Unexpected feedback about Singapore math (MIF)

[Tiramisu]

I have a friend from China who is a professional in a science-related field. I ran into her the other day and out-of-the-blue she brought it up how much she dislikes the math program that's being used in our ps (MIF). The timing was ironic since I had just started reading Liping Ma's book. She is strong in math, and both her parents were teachers in China until rather recently. They joke in her family that Singapore is trying to make us dumb.

 

I don't mean to stir anything up here because I know how strong feelings can be about this topic, but I found her comments so interesting, especially since I have recently switched my youngest dd to Singapore Primary. :)

[SKL]

I too have been disappointed.  It has its good points but it sure has its bad points....

[wapiti]

I have never seen it so I have no opinion, though I might have read criticism somewhere along the way that it is watered down or has a suboptimal organization.

 

My personal guess is that it's probably superior to most PS programs, though maybe that's not saying enough in its favor.  There are posters around here who seem to like it, IIRC.

[T'smom]

What, exactly, were her objections to MIF? Just MIF or the regular Singapore too? I need details!

[Tiramisu]

What, exactly, were her objections to MIF? Just MIF or the regular Singapore too? I need details!

 

It's just MIF since she actually hasn't seen any other Singapore materials that I'm aware of. I think her complaints were about the methods that they use. Sorry, I can't be more specific.

 

She also specifically complained about the lack of drill. She said in the ps district they'd been in previously, they used a separate program for drill and she felt that was lacking in our ps. I think she seemed okay that drill wasn't included in MIF but thought the ps should use a drill program in addition.

[wapiti]

She also specifically complained about the lack of drill. She said in the ps district they'd been in previously, they used a separate program for drill and she felt that was lacking in our ps. I think she seemed okay that drill wasn't included in MIF but thought the ps should use a drill program in addition.

 

I've read that (by cultural tradition?) a lot of drill happens outside of school in Singapore and perhaps other Asian countries.  Maybe that has something to do with her expectations?

[Tiramisu]

I've read that (by cultural tradition?) a lot of drill happens outside of school in Singapore and perhaps other Asian countries.  Maybe that has something to do with her expectations?

 It didn't seem that the disappointment has to do with her expectations, but I agree that in Asia a lot of drill takes place outside of school. I saw it myself living there. That's why I never completely bought into the idea of Singapore math being miracle program, because I saw the time that students in Asia put in outside of school, going to cram schools, getting tutors, buying extra study materials...

[Tiramisu]

Used in a homeschooling setting it might not be at all comparable to a public school setting.  I am extremely glad to see our local schools are using MIF instead of Everyday Math (which is what they used prior). 

 

Our schools made the same switch two years ago. If I ever had to put my youngest in school, I would feel better that they are using MIF and not EM.

[AimeeM]

It's just MIF since she actually hasn't seen any other Singapore materials that I'm aware of. I think her complaints were about the methods that they use. Sorry, I can't be more specific.

 

She also specifically complained about the lack of drill. She said in the ps district they'd been in previously, they used a separate program for drill and she felt that was lacking in our ps. I think she seemed okay that drill wasn't included in MIF but thought the ps should use a drill program in addition.

 

My husband feels the same about MIF and Singapore maths sold here; he's not a fan. Specifically, the lack of drill.

(my husband isn't asian)

 

[redsquirrel]

different people have different opinions. Such is life.  Don't everybody go and throw out your math if you like it and your kid is succeeding.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The teacher's textbooks for Singapore math do include drill.  It just isn't part of the kid's text because it is supposed to be done in class.  If the schools aren't doing it, it is because they aren't including it.  

[madteaparty]

I started using Singapore Elementary back in first grade when DS was in public school. It worked well as an afterschooling program so we stuck with it. We supplement Singapore with Process Skills books, and sometimes a page or two from MEP. My only quibble with Singapore is that there is such a gap in proficiency between the work/ textbook and the CWP/IP books. Where the kids are supposed ot learn the incremental skills required to solve CWP and IP is unclear to me. And the answer key to either isn't great.

[AimeeM]

FWIW, years ago I used a few levels of My Pals are Here from Singapore.  The books even covered Singapore money.  There wasn't more drill in there than what is in MIF.  I'd think teachers are part of the equation with any subject.  They add in those things.  Not that they are necessarily all self contained in the book. 

 

Oh, I agree that it isn't all shelf contained and probably has a lot to do with teachers and general culture/home-life (the children are probably drilled at home); but to market at homeschool parents, without all of them understanding the importance of drill work (to sincerely be considered an "asian math") is a bit misleading, imo.

 

Kind of like CLE. You have what is "shelf contained"... but in the TM, the importance of drill is expressed many times over, as is their method of drill.

 

I know SM and MIF are big in public schools, but they also market to non-brick and mortars.

[mommymilkies]

different people have different opinions. Such is life.  Don't everybody go and throw out your math if you like it and your kid is succeeding.

Exactly. I hope nobody ditches a program working for them because one anonymous person dislikes them for unknown reasons based on their country of birth as qualifications. Lol. I'm using MiF for two of my kids after we used SM for ages. I find it easier to implement.

[AimeeM]

I can see that.  It would be nice if they'd come out with some homeschool friendly TMs for MIF (they are way too expensive IMO so I imagine a lot of people avoid buying them).  They have them for PM and Standards.  I didn't get into using them because I figured it out myself.  But yeah anyone who pays attention to their kids realizes they don't just magically absorb everything by looking at it a couple of times. 

 

Yes. I've even seen it recommended on this board to not buy the TM - that they aren't necessary.

[sbgrace]

I believe MIF is a strong program (equal to other Singapore math programs). We've used 1b-4a (currently in 4b).

 

My sister's kids are doing MIF in their public school. They have moved to this area from an area doing TERC Investigations. They are really disappointed in the MIF compared to math (TERC) their last school. I asked nephew what they are doing....and I'm unimpressed too. It's not the MIF we used at that level. I really don't know what they're doing or why. TERC has a horrible reputation, and I assume for good reason.

 

My take? Implementation matters, and using x text doesn't necessary mean it's being used properly.

[Tiramisu]

Exactly. I hope nobody ditches a program working for them because one anonymous person dislikes them for unknown reasons based on their country of birth as qualifications. Lol. I'm using MiF for two of my kids after we used SM for ages. I find it easier to implement.

 

I was a little afraid this would offend someone, and I'm sorry if it did.

 

My intent was not to encourage people to ditch a program that is working for them. I'm certainly not ditching it at this point. I agree that it's very easy to implement, with the right child. My second was frustrated to death with Singapore PM and moved over to CLE. And now my youngest is frustrated to death with CLE and prefers Singapore.

 

As far as my friend goes, she is China-educated with a doctoral level degree in a science related field so that's obviously more of a qualification to me than her country of birth. It was interesting to hear her family's view since her two parents were career teachers in China and who now help care for her children, oversee the homework, etc. Perhaps at another time I wouldn't have thought twice about her comments but I was reading Liping Ma's book which describes the approach of Chinese teachers. The timing just made it ironic.

 

Again, if it's working, don't change!!! 

[Cindyz]

I started using Singapore Elementary back in first grade when DS was in public school. It worked well as an afterschooling program so we stuck with it. We supplement Singapore with Process Skills books, and sometimes a page or two from MEP. My only quibble with Singapore is that there is such a gap in proficiency between the work/ textbook and the CWP/IP books. Where the kids are supposed ot learn the incremental skills required to solve CWP and IP is unclear to me. And the answer key to either isn't great.

 

I agree about the CWP/IP books.  I have felt my blood boil more than once when working in those books.  ;)

 

There is plenty of drill for Singapore if you buy the practice books.

[Elisabet1]

I don't like having drill in the learning program. Drill is such a separate type of learning from math processes and the hows and whys and such. I like so much more when the drill can be done outside of the math program. 

[8filltheheart]

I am in my 4th yr of MIF with my 6th grade dd.    It isn't the only math program she uses and there are times I think it makes problems way too hard.   Yesterday we spent an hour and a 1/2 on 3 intermediate level word problems.  Then today, she did 3 advanced problems in about 10 ins b/c they were actually way easier.     FWIW, anyone saying that MIF is too easy is just full of slimey, gooey brown stuff.  ;) 

 

FWIW, I don't particularly care for the SM method or bar diagrams.   I think it just complicates processes that are really easy to solve via algebra.   But that is a long story.

 

Another FWIW, there is no way I would do this w/o an answer key.  :P  I won't do any math beyond 3rd grade w/o an answer key.   Way too much time on my part vs. simply grading.

[Catherine]

I think the traditional SM math program (I'm not familiar with MIF) is not written for homeschoolers. It is written with the expectation that there is a teacher somewhere deciding who to drill, and how much. My experience has been that some kids truly need a minimal amount of drill to master the facts, and most math programs, not just Singapore, expect the teacher\parent to recognize the level of need for practice of any given concept, and to implement that on her own. Some contain drill sheets or games and some expect you to just find your own. I'd not reject a program that I liked on this basis though.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I was a little afraid this would offend someone, and I'm sorry if it did.

 

My intent was not to encourage people to ditch a program that is working for them. I'm certainly not ditching it at this point. I agree that it's very easy to implement, with the right child. My second was frustrated to death with Singapore PM and moved over to CLE. And now my youngest is frustrated to death with CLE and prefers Singapore.

 

As far as my friend goes, she is China-educated with a doctoral level degree in a science related field so that's obviously more of a qualification to me than her country of birth. It was interesting to hear her family's view since her two parents were career teachers in China and who now help care for her children, oversee the homework, etc. Perhaps at another time I wouldn't have thought twice about her comments but I was reading Liping Ma's book which describes the approach of Chinese teachers. The timing just made it ironic.

 

Again, if it's working, don't change!!! 

But her background and educational viewpoint is limited by only seeing a program being implemented in one school (I assume from what you wrote).  Part of that limitation is that unless there is more information that I don't know about, she hasn't seen the actual TMs that the teachers in the schools are using.  I've never known a teacher to use every single thing in a TM and it is very possible that these teachers have dropped the drill aspect.  

 

I happen to only have some TMs because someone gave them to me.  I don't consider them necessary in a home setting.  I also automatically add in things like drill because I know it is necessary and don't need a book to tell me that.  Though, as I said up-thread, the TMs actually did include drill.  It wasn't spelled out in detail though.  The TMs do assume that they are being used by trained teachers.  

[ChristineP]

I used Primary Math (original I guess??).  I don't know what MIF is, but anyway it has performed very well with all three of my children.  They all excel in math.  I love math so I supplemented where needed or provided more problems to cement a skill.  We also did drill with a computer program.  I was very pleased with how it taught my dc to think and problem solve.  It seems to me from the little I have seen of what is being used in some public schools, that the program they are using is significantly different than PM.  FYI:  I used PM through 6B.  Then we used the key to algebra series as a pre-algebra course and then went into the regular algebra, geometry, etc.

[Farrar]

Seconding that implementation matters so much.  And individual teachers.  She may not hate MiF, she may really hate the school and the teacher and not know it.

 

I also agree that drill and program being separated makes way more sense to me.  Maybe some schools should use a drill in addition.  And maybe some parents should stick their kids on xtramath, which would be much more like the Asian system of drill outside class.

[kbutton]

I started using Singapore Elementary back in first grade when DS was in public school. It worked well as an afterschooling program so we stuck with it. We supplement Singapore with Process Skills books, and sometimes a page or two from MEP. My only quibble with Singapore is that there is such a gap in proficiency between the work/ textbook and the CWP/IP books. Where the kids are supposed ot learn the incremental skills required to solve CWP and IP is unclear to me. And the answer key to either isn't great.

 

I think the size of the leaps are an individual difference in how people learn and think. I see what you mean by the gaps, although I know arguments have started in the past over whether there are gaps or not. My son makes these leaps but flounders with more incremental steps. I often look at the material and think, "he's not going to be this," and when I actually try it, he does fine. What seems to work for him is to make the leap, and then work backward to see how he got there. He used to do an incremental math program in school, and he couldn't see the forest for the trees. Now we talk about the forest and go back to ID the trees.

 

I wonder if the IP and CWP are meant to be extension activities or the meat of the program.

[mommymilkies]

I was a little afraid this would offend someone, and I'm sorry if it did.

 

My intent was not to encourage people to ditch a program that is working for them. I'm certainly not ditching it at this point. I agree that it's very easy to implement, with the right child. My second was frustrated to death with Singapore PM and moved over to CLE. And now my youngest is frustrated to death with CLE and prefers Singapore.

 

As far as my friend goes, she is China-educated with a doctoral level degree in a science related field so that's obviously more of a qualification to me than her country of birth. It was interesting to hear her family's view since her two parents were career teachers in China and who now help care for her children, oversee the homework, etc. Perhaps at another time I wouldn't have thought twice about her comments but I was reading Liping Ma's book which describes the approach of Chinese teachers. The timing just made it ironic.

 

Again, if it's working, don't change!!! 

Not offended. :)  I just see this a lot on here.  Someone dislikes a program and it must be horrible so everyone questions themselves.  Just trying to bring some sanity in, from one curriculum collector to others. 

[Crimson Wife]

I know SM and MIF are big in public schools.

Where? SM was on the previous state-approved textbook list and MiF is on the new one (SM was rejected for having a S&S above Common Core if you can believe that) but I've never actually seen a district that has chosen them. The ones in my area use Every Day Math or one of the big textbook publishers like Houghton Mifflin.

[Arcadia]

I wonder if the IP and CWP are meant to be extension activities or the meat of the program.

The IP and CWP are published for the US market.  The original 3rd edition (with rambutans, durians and UK spelling) which my brother used in 1988 only have the textbooks and workbooks while his teachers had the teacher's guide.

[redsquirrel]

Where? SM was on the previous state-approved textbook list and MiF is on the new one (SM was rejected for having a S&S above Common Core if you can believe that) but I've never actually seen a district that has chosen them. The ones in my area use Every Day Math or one of the big textbook publishers like Houghton Mifflin.

 

My local district uses SM PM. It made the switch about two years ago. Well, two years ago it was fully phased in the entire district.  So, now you know of one district that has chosen SM, lol.  I am sure there are others.

 

My state is a CC state.

 

Here is the district wikki with lots of SM printables etc

 

http://icsdk5math.wikispaces.com/

 

I have used quite a lot of them, such as the printable 10 frames and the place value mats and the printable discs etc

 

[AimeeM]

Where? SM was on the previous state-approved textbook list and MiF is on the new one (SM was rejected for having a S&S above Common Core if you can believe that) but I've never actually seen a district that has chosen them. The ones in my area use Every Day Math or one of the big textbook publishers like Houghton Mifflin.

 

Given, it was pre-CC, but I know I heard of several schools in my area considering SM. I'm not sure that they implemented them, though. I had also heard it was big in the California schools (I'm not in CA).

[Tiramisu]

The teacher's textbooks for Singapore math do include drill.  It just isn't part of the kid's text because it is supposed to be done in class.  If the schools aren't doing it, it is because they aren't including it.  

 

If the teachers are doing drill in class, the parents wouldn't necessarily know and may assume it's just not happening.

 

Everyone seems to assume that my friend's problem was with the lack of drill in Singapore, but she didn't say that and I didn't get that impression at all, since she expected there to be drill being done but separately and she didn't think it was compared to what she has seen in other districts.

 

Edited for clarity.

[Tiramisu]

FWIW, years ago I used a few levels of My Pals are Here from Singapore.  The books even covered Singapore money.  There wasn't more drill in there than what is in MIF.  I'd think teachers are part of the equation with any subject.  They add in those things.  Not that they are necessarily all self contained in the book. 

 

 

The teacher's textbooks for Singapore math do include drill.  It just isn't part of the kid's text because it is supposed to be done in class.  If the schools aren't doing it, it is because they aren't including it.  

 

I think the big issue was when the district first moved over to Singapore was that the teacher's didn't really know the methods to be able to really implement it well. The first year was really a mess because you had teachers who didn't know it and students who were in upper elementary grades being switched over midstream. Now I think they seem to be doing a better job since they have two years of training and experience to draw from.

[madteaparty]

FWIW, I don't particularly care for the SM method or bar diagrams.   I think it just complicates processes that are really easy to solve via algebra.   But that is a long story.

 

Another FWIW, there is no way I would do this w/o an answer key.  :p  I won't do any math beyond 3rd grade w/o an answer key. 

 

I think I love you. On both counts.

[Hunter]

Never switch from something that is working!

 

BUT…if Singapore is NOT working, and you are afraid to stray from Asian math, some people MIGHT want to check out the Japanese math.

http://www.globaledresources.com/products.html. There are threads here, but I don't think any of us have the entire curriculum. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

If the teachers are doing drill in class, the parents wouldn't necessarily know and may assume it's just not happening.

 

Everyone seems to assume that my friend's problem was with the lack of drill in Singapore, but she didn't say that and I didn't get that impression at all, since she expected there to be drill being done but separately and she didn't think it was compared to what she has seen in other districts.

 

Edited for clarity.

Didn't you say in your second post that she was concerned with the lack of drill?  That's why I focused on that. . . 

[T'smom]

Not offended. :) I just see this a lot on here. Someone dislikes a program and it must be horrible so everyone questions themselves. Just trying to bring some sanity in, from one curriculum collector to others.

That's interesting. My impression was that people were defending Singapore/MIF. I asked for details because I don't often hear people criticize those programs. I can't drop it though, because I'm not currently using it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

That's interesting. My impression was that people were defending Singapore/MIF. I asked for details because I don't often hear people criticize those programs. I can't drop it though, because I'm not currently using it.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think that Singapore is just one good math program out of a number.  I think that any program can be enhanced or detracted from by the teachers utilizing it.  That's part of the point of Liping Ma, that it is the teacher that needs to understand math well enough to explain it to any student with any kind of a question.  I do think the math program matters.  A good teacher will be hampered by a bad program, even though they will be able to salvage it to some degree.  

[Timberly]

.

[Tiramisu]

Didn't you say in your second post that she was concerned with the lack of drill?  That's why I focused on that. . . 

 

Sorry. I could have been clearer when I said this:

 

She also specifically complained about the lack of drill. She said in the ps district they'd been in previously, they used a separate program for drill and she felt that was lacking in our ps. I think she seemed okay that drill wasn't included in MIF but thought the ps should use a drill program in addition.

 

She didn't seem to expect the drill in MIF but thought the school should use a drill program, as the other schools her dd attended had. I think her criticism of MIF was with the methodology. I'm not quite sure if she meant it wasn't clear or overly complicated. That I don't really know.

 

She may also have also had a problem with the teaching because, as I thought back on her conversation, she asked me if I had attended the Open House when we would have had the opportunity to watch classes in session. I did not attend because my dd said it would be embarrassing.

[Elisabet1]

I am in my 4th yr of MIF with my 6th grade dd.    It isn't the only math program she uses and there are times I think it makes problems way too hard.   Yesterday we spent an hour and a 1/2 on 3 intermediate level word problems.  Then today, she did 3 advanced problems in about 10 ins b/c they were actually way easier.     FWIW, anyone saying that MIF is too easy is just full of slimey, gooey brown stuff.  ;)

 

FWIW, I don't particularly care for the SM method or bar diagrams.   I think it just complicates processes that are really easy to solve via algebra.   But that is a long story.

 

Another FWIW, there is no way I would do this w/o an answer key.  :p  I won't do any math beyond 3rd grade w/o an answer key.   Way too much time on my part vs. simply grading.

8fill...I actually completely agree with you. There are times where they make the problems or the explanations much harder than they need to be. And also, the rod diagrams go too far. There is a time where transitioning to variables is appropriate. 

[Crimson Wife]

Given, it was pre-CC, but I know I heard of several schools in my area considering SM. I'm not sure that they implemented them, though. I had also heard it was big in the California schools (I'm not in CA).

I'm in CA. I have heard of Core Knowledge charter schools using SM but AFAIK there aren't any of those anywhere close to the Bay Area.

 

The district where we lived from '06-'09 had a parent-led petition to adopt SM but the bureaucrats rejected it as "not appropriate for English Language Learners". The ironic thing was, most of the parents who were trying to get SM adopted were immigrants who were not native English speakers. The district instead adopted Every Day Mathematics.

[Sarah CB]

different people have different opinions. Such is life.  Don't everybody go and throw out your math if you like it and your kid is succeeding.

 

Totally agree.  My eldest wrote the grade 10 provincial exam in math after completing Singapore's NEM 1 (and a few sections from 2 and 3).  I used Singapore with her from 1A through to that point.  Her love of math stemmed from the understanding of math that was developed through Singapore.  She's now in engineering.  Her favourite engineering courses are the mathy ones.  

 

Sure, drill is not included, but really why would one need to include drill in the primary math program?  There are enough game ideas, printables from the web, and other resources to address drill.

 

I actually didn't need to drill at all with dd.  We learned thinking strategies through Singapore that made more sense than drill and helped build her understanding.  Through use of the thinking strategies, she became automatic with her math facts.  I think there were a few we needed to drill at one point, but most of them came through use of thinking strategies.

[Tiramisu]

Sure, drill is not included, but really why would one need to include drill in the primary math program?  There are enough game ideas, printables from the web, and other resources to address drill.

 

I actually didn't need to drill at all with dd.  We learned thinking strategies through Singapore that made more sense than drill and helped build her understanding.  Through use of the thinking strategies, she became automatic with her math facts.  I think there were a few we needed to drill at one point, but most of them came through use of thinking strategies.

 

First, I'd like answer the question in bold because it is hard for some people to understand. In my experience there are two reasons why one would need to include drill in their primary programs.

 

The first reason has to do with the challenge of managing multiple children with different needs. For a few years, I had four at home and I was rather overwhelmed trying to hs three, each with their own challenges, with an active toddler who didn't sleep. Then there were times when we dealt with major health issues. I've gone through periods when I had so much going on that even printing something off from the web would have seemed like an ordeal. Using a program with built in drill made it possible to make sure the drill was done every day no matter what. 

 

The second is that each child is very different when it comes to the ability to memorize. One of mine just remembered the facts after seeing them once. But another one needed to be drilled every day for years for her facts to become automatic, despite the fact that she had amazing conceptual ability and developed some Singapore-like strategies without ever being taught. 

[Tiramisu]

Sorry. dp.

 

[Sarah CB]

First, I'd like answer the question in bold because it is hard for some people to understand. In my experience there are two reasons why one would need to include drill in their primary programs.

 

The first reason has to do with the challenge of managing multiple children with different needs. For a few years, I had four at home and I was rather overwhelmed trying to hs three, each with their own challenges, with an active toddler who didn't sleep. Then there were times when we dealt with major health issues. I've gone through periods when I had so much going on that even printing something off from the web would have seemed like an ordeal. Using a program with built in drill made it possible to make sure the drill was done every day no matter what. 

 

The second is that each child is very different when it comes to the ability to memorize. One of mine just remembered the facts after seeing them once. But another one needed to be drilled every day for years for her facts to become automatic, despite the fact that she had amazing conceptual ability and developed some Singapore-like strategies without ever being taught. 

 

I can completely understand.  I have four children as well I had babies and/or toddlers present in our homeschooling room from the time I started homeschooling my daughter at age 4 until she was eleven.  And then I had a busy preschooler for a couple more years. 

 

I agree that each child is different.  There is no way a built in drill model would have worked for all of my kids.  My dd learned most of her facts through use of thinking strategies.  Her drill work needed to be very specific. 

 

My second child did not need paper and pencil drill.  That would have killed him.  He needed to do computer based drill.

 

My third child needed some paper and pencil based drill, but only with specific facts.  He's pretty particular about using his time well and efficiently and he would have balked at doing a wide range of drill.  He wanted to drill things he was having trouble with.  He also needed face to face drills - flashcards and games.  

 

My fourth is more than happy to fill things out and doesn't really need a whole lot of practice to master something.  Built in review wouldn't have bugged him and would likely have been enough to help him learn any facts that were eluding him.  

 

Built in review would not have been very helpful around here - even if it would have saved me time.  

[MistyMountain]

I know she mentioned MIF and not essentials but I do think Singapore math in general has its weaknesses for some kids for sure and one of them is that it does not provide enough practice for the concepts it teaches. My kids always understood the concepts they were taught but they need lots of practice for it to turn into them having facts down and just just knowing it right away. As time goes on I am just not finding it to be a great fit for my kids.

[Alice]

I think the size of the leaps are an individual difference in how people learn and think. I see what you mean by the gaps, although I know arguments have started in the past over whether there are gaps or not. My son makes these leaps but flounders with more incremental steps. I often look at the material and think, "he's not going to be this," and when I actually try it, he does fine. What seems to work for him is to make the leap, and then work backward to see how he got there. He used to do an incremental math program in school, and he couldn't see the forest for the trees. Now we talk about the forest and go back to ID the trees.

 

I wonder if the IP and CWP are meant to be extension activities or the meat of the program.

 

We actually just use theTB and  IP and CWP without the workbook. For my oldest, it has worked beautifully. My middle so isn’t as “mathy†and I do some workbook exercises with him but usually he complains that they are boring. They seem to like that the IP is less like busy work and more meaty problems. 

 

Amen to that. This busy mom would pay goood money for a Singapore Primary CWP and IP solution manual.

 

 

 

I agree. It’s the one part of Singapore that I find frustrating. However, I have found that if you post on the forums someone (often Jenny) answers very quickly and is helpful. It’s not as convenient as a solutions manual but for those problems I just can’t figure out it’s nice. 

[Tiramisu]

I can completely understand.  I have four children as well I had babies and/or toddlers present in our homeschooling room from the time I started homeschooling my daughter at age 4 until she was eleven.  And then I had a busy preschooler for a couple more years. 

 

I agree that each child is different.  There is no way a built in drill model would have worked for all of my kids.  My dd learned most of her facts through use of thinking strategies.  Her drill work needed to be very specific. 

 

My second child did not need paper and pencil drill.  That would have killed him.  He needed to do computer based drill.

 

My third child needed some paper and pencil based drill, but only with specific facts.  He's pretty particular about using his time well and efficiently and he would have balked at doing a wide range of drill.  He wanted to drill things he was having trouble with.  He also needed face to face drills - flashcards and games.  

 

My fourth is more than happy to fill things out and doesn't really need a whole lot of practice to master something.  Built in review wouldn't have bugged him and would likely have been enough to help him learn any facts that were eluding him.  

 

Built in review would not have been very helpful around here - even if it would have saved me time.  

 

You are much better than me!!! You have the same type of differences to deal with as I had, but I had a very hard time keeping everything organized for each child so I always needed something right in front of my face even if I had to tweak it a bit to suit each one. :)

[kbutton]

We actually just use theTB and  IP and CWP without the workbook. For my oldest, it has worked beautifully. My middle so isn’t as “mathy†and I do some workbook exercises with him but usually he complains that they are boring. They seem to like that the IP is less like busy work and more meaty problems. 

 

 

I started doing that this year too, though the CWP hasn't been opened as much as I would like. My son is a really S-L-O-W worker most of the time. I am not sure how that will go with the next one--he's doing Miquon and CWP right now.

 

[Nart]

My son has really benefited from extensive math fact drill. He completed SM1 A and 1B but struggled with regrouping numbers in his head quickly in order to figure out addition/subtraction past 10. I kept reading on the boards posters who thought memorizing addition and subtraction facts was not needed and doing so would set him back. He should just learn how to compose and decompose rapidly. Unless you have a strong working memory it is hard to do as the problems move into working with two digits (55-27 or 28 + 15). There are so many steps involved if you don't have automatic recall of math facts. He would get so frustrated. We have worked months on math facts and he finally has them all down. Now he is doing Math In Focus 2A and it is such a breeze for him compared to SM1B.