our school doesn't use TT.

 

Our A level kids often get 500 scores on the SAT and low to mid 20s on the ACT.

 

This brings up another point. It's really good (for most) to prep for the ACT/SAT to get used to the variety of questions they will be asked. It doesn't matter which curricula they use.

This happens with other curricula too. Same story, different and supposedly better curriculm. Edited April 3, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[6packofun]

This happens often in ps - except, of course, that our school doesn't use TT.

 

Our A level kids often get 500 scores on the SAT and low to mid 20s on the ACT.

 

This brings up another point.  It's really good (for most) to prep for the ACT/SAT to get used to the variety of questions they will be asked.  It doesn't matter which curricula they use.

 

Yes, absolutely!  Lack of prep (and overconfidence because of her grades) was her downfall, IMO.  She is studying hard to retake!  lol  

 

I DO think that TT does not have enough review and practice problems of an incremental nature for some kids.