Common core math textbook

[happycc]

Anyone has thoughts about this textbook....

 

we are with a homeschool charter school and will be "required" to pick a textbook to use along with any curriculum we want ( I think I will still stick with Singapore Primary Math). The textbook is mainly used to hit the standards that are needed for that grade level. We use the Singapore level nongrade level (lower level) as we had to slow it way down. 

 

 

Here is the list of books thus far we might be able to use

 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/yr14rel6.asp

 

[busymotherof4]

Math in focus is on the list. That is a Singapore type program.

[Crimson Wife]

I was told by our charter that since Singapore PM exceeds CC (believe it or not, that's actually a big reason why the state reviewers decided not to approve it because students "would not spend the majority of the time on grade-level material"), we are fine with continuing to use it.

 

If your charter is giving you a hard time about the state-approved list, I guess I would go with MiF.

[happycc]

Why on earth would the school districts be upset that kids are focused on higher level math? So sad!  

[Crimson Wife]

Here are quotes from the reviewer's comments on PM in the "2014 Mathematics Adoption Instructional Quality Commission Advisory Report":

 

"chapters are not grade level, therefore students do not spend the large majority of their time on the major work of the grade."

"content progressions grade-by-grade are based on concepts within the program and not progressions in the Standards."

"components make students responsible for topics before the grade in which they are introduced in the Standards."

"material does not help English learners, students below grade level, or students with disabilities."

 

The full link is here (scroll down to Marshall Cavendish, Primary Mathematics): http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/mathreportsoffindings.asp

 

So much for CC being a "floor" rather than a "ceiling".

[dereksurfs]

I was told by our charter that since Singapore PM exceeds CC (believe it or not, that's actually a big reason why the state reviewers decided not to approve it because students "would not spend the majority of the time on grade-level material"), we are fine with continuing to use it.

 

If your charter is giving you a hard time about the state-approved list, I guess I would go with MiF.

 

But this seems to contradict what I've heard about MiF being very similar to SM PM from parents who have used both. Is the difference really *that* significant from what you've observed?  I am speaking of the larger picture as in the end result lets say through elementary rather than micro differences per grade.  The consensus seemed to be that you would essentially end up in the same place, though taking slightly different paths to get there.  I don't think anyone has said that MiF is dumbed down SM for example, rather different in presentation and sequence.

[Arcadia]

I don't think anyone has said that MiF is dumbed down SM for example, rather different in presentation and sequence.

I think the main selling point of MIF is that there is a spanish edition and there is also spanish subtitles for the online videos. That helps the ESL students.

The school to home newsletters also have a Spanish version. That helps the parents who may be ESL.

[Crimson Wife]

But this seems to contradict what I've heard about MiF being very similar to SM PM from parents who have used both. Is the difference really *that* significant from what you've observed?  I am speaking of the larger picture as in the end result lets say through elementary rather than micro differences per grade.  The consensus seemed to be that you would essentially end up in the same place, though taking slightly different paths to get there.  I don't think anyone has said that MiF is dumbed down SM for example, rather different in presentation and sequence.

I looked over the 4th grade MiF books when they first came out, and they seemed similar to the PM, but the S&S was a bit behind. The topics in the 4th grade MiF books were mostly the same as the 3rd grade PM ones. I don't think that MiF is "dumbed down" from PM, but probably the S&S is more in alignment with CC.

 

I don't see why having kids work through the same topics in an earlier grade is a problem. But apparently that's not a POV shared by the textbook adopters at the CA Dept. of Ed.

[Crimson Wife]

I think the main selling point of MIF is that there is a spanish edition and there is also spanish subtitles for the online videos. That helps the ESL students.

The school to home newsletters also have a Spanish version. That helps the parents who may be ESL.

This is a perfectly valid reason for a district or charter school to pick MiF over PM. But I don't think it should be a reason for the state to veto putting PM on the approved textbook list. If it's a good program, the lack of a Spanish-language version should not prevent schools from choosing it for their native English speaking students.

[lifesadream83]

We use Math In Focus it is Singapore Math and LOVE it!

 

 

It is aligned with common core as far as what they teach each year but still the singapore method.  My daughter is behind in math because when I took her out of school in 2nd grade she tested into first grade math.  However, since we started using Math in Focus she gets is able to standardize test on grade level and get a 97%/96% even though her textbooks are one grade level lower. 

 

So for example at the end of 2nd Grade she took the 2nd Grade Standardized test but she was only in the 1b book.  She got a 97% (no errors on the test at all)

 

At the end of third grade she took the 3rd Grade test she got a 96% (one error) and she was only in book 2b.  

 

This year she is not testing because we have moved and it is not required again until 6th.  But she is now in book 3b and will be working over the next two summers to get into the correct "book"

 

 

[cmp3400]

I would NOT use GoMath!  The way the problems are worded are often very confusing (for the student and ME!). 

[happycc]

So I was so ready to continue with our Standards Edition Singapore Primary Math and noticed that books 6a and b do not have the home teachers guide. That just wont work for me.  I dont feel secure enough to release myself from the Home Teachers Guide. What has other people done about this dilemma?

 

So now I read people often go to AOPS prealge after 6A and B--is that standards or Us edition?

 

How about Math in focus 6 or 7 and then to AOPS? 

 

Ugh my head just hurts now thinking about all this.

 

Right now i have realized that my kids are not naturals with math. They struggle with math. One is still doing Level 3b and the other 4a and there are lots and lots of mistakes and stupid mistakes still. Frustrating. I am not sure why. We are also doing Process Skills level 3 and they make really stupid computational skills and not paying attention to exactly what is being asked. Why is this happening? Anyone knows? 

[kiana]

Honestly, if they are struggling students and not at least somewhat mathy, I would not use AOPS. AOPS is an above-and-beyond curriculum.

 

If you haven't gotten to Singapore 6 yet, why not continue it until you do? If they're in 3b and 4a you still have the rest of 4 and 5 left before you run out of home teacher's guide.

[Crimson Wife]

I have the TM for Singapore 6 SE and it is very similar to the old U.S. edition HIG. But I agree that if they are struggling students, it might be best to try another program. Jump Math is supposed to be good for struggling students.

[happycc]

I am not saying they are struggling student but more of silly mistakes students. How is that for a better explanation of them. 

They get the concepts quickly but make silly mistakes cause maybe I am several levels below. I use a regular grade textbook from the ps system to just cover information so they are grade level and then we use Singapore several levels below to make sure we are reviewing and getting concepts that the textbook doesn;t cover as indepthly. Does that make sense?. 

 

Ok...so  Crimson I can get the TM for Singapore 6 SE then and it would work just fine then? I am going to have the girls get through 4a and 4b now (6th grade)and through the summer. Get to 5a and b next year (7th grade) and then 6a and b following year (8th grade). Then start AOPS for 9th grade. 

Do you guys know if the Standards Edition will be continued to be available until the new Common Core takes its place and for how long?

 

[happycc]

Also for those with "younger" kids...  entering K, will you be starting Primary Math or going to Math In Focus to be more Common Cored aligned. I dread having to rebuy all the teachers guides etc when I already have level 1, 2,3,4 standard edition home teacher guides, textbooks but worry that the workbooks will no longer be available later on....

[happycc]

Ok here is Jenny from Singaporemath reply to some of my questions:

 

I am sorry, I do not have exact answers to your questions. I do not know when the Core edition will be finished for 6A and 6B. I don't think this year. The standards edition will still be provided for a while, but I do not know how long. Things are in transition. 

 

 

I am so frustrated with this transition right now. I am not sure what to do. She recommended I just finish 5a and 5b and then skip 6a and b and move on to Dimensions 7a and b.  But skipping an entire school year...that is a lot isn;t it. 

 

I just like to have all my books there on my shelf ready to pull out when the girls finish one book and ready to move on to the next. 

[kiana]

6th is a year of lots of review for the big standardized test that determines which secondary schools and which tracks they'll be able to go for, iirc.

[Dana]

So I was so ready to continue with our Standards Edition Singapore Primary Math and noticed that books 6a and b do not have the home teachers guide. That just wont work for me.  I dont feel secure enough to release myself from the Home Teachers Guide. What has other people done about this dilemma?

 

So now I read people often go to AOPS prealge after 6A and B--is that standards or Us edition?

 

 

6th is a year of lots of review for the big standardized test that determines which secondary schools and which tracks they'll be able to go for, iirc.

 

We're using IP 6A B and CWP 6, but my son moved from Singapore Standards 5 to a regular algebra course. We also have been using IP and CWP the whole way and often iExcel (now Process Skills). From what I saw of Singapore 6, if you've been using supplements as well, students should be in good shape to go directly to prealgebra from 5.

 

BUT... "enough" practice needs to be done.

 

Looking back... I wouldn't be using the program as much below as it looks like you are... If the issue is that they need some more in-depth work, use IP and CWP to supplement their core text. Otherwise, I'd use just Singapore - with supplemental books. But if they're feeling like they're going back to basic arithmetic, that's going to give you a lot of resistance.

[Arcadia]

. She recommended I just finish 5a and 5b and then skip 6a and b and move on to Dimensions 7a and b.  But skipping an entire school year...that is a lot isn;t it. 

 

There is a lot of review in 6A and B standards edition. My older just did it for practice during a summer holiday while my younger skip it because he rather start on AoPS prealgebra.

[Crimson Wife]

Oldest DD only did a bit of 6B after PM 5 before starting DM 7. We could've skipped 6 entirely except that I knew DD wouldn't get to the probability & statistics chapters in 7B before taking the STAR test. So to keep our virtual charter happy, we did those chapters out of 6B before jumping to DM 7. 

 

Now DD did need some additional pre-algebra work after finishing 7B before I felt comfortable starting 8A. PM 6 was too easy, so we did a quick run-through of selected units of MEP years 7-9. 

[redsquirrel]

So I was so ready to continue with our Standards Edition Singapore Primary Math and noticed that books 6a and b do not have the home teachers guide. That just wont work for me.  I dont feel secure enough to release myself from the Home Teachers Guide. What has other people done about this dilemma?

 

So now I read people often go to AOPS prealge after 6A and B--is that standards or Us edition?

 

How about Math in focus 6 or 7 and then to AOPS? 

 

Ugh my head just hurts now thinking about all this.

 

Right now i have realized that my kids are not naturals with math. They struggle with math. One is still doing Level 3b and the other 4a and there are lots and lots of mistakes and stupid mistakes still. Frustrating. I am not sure why. We are also doing Process Skills level 3 and they make really stupid computational skills and not paying attention to exactly what is being asked. Why is this happening? Anyone knows? 

 

I used SM US edition for just this reason. It does have a HIG for 6A&6B. I have no idea, but would it be possible for you to just switch over to the US edition for the 6th grade year? I doubt it would be any more difficult than finding an entirely  different math program for 6th grade.

 

 

And about the CC part, my local school district used the adoption of CC as an excuse to switch to Singapore Primary Math. I am under the impression that Primary Math is CC aligned.

[g1234]

Another vote for not worrying about skipping level 6. We did 6A and skipped 6B, and by then I was wishing we had skipped 6A, too.

[ondreeuh]

I don't see why having kids work through the same topics in an earlier grade is a problem.

 

It is a problem if a student moves to the school and, while technically on grade level according to CC standards, is not prepared for the "grade level" material of PM.

 

Since the whole point of Common Core is to standardize standards, it doesn't work to have a big jump between schools. It would be one thing if two programs covered the grade-level standards and one went beyond (that's the idea of CC being a floor but not a ceiling). However, if a program (like PM) already assumes mastery of grade-level standards and thus skips them to go to the higher material, then they are not using the same floor.

[Crimson Wife]

When critics were complaining about Common Core math being below the previous state math standards, defenders kept saying that schools could go beyond CC, they just couldn't go below CC. "It's a floor, not a ceiling!"

 

Well, obviously that was a load of bull manure because now the state has rejected a strong math program for going beyond CC. So it *IS*, in fact, a ceiling rather than a floor. If CC were a floor rather than a ceiling as proponents claimed, there would be no problem with adopting Singapore Primary Math.

[kiana]

They can't not teach the CC standards for their grade because they taught them in a previous grade. This disadvantages students who change schools, which is one of the major points of CC -- that students who change schools shouldn't need to be held back a grade in order to be with their class.

 

They can teach the CC standards for their grade AND the grade above at the same time, I believe, or provide extension work.

[Nart]

I think there were SEVERAL reasons why SM common core edition wasn't approved by California. The first issue was they only submitted grades 1-3 so right off the bat they couldn't be approved for Kinder, 4-6, which means there is no real chance of any school district using their curriculum. Many of the comments were that students were not spending their time on major works of the grade and that progress was based on concepts within the program and not progressions in CC. However, some issues were that students weren't required to write equations and that discussion opportunities did not ask students to critique the thinking of others.

Since approximately 31 out of the 35 math programs were approved it doesn't seem like it would be so difficult. I think the larger publishing companies have a huge advantage because they have the personnel to really outline how each lesson is meeting the Common Core and how each grade level connects to the grade before and the grade after. The reviewers' opinion was that SM Common Core did not have a clear roadmap for teachers to follow in planning instruction.

Again, I don't think it is just an issue of just being above grade level, since Math In Focus has several concepts that are above grade level (I have only reviewed first and second grade so I can't compare the upper grades). For example, most first grade math books do not cover regrouping in addition and subtraction in first grade using the standard algorithm - SM Standards doesn't while Math in Focus does.

I should add that since I haven't ever seen the Common Core edition of SM, I might be way off base. My eagerness in looking at what was approved/not approved in California is because my local school district uses Everyday Math which is NOT on the list of approved Common Core math programs in California. From my viewpoint it isn't a big deal if a school district wasn't approved to use SM if the district could use MIF instead of Everyday Math.

[happycc]

I looked at Math In Focus and I am not impressed. 
 

It doesnt have the explanations as well as Primary Maths HTG and it I hate the sequencing. 

 

It just doesn; appeal to me. 

 

But Smarter Balance tests are crazy ridiculous. My kids took and were overwhelmed by it all.