Algebra I to Geometry advisement for 2 children

[bluedarling]

I've read the recent geometry discussion and this has me questioning my plan for my two boys, both of whom are currently in Algebra I (Math-u-see).  I have geometry (MUS) for them to start (one is close to finishing Alg I.), but now I'm questioning if I should have them do a more challenging Algebra I course first?  (I have a computer science degree, and took Calculus my jr. year of high school, only to repeat it in college.  My experience lends me not to push my kids to Calculus, but prefer a solid grasp of basics.  I took a lot of math and physics in college...but never understood it.  I did really well in it just because I had good algebra skills!)  Both boys will likely do community college (though I would like to prepare them for 4 yr university in case they miraculously managed a scholarship, especially the 14yo.)

 

16yo sophomore: slow methodical worker, excellent grades, but moves slowly through material, and needs help applying occasionally. This student wants to be a robotics technician (it would be an engineer if he was more confident in math, and I hadn't suggested he look at technician due to working slowly.)  He is not going to make it Calculus in high school, but this student seems to be rapidly changing from an LD student into an A student!  I don't want to limit him, by not seeing him get as far as he can, but at the same time, he very much could use more help in problem solving!  (that will not appeal to him, since that's where he struggles!)  However, he's anxious to take robotics classes which often have math requirements he's in a hurry to meet.

 

14yo freshman: adhd quick learner with no follow-through....this child breezes through the math (MUS) and I'm not sure he's being adequately challenged, but he likes MUS and wants to stay with it (probably because he does so well with it.)  [He is failing outside courses due to organizational/study skills, but has tested gifted.]  He wants to be a physicist.  More challenging algebra I, or push him on to geometry so he can get through Calculus? (he would prefer to press forward).

 

Please advise.

[kiana]

This is a tough question.

 

But it seems that they both are very eager to move on. I think at this age, buy-in is important too. I would be more inclined to move to geometry while doing sections from a more challenging algebra curriculum as review. Ideally my first choice would be to work through something like Foerster's algebra (great word problems, love it for pre-applied math) and let them do MUS geometry concurrently, but this may be too much work.

[bluedarling]

Well thanks for both replies.  I'm still not sure what I'll do.  16yo may take the ACCUPLACER in the spring, so having some geometry by then would be a good thing!  He's still undecided about dual enrollment, but really wants to take some electronics classes at the community college, which will require passing the ACCUPLACER.  I'm thinking I have to allow him to move forward....I guess then maybe tackle the problem-solving along with Alg 2?

 

14yo doesn't have the same issue....just about any plan will probably work for him.  I'm thinking I may just do the same plan with him as with 16yo...then I can re-use materials (this child is slightly ahead of the 16yo.)  So...probably looking for what to add to MUS Alg 2 that will solidify Alg 1 and strengthen problem solving?

[kiana]

The accuplacer is going to be a lot more interested in his arithmetic and algebra skills than geometry skills. He'll need some informal geometry but it won't test things like proofs.

[bluedarling]

The accuplacer is going to be a lot more interested in his arithmetic and algebra skills than geometry skills. He'll need some informal geometry but it won't test things like proofs.

 

Thanks.  MUS Geometry is light on proofs, anyway, and he won't finish Geometry by spring...he'll just get started on a bit of it (he's not the child almost through algebra, although he has picked up pace and is catching up with his brother! So, he could surprise me there!  This whole year has been quite surprising!)  But do you think it would be better to solidify algebra than tackle geometry (given that we won't get very far?)

[Tiramisu]

I can't really advise about geometry but agree that algebra skills are more important in the long run. One very important thing to remember about MUS is that its scope and sequence for algebra 1 and 2 is VERY different than other programs. From what I remember, they do some things in algebra 1 that I think of as algebra 2 material, and vice versa. For that reason, I think it is best to finish MUS algebra 2 before bringing in another algebra program to supplement, unless you are careful to use only the sections that include the material already covered by MUS. I'm not an expert but I would really not recommend moving to any other algebra 2 program after having done MUS algebra 1 either, or there could be gaps. Since your ds's seem to be doing well with MUS, I'd keep going with it, and then re-evaluate after algebra 2. 

 

It's been some time since I've looked at the MUS scope and sequence, so perhaps someone knows more about the particulars than I do.

[bluedarling]

Thanks, Tiramisu.  I'll take your advise then, and just keep plugging.  I purchased Foresters Algebra, and its on its way, but it will be good just to look at it...that might help me evaluate later!  Or maybe we can do 'select' word problems as a review while doing geometry. 

[Tiramisu]

Thanks, Tiramisu.  I'll take your advise then, and just keep plugging.  I purchased Foresters Algebra, and its on its way, but it will be good just to look at it...that might help me evaluate later!  Or maybe we can do 'select' word problems as a review while doing geometry. 

 

I really like Foerster's but chose to go with Saxon with my dd who needs constant review. I also would like to supplement with the word problems but with the way Saxon is set up, I also have to be careful supplementing. I really like your idea of using it during Geometry as review. :)

[8filltheheart]

dp

[8filltheheart]

I can't really advise about geometry but agree that algebra skills are more important in the long run. One very important thing to remember about MUS is that its scope and sequence for algebra 1 and 2 is VERY different than other programs. From what I remember, they do some things in algebra 1 that I think of as algebra 2 material, and vice versa.

 

It's been some time since I've looked at the MUS scope and sequence, so perhaps someone knows more about the particulars than I do.

 

There is nothing in MUS alg 1 that is considered alg 2, but there is quite a bit missing that is considered alg 1.

 

bluedarling, I have had 5 kids go through MUS alg 1 into Foerster's.   They have found the first several chpts fairly easy..   But, by chpt 6 (out of something like 14), they hit the quadratic equation (which is not covered in MUS alg 1) and the rest of the book is mostly new material and definitely more challenging word problems, etc.   Foersters is definitely a more thorough alg course.

 

[Tiramisu]

There is nothing in MUS alg 1 that is considered alg 2, but there is quite a bit missing that is considered alg 1.

 

bluedarling, I have had 5 kids go through MUS alg 1 into Foerster's.   They have found the first several chpts fairly easy..   But, by chpt 6 (out of something like 14), they hit the quadratic equation (which is not covered in MUS alg 1) and the rest of the book is mostly new material and definitely more challenging word problems, etc.

 

 

Some of the graphing that shows up at the end of the MUS algebra 1 book I didn't do until algebra 2. Perhaps that's why I had that impression.

[8filltheheart]

Some of the graphing that shows up at the end of the MUS algebra 1 book I didn't do until algebra 2. Perhaps that's why I had that impression.

 

The only graphing in MUS is of simple linear equations.   Foerster alg 1 covers graphing of linear equations in chpt 7 and ends with an introduction to the graphing of quadratic functions in chpt 14.

 

[Tiramisu]

The only graphing in MUS is of simple linear equations.   Foerster alg 1 covers graphing of linear equations in chpt 7 and ends with an introduction to the graphing of quadratic functions in chpt 14.

 

 

I found this on the MUS website, from the PDF of the algebra 1 scope and sequence.

 

LESSON 34 Graphing a Circle and an Ellipse

LESSON 35 Graphing a Parabola and a Hyperbola

[8filltheheart]

I found this on the MUS website, from the PDF of the algebra 1 scope and sequence.

 

LESSON 34 Graphing a Circle and an Ellipse

LESSON 35 Graphing a Parabola and a Hyperbola

 

I had forgot about that.   But I pulled out my books and he doesn't teach them as graphing functions or using trig or systems of equations, etc.     It is simply plugging in values for x and y in given equations and plotting the pts.  Not really the same thing. 

[Tiramisu]

I had forgot about that.   But I pulled out my books and he doesn't teach them as graphing functions or using trig, etc.   It is simply plugging in values for x and y in given equations and plotting the pts.  Not really the same thing. 

 

I see.

 

So, it sounds like, getting back to what you posted originally, bluedarlings ds's might benefit from going into Foerster's algebra 1 after MUS algebra 1 if they are getting serious about math, possibly testing through the first chapter or two? Do you think that might be a better choice than MUS algebra 2?

 

FWIW, I went through Foerster's with a dd with learning quirks and she did absolutely fine because Foerster's has such clear explanations and such a systematic progression. The word problems were time consuming for her, but otherwise, she had no problem with them. She did not have any more difficulty with Foerster's than the times she used MUS.

[8filltheheart]

I see.

 

So, it sounds like, getting back to what you posted originally, bluedarlings ds's might benefit from going into Foerster's algebra 1 after MUS algebra 1 if they are getting serious about math, possibly testing through the first chapter or two? Do you think that might be a better choice than MUS algebra 2?

 

.

For the student that wants to be a physicist, yes. MUS is weak in application problems for someone who will be taking heavy applied math courses. For the weaker 16 yr old, I can't answer since I have never used any of the other MUS books.

[bluedarling]

OK.  Thanks guys.

So...

This year (9th/10th)  (remainder) Forester's Algebra  (16yo will take Accuplacer in spring without geometry, but with better problem solving...probably evens out)

(10/11th) Geometry / Start Alg 2   (assuming we go back to MUS where they get through lessons quickly.)

(11th/12th)  finish Alg 2 / Pre-calc

(12th for now 14yo) Calculus

 

I think that works....just have to check with 16yo about robotics class requirements.  It looks to me like 'elementary algebra' is the common prereq for electronics...i didn't see specific robotics courses, but I did see some pre-calc requirements for engineering courses. (Pre-calc pre-req is  a LONG way off!)   I'm not seeing anything that requires geometry! (actually, I don't even see geometry listed as a course...it must be integrated?)  Anyway, it looks to me like this should work!  So long as he places on the Accuplacer above elementary algebra.

 

Thanks!

With Forester's...do we need to get the Math Without Border instructional videos?  The 16yo said, no (but I think he'd be the one to benefit the most!)   And should I just pick a starting place for each in Forester's based on what they've already covered in MUS, or start them both at the beginning of Forester's?  (16yo is just over half way, but catching up...he started in Pre-alg!, 14yo is almost done.)

[8filltheheart]

I did not find the videos worthwhile. Fwiw, I would not go back to MUS for the student that wants to major in physics. I would stick with something like Foesters. As far as where to start, I would start with the word problem section and try the problems near the end of that section and if they do well, move on to the next word problem section, etc. fwiw, the word problem sections are typically at the end of a chpt. I wouldn't necessarily do it by chpt tests bc they will be missing a lot of the vocabulary from Foerster's which they would need for the tests.

[kiana]

For the student who wants to be a physicist, I would be much more inclined to use something like Foerster's for algebra 2 and precalculus instead of going to MUS. It is more important for him to get good problem-solving skills with the math he has than to use a weaker program just to get through calculus. If he only gets partway through calculus, that's fine -- he'll have good skills to be prepared for college calculus. The things that kill calculus/physics students are a) weak algebra/arithmetic skills and b) inability to apply math to word problems.

[Tiramisu]

I did not find the videos worthwhile. Fwiw, I would not go back to MUS for the student that wants to major in physics. I would stick with something like Foesters. As far as where to start, I would start with the word problem section and try the problems near the end of that section and if they do well, move on to the next word problem section, etc. fwiw, the word problem sections are typically at the end of a chpt. I wouldn't necessarily do it by chpt tests bc they will be missing a lot of the vocabulary from Foerster's which they would need for the tests.

 

My dd also did not find the videos particularly helpful. Foerster's instruction is very clear in the text.

[Tiramisu]

I did not find the videos worthwhile. Fwiw, I would not go back to MUS for the student that wants to major in physics. I would stick with something like Foesters. As far as where to start, I would start with the word problem section and try the problems near the end of that section and if they do well, move on to the next word problem section, etc. fwiw, the word problem sections are typically at the end of a chpt. I wouldn't necessarily do it by chpt tests bc they will be missing a lot of the vocabulary from Foerster's which they would need for the tests.

 

My dd also did not find the videos particularly helpful. Foerster's instruction is very clear in the text.