Please don't hurt me but .. I have a touchy question about MM

[SorrelZG]

Please don't flame me. I have been so confused about something for a good long while and too afraid to ask anyone plainly about it for fear of offending. In matters such as these, the Accelerated Learner Board seems like the place where the questions may offend the least number of people.

 

My firstborn started ahead of the ball, so to speak, and has remained there without any specific effort on my part. Well, to be plain, in some things he has been ahead, in others, not.

 

Since kindergarten I have used MM on and off. It is a highly recommended curricula, mentioned alongside other highly esteemed curricula such as Singapore and MEP. I do see criticisms of it but they are typically not in regards to the math but to the appearance.

 

I think a recent exchange highlights the problem I've experienced but not seen anyone mention. A few months back I was here about DS (not my recent question about BA but before that). I think I had been contemplating placing DS into MM as a leveled curricula instead of just supplementing but he was not at that point grasping the vertical algorithm for addition and subtraction and had not memorized the multiplication table. That put him awkwardly between MM3 and MM4.

 

It was pointed out to me that it wasn't a good sign to be so focused on algorithms and memorization. I agree/d. But therein was (is) my issue. MM3 had nothing more for him. If following the MM graded progression, he had come to a dead halt in mathematical progress while he learned algorithms and memorized the times table. Meanwhile, if I'd been placing him in a different curricula he could have been placed in lower grade levels, not needing to master the algorithms or memorize the multiplication table yet, but where he would still encounter material that made him think and even challenged him. Specifically, though the arithmetic itself isn't challenging, he has to think more with MEP and Miquon at lower levels than MM at a higher level.

 

Here is some of my confusion. I've read here, even recently, about children "accelerating" through "less rigorous" curricula and then appearing advanced although those children could not make it through lower levels of "more rigorous" curricula (using all these terms feels like running across a mine field). My experience has been that that could have been DS with MM. I could have put off the algorithm and memorization, let him continue working mentally, and placed him in MM4 for second grade. I didn't. We've just been fiddling around, strengthening his mental agility with fractions and conversions and multi step word problems. In these things he gained more from a vintage *first year* arithmetic book than from anything I have in my packet of MM Blue 1-3 (the fractions carry into 4th grade s&s).

 

Am I really the only one to experience this with MM? That it has required too little effort?

 

Here is another confusion - When to give a child more advanced work (in scope and sequence) and when to give them more challenging work (in how much attention or mental effort is required without advancing in concepts)? Should a child not be allowed to advance without being able to first puzzle through the "most rigorous" curricula first? Is it ever a better option for an individual child to be allowed to accelerate through lower level math without being required to apply it in challenging ways?

 

Again, I mean no offense to MM or those who use it as their primary curriculum. If not for this forum I might not have any of this confusion at all. I probably would have kept trucking on with MM through its grade levels at whatever pace, whether DS was enjoying math or not and never thought once about making arithmetic fun or adding challenge in ways aside from advancement. :-/

[Tanikit]

I haven't used MM - I know there are problems though with every math curriculum simply because it is not possible to cover everything in every possible way - which is why you need to teach children to think.

 

I use multiple curricula because of this, but at my DDs age it is easier to do this - at some point I will have to choose a curriculum and go with that - I know this now, but am not there yet. I do think though that you can check your child at any point by doing questions off olympiads or sample challenge questions. You could supplement with challenging word problems. Does that mean you should stop the MM - not necessarily - you can do be forging ahead in a less challenging curriculum while still doing challenging problems.

 

I guess what each person does will depend on what they want for their child - if it is to do well in tests, or to enjoy the subject, or to be able to think well or to become a mathematician, or to be able to teach their children math one day - personally I wold prefer to keep as many options open as possible for my child, but she is still young and I could change my mind (and so could she) at any point.

[MomatHWTK]

I treat standard curricula as the base.  If I have a child who is not strong in a particular subject, my goal is to have them fully cover the base information- the standard scope and sequence.  If the child excels in a particular topic, then I seek out more depth in that subject area for that child. 

 

With math it may be harder though.  You can't really just stall on addition if the child's learned it.  So I can see where you would need to decide when to move to the next book in the series.  I have one who is "mathy" and what we have done is use a program that automatically steps the child up to the next level.  So once he's mastered something, he is presented with something new. Meanwhile, he is also viewing and sometimes doing lessons that are on level and is also able to view lessons above his level because those lessons are being taught to other children in the household. 

 

I have this year chosen a standard curricula for my oldest two that covers the full scope for their grade in language arts and math in order to make sure I'm not doing to much supplemental and not enough scope and sequence.  So I guess that is my current approach, a set curricula to make sure the boxes are checked plus extras for "fun" and enrichment.  :)

[sunnyday]

Here is another confusion - When to give a child more advanced work (in scope and sequence) and when to give them more challenging work (in how much attention or mental effort is required without advancing in concepts)? Should a child not be allowed to advance without being able to first puzzle through the "most rigorous" curricula first? Is it ever a better option for an individual child to be allowed to accelerate through lower level math without being required to apply it in challenging ways?

 

I think you're confused because it's confusing, and it's confusing because it's all so individual. :) Your goals, your big-picture idea of what learning mathematics will mean for your child, your student's motivation to accelerate more quickly vs. problem-solve more deeply...nobody knows all that but you. :)

 

I'm personally choosing to go all over the map with my math-talented little guy. I am not wedded to covering concepts in order, but I'm adamant about covering concepts. Because 2nd grade math standards are generally only a small step from 1st grade math standards, I've decided to zoom my student through by doing the least possible, most superficial version of Singapore math for 2nd grade (and his public school teacher is giving him 2nd grade Go Math! worksheets, which works in our favor). We're working on problem solving skills separately, and I'm using my judgment to determine how much instruction and practice to give him. Simultaneously, we're doing second grade competitive math practice and third grade Beast Academy with occasional forays into LoF (roughly third grade level). Looping back to re-cover concepts intermittently, but infrequently enough that it isn't repetitive. It feels like a good balance for now.

 

I'm not super familiar with Math Mammoth, but I do like the quotation from the Boracs: "Mathematics is not meant to be easy; it is meant to be interesting." The samples I see make me think that MM holds as one of its purposes to make the math incremental and therefore easy. That's a fine way to get a student to do math problems, but a shame when it comes to a talented student who's intuitive enough to be working ahead of a standard grade-level schedule. If they're capable of accelerating, that's the point when, IMO, the teacher/parent needs to be thinking outside the box and not just linearly.

 

It's tough sometimes. People here, and people I know elsewhere, have chosen to follow a more linear path and can claim their 7yo is in a much higher grade level of math. But in my heart, and especially as I review resources like the ones I left in another thread on this board, I feel like this is the right path for us. My late-first-grader is still on average doing early-second-grade math, but I feel confident I'm giving him the best foundation for him, and that he's math talented even if he's not very accelerated by grade level. It's not like acceleration is a competition, amiright? :) We're all doing the best we can for our kids.

 

And thank goodness for this board for exposing us all to the wide variety of options for accelerated elementary kids!

[lewelma]

I haven't used MM, but for my older we very definitely accelerated through the easy SM workbooks until he hit a bit of challenge. So we did grade 1 and 2 in about 3 weeks.  When we hit G3 and I saw him slow down a bit, I had him start using the Intensive Practice instead of the easy workbooks. I could have had him do the IP for grade 1 and 2, but my parent's intuition told me that that would just be a stalling tactic.  Grade 3 is where he needed to start the more challenging work. 

 

For my younger, he also went through the SM IP in half the number of years (so double speed), but then he needed extra time in pre-algebra year to consolidate his learning (so 1.5 years). We went broad and did a lot of review.  In hindsight, I got it exactly right.

 

Honestly, parents can tell.  Trust your instincts and don't look back.

 

Ruth in NZ

[IsabelC]

I can see what you are getting at here. But at the same time, I suspect you might be overthinking this (not trying to be rude - I know I overthink things as well).

I would suggest :

1. Remind yourself that any curriculum or learning resource you choose to use is your servant, not your master. Use it however it works best for you and your child.

2. It doesn't matter if your 2nd grade child is using some 1st grade material and some 4th grade material. It's not just about having an adequate level of 'rigor', it's also about the best fit for your child.

3. It's fine to challenge your child by accelerating more, by going 'broader', or by a combination of the two. You don't have to plan out the next however many years and commit to that! Just try what your mommy-instinct suggests, observe how it goes, and tweak as needed.

 

[momma2three]

I think I see what you are saying, and I agree.

 

I'll preface it by saying that I don't have an accelerated learner... I just have a terrible toothache, and it's 4am, and so I'm just bouncing around the forums reading random threads.  :)  So take this with a grain of salt, because I don't really belong on this forum.

 

We started MM1 when she was just turning 5 and going into kindergarten (she went to a Montessori kindergarten, and I was after schooling.  She loved math, so it seemed like a good idea at the time).  She whipped through that whole first book... until the last chapter.  It's about place value, and she just totally hit a brick wall.  She was just not developmentally ready for it.  We did power through it, in exactly the way I think you're describing not wanting to do.  I didn't really want to do it, but the last chapter was so short, and I wanted her to be proud of herself for finishing the whole book.  But yes, it was totally possible to push her through something that she wasn't developmentally capable of understanding. 

 

For first grade, exactly a year later, I started her back at the beginning of MM1.  Again she whipped through the first book with no issues, including the place value part.  Easiest thing in the world for her now.  It's so easy for her that I don't think it's a full enough math program for her.  I dunno, I see people here say that it's difficult and time-intensive and so they only make their kid do a page or two a day, but DD can do a 2 page lesson in under 15 minutes, and has never balked at doing a 4 page lesson... it takes her about half an hour.  Given that dividing the two 1st grade books into 36 weeks means that she needs to do about 3 pages every 3 days, I don't think that 15-20 minutes of math every 3 days is enough for a 1st grader (And I'm no slave driver... I think about 20-30 minutes a day is more appropriate).  I decided against doing that every day, because we'd finish the book around now, and start MM2.  And I'm really wary of running into the same problem we did last year.  I really don't want to hand-hold her through the stuff she's not ready for, and the last thing I want is for her to be convinced that "I'm not good at math" or "math is hard" because I'm having her do something that was designed for older kids.

 

So... that's the long story of why we do MEP, too.  She actually finds MEP much, much harder.  I think she's, unfortunately, already used to the idea that "schoolwork is easy," because she's bright enough and I'm relaxed enough that it usually is for her, and some of the logic problems in the program in MEP are HARD (especially the ones that are supposed to be solved as whole-class exercises).  And while I love MEP in its own way, I really like the straight-forward, no-bones approach to MM, and I think that DD responds to it very well.  (Better than she does to MEP).

 

In practice, I have no idea what other families do.  Kids are certainly developmentally all over the place, so I'm sure that there are many 5yo kindergartners who could do the place value chapter in MM1 without any problem.  But, at the same time, it would not be a hard sell to convince me that some families would have done exactly what I did, which was to power though the tiny difficult-for-her section because the rest of it seemed so easy, even though nothing is really being learned or retained.  After all, I did it, and it was easy enough to do.

[Ausmumof3]

I don't have an accelerated learner and I don't do math mammoth we do singapore, but as a kid who spent a bit of time being bored in maths classes at school, I think it is good to keep working on higher level concepts as long as you work on maths facts memorisation as well. And we often just handle memorisation in the car etc.

[Laura Corin]

My children are accelerated in other areas, so I'll just address strategies for learning multiplication tables.  Hobbes is pretty physical and, especially when he was younger, learned best whilst moving.  We did a lot of work with skip counting whilst jumping.  For example, we started off on planet 1 and bounced higher and higher through 1, 2, 3 until we 'blasted off' on 10.  That took us to planet 2, where we bounced higher and higher through 2, 4, 6.. until we reached planet 3.  Once he had the skip counting down, we had fun with 'running to planets' - I would say, 'Let's run to planet........ 3' and he would run across the room and bounce onto the sofa next to me.  Then we would 'Talk in 3', using the skip counting with all the expression as if we were having a conversation.  Sometimes we did it in order, sometimes using any random numbers from the three times table.  After we had played around with skip counting for some time, the times tables fell into place.

 

Calvin was a different question: not physical and, it seems, incapable of learning number-based patterns.  For him I used the multiplication stories at Multiplication.com.  They were free at the time - now you need to buy a book.  It was very worthwhile, as he learned all his tables within a week, after a year of failing at more traditional methods.

 

I hope that helps.

 

L

[MotherOfBoys]

I just recently switched to mm as my one and only. I was using saxon but that was even worse. It's teaching me to teach the topics and not the curriculum. I totally get your question..."that it requires too little effort". It breaks things down into small chunks, just not as bad as saxon did, that are not necessarily needed for my son. So I've learned to discuss some topics instead of requiring a full lesson. I use a highlighter to circle the problems I do want him to do and he knows all word problems are a must. Math facts are practiced on his own with tablet app's. Next year I want to add a supplement like zaccaro or something. We do math year round so the review chapters go quick, we will always have a couple extra weeks a year for supplement. I want deep math thinking right now and to avoid the" math is easy or he gives up" problem. When I notice that starting I rethink the week and move us forward. 

 

This is accelerating my son grade wise, more then I would like. I had a big problem with it at the beginning of the year when a friend asked if he was ready for college yet...her son has done first grade three times now...he's eight. So I keep quiet in public on what he's doing in math. I will not let him do grade three mm till he's six or completed a supplement like zaccaro.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I totally get where you are coming from!  My older child started hsing in 4th grade.  We started with MM4 and the first chapter was soooooo hard - she had never been taught at a conceptual level and she had never been taught mental math.  OTOH, she had memorized all her facts easily.  Slogging through that difficult first chapter, backtracking as needed, gave me a healthy respect for what MM had to offer.

 

After that first chapter, it was much easier.  She was pretty well flying through the lessons.  I thought this was a pretty good thing - it gave me the confidence that she was learning the basic grade level material as she should - and we heavily supplemented for more challenge.  This worked pretty well for 4th and 5th grade - use MM as a spine, only do half the problems, skip a lot of the really incremental stuff, and appreciate its challenging aspects - some of the word problems are pretty challenging, and the coverage of ratios is excellent - but supplement for more challenge.

 

This year, I had a big epiphany about math, thanks to people here, in particular regentrude, who posted that if the student was consistently getting high scores, the math wasn't challenging enough.  I realized that what I had been thinking was a good thing - that she was finding MM easy and getting above 90% on all her tests - maybe wasn't such a good thing after all.  I decided to diverge more from MM this year, though we've still used it a bit - and make some more challenging programs our spine, and to "accelerate" into PreA for 6th instead of doing a whole year of "6th grade math"  This was a good move and I'm really happy that I'd been supplementing all along.  It was very striking to see the difference between how my dd responds to challenging math vs, MM - kind of "this is easy, ho hum"

 

With my 2nd grader, she had some serious math anxiety at the beginning of the year due to a mean 1st grade teacher, so I intentionally didn't want hard math for her this year - I wanted math to be fun and pleasant.  Solid, but not stress-inducing.  She has flown through MM2, and is nearly finished.  Like you described, she can easily do 4 pages a day, and it isn't hard.  I've been having her do every problem, because that has cemented her knowledge of basic addition and subtraction facts without the need for extra drill which she hates, especially timed drill (even when you are adding and subtracting 3 digit numbers, you are practicing your basic facts!)  She's now rock-solid on her basics, and has regained her confidence and knows she's good at math.  So now, she's ready for a challenge, and I'm not sure that MM is it.  We're going to work with BA, and if she thrives with that, I will probably drop MM, or use it just to supplement those areas that BA doesn't really cover (calendar and money) and for reviews and tests.

 

So, is MM too easy?  Yes, sometimes.  Sometimes easy is what you need.  But no, not always, and you can focus on those more challenging aspects, use it as a spine, and diverge (wildly).  I don't think it's black and white, I think like others have said you just have to pay attention and follow your intuition about how its working for the child in front of you, and not use it just because you think it's good or think you should.  That goes for anything, including BA and AoPS!  The beauty of homeschooling is to be able to meet the child where they are and offer the challenge that's right for them.  The hard part is figuring out what that is and where to find it.

 

Good luck. 

[boscopup]

Math Mammoth teaches incremental steps that an advanced math student may not need, so there I could see it being too easy sometimes. As a whole curriculum for an average student, I think it's good and solid and just the right amount of difficulty. For an advanced student, you'll need to supplement with Singapore's IP or CWP maybe.

 

My son found Singapore to be just as easy, btw. Only the Challenge questions in IP/CWP were harder, and even many of those weren't that bad.

 

I currently have my older two kids each working through an "easy" curriculum (CLE) and a "hard" curriculum (Beast Academy/AoPS Prealgebra). Doing the repetitive easy curriculum has been good for building automaticity in arithmetic. Using the harder AoPS products has kept math interesting and given them problem solving skills. MM and Singapore are somewhere between CLE and AoPS products. Singapore's IP/CWP make it slightly harder than MM, but Singapore TB/WB are no harder than MM (maybe a bit easier). Singapore doesn't walk the kid through the problem as incrementally as MM does (that's kind of what drove my son a bit nuts sometimes).

 

The nice thing about MM is that it's cheap enough to feel comfortable with skipping large amounts of the program. :D I really liked it for accelerating my oldest to where he really was when I first pulled him out of school.

 

Also, I've found that ALL programs (except Beast Academy) seem pretty easy for grades 1-3. I think grade 1-3 math is just fairly simple in general, which is why so many bright kids can race through it in no time flat. Once they get to 4th grade math and up, many will slow down at least a little bit - multi-digit multiplication and long division, for example. So being able to race through a grade 1 or 2 curriculum doesn't tell me that the curriculum is too easy. It just tells me you have a bright kid who gets the basics of early elementary math easily. Go ahead and let them move on! They don't need to dwell on 2+3=5 for a long time if they already understand that.

[wapiti]

No reason to fear flames - we all know there is no one-size-fits-all curriculum, especially not for asynchronous learners.

 

Here is some of my confusion. I've read here, even recently, about children "accelerating" through "less rigorous" curricula and then appearing advanced although those children could not make it through lower levels of "more rigorous" curricula (using all these terms feels like running across a mine field). 

 

There is some amount of conflict between depth and acceleration.  You need to find what's best for your student, which may be a combination.  I'm not sure whether that's the crux of the issue you are facing here, however.  In the case of your student, perhaps there's something asynchronous going on, being "done" with MM3 yet not knowing the times tables and not, in your judgment, quite ready for MM4.  This is where you look at the curriculum as just another tool to use as you see fit.  You could move forward while working on the multiplication facts on the side, you could wallow a while in MEP or some other puzzle-ish resource, or a bit of both, and you're the only one who knows how much of each is best for your student.

 

MM was not written with the depth, of say, BA.  It probably strikes a happy medium of depth for a lot of students, especially those closer to the middle of the pack.  IMO it's sufficiently strong, but sufficiently for whom?  Whether you need to, or desire, to supplement it is an individual question.

 

FWIW, there seems to be some sort of jump between MM3 and 4 that I have not been able to quite put my finger on - some kids find ch 1 of MM4 challenging.

 

The multiplication algorithm and long division are the focus of MM4 just because that's typical 4th grade math.  If your student isn't ready for that because he doesn't know the multiplication facts, then you have your answer - work on them elsewhere with games and other resources.  There may be some kids who might relish the more complex use of multiplication and find that slogging through bigger multiplication problems is a motivation and/or method of practice for learning the facts.  Every kid is different.

 

As for algorithms and concepts, notice what MM spends a lot of time on in various places:  multiplying in parts, i.e., distribution.  That is the concept underlying the algorithm.  I think it would be a mistake to view MM as algorithm-focused.  MM always introduces the concept first and then follows with the algorithm in a fairly balanced way.  The concept sections are often what I see referred to on the boards as too many ways to do something, when they are really just teaching the concept before teaching the shortcut.

 

I haven't used all of grade 3, but I don't recall there being a focus on memorization in MM.  There is a major difference between learning multiplication facts through lots of practice calculating them as opposed to a rote memorization activity.

 

Sorry for so much rambling!  Just my two cents.

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[Paige]

I don't really understand your post either. Are you saying that with MM, you could have continued on doing the next page even though your DS didn't really have the algorithm down, possibly getting into trouble later? And, paradoxically, he would also be doing math problems that were too easy for him as he moves ahead? I don't know what you mean by MM3 wouldn't have anything else to offer him. Was it too easy other than the multiplication? I mean, there's division, geometry, and fractions...

 

For me, we use MM as a base. It is quick and easy (especially for me), it gets things done and I know that by following it, we aren't missing anything. Since it is so quick and easy, we have time to supplement with other math related activities that bring more depth to their education. That's the genius of MM for me. If I used some other more time intensive programs, then we wouldn't have time for the other math related things we do. If you aren't happy with MM, however, there's no need to stick with it. There's lots of other options out there and even if something is good, it doesn't mean it's good for you.

[TracyP]

If I am understanding your question correctly, I don't think this is a MM problem. MM is a solid, conceptual program. Some will find it too hard, some too easy, and some just right. ;) It was just right for my oldest.

 

I will make a comparison with CLE. (I use CLE as an easy review and supplement with a more challenging program - which was MM for my oldest.)  I have seen threads where posters discuss their struggles with CLE. Grade 4 is getting too difficult or one lesson in G5 is taking over an hour to complete. CLE is a very middle of the road math program, IMO. Yet, my experience is that it is very easy. This doesn't speak as much to the program as it does to the student. MM was a perfect challenge for my oldest, but it might not be challenging for another child.

 

I agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't just "plow through" an easy program. But what this means in practice is going to depend on the child. Plus, there is a point where just because you can go deeper doesn't mean you should. Some kids are just ready to move on. My dd is getting more excited about math as we move beyond arithmetic. She also struggled over a couple BA3 challenge problems last year when she was doing it with her brother. That doesn't mean that she should go back to third grade math, kwim?

[sunnyday]

Also, I've found that ALL programs (except Beast Academy) seem pretty easy for grades 1-3. I think grade 1-3 math is just fairly simple in general, which is why so many bright kids can race through it in no time flat. Once they get to 4th grade math and up, many will slow down at least a little bit - multi-digit multiplication and long division, for example. So being able to race through a grade 1 or 2 curriculum doesn't tell me that the curriculum is too easy. It just tells me you have a bright kid who gets the basics of early elementary math easily. Go ahead and let them move on! They don't need to dwell on 2+3=5 for a long time if they already understand that.

 

See, the way I try to frame it in my house is that ALL math is pretty simple in general. It's when you USE the math to see patterns, draw conclusions, make logical connections, that's when you're learning actual mathematics.

[SorrelZG]

I don't really understand your post either. Are you saying that with MM, you could have continued on doing the next page even though your DS didn't really have the algorithm down, possibly getting into trouble later? And, paradoxically, he would also be doing math problems that were too easy for him as he moves ahead? I don't know what you mean by MM3 wouldn't have anything else to offer him. Was it too easy other than the multiplication? I mean, there's division, geometry, and fractions...

He could multiply just fine, he just didn't have the table down cold - even now he does the multiplication in his head using the distributive property and skip counting to figure out all the facts he does not remember off hand, whether that's 7x7 or multiplying with multi digit numbers (not required by MM3 but he already does it).

 

The problem with not knowing the algorithm was that he couldn't write out the problems the way MM was requesting - he did them all mentally instead.

 

But .. his placement isn't the issue, he was just serving as an example of my experience. The question was whether others had had similar experiences to mine with this curricula compared to others and it appears I'm in good company. :)

[SorrelZG]

You are all awesome. I love you all. It is all so much clearer to me now and I'm feeling less regret about DS's math path so far and more confidence about the path we're choosing next. I'm also feeling better about continuing MM with my younger ones. Generally, I'm feeling more equipped to make decisions about math curricula for my children than I've felt in a good long while.

[SeaConquest]

For me, we use MM as a base. It is quick and easy (especially for me), it gets things done and I know that by following it, we aren't missing anything. Since it is so quick and easy, we have time to supplement with other math related activities that bring more depth to their education. That's the genius of MM for me. If I used some other more time intensive programs, then we wouldn't have time for the other math related things we do. If you aren't happy with MM, however, there's no need to stick with it. There's lots of other options out there and even if something is good, it doesn't mean it's good for you.

Exactly this. We use MM, but skip many problems and supplement heavily. If BA2 was ready, I'd use that next year. But, for now, we're using CWP, LOF, Zacarro, living math books and TV, and will likely add Borac and Mathletics to the mix.

[blondeviolin]

FWIW, my oldest is not very mathy, but a year advanced in math. I have her working the occasional MM3 worksheet when we are chewing on a BA problem or just reading the guide. She calls MM "easy math." I believe she sees it that way because everything is spoon-fed to her and she's not required to figure something out as much.

[SorrelZG]

I know what happened (that resulted in my confusion here): I was expecting MM to be the equivalent of Singapore with the IP & CWP. I didn't think about it exactly like that but I realize now that it is what I thought. When I was choosing between them at one point I thought - why pay for all these different books that make up SM when I can get MM all in one and for so much less? Obviously I miss categorized the information I was taking in and made incorrect assumptions.

 

It (only :P) took me two and a half years to get this straight but I appreciate both choices now more than I previously have.

[EndOfOrdinary]

I think some of it might also depend on if your child really has a direction. Though my son is young and it very much could change, he is fairly strongly not math. He is language, culture, and humanities. We still do math (AoPS), but it is a much smaller part of our curriculum. I like the depth portion of AoPS for this reason. The focus is on problem solving and less about the computation. His focus is much more on the thought side than the answer side (if that makes any sense). He still needs challenging math, because let's be real, he's nine. For now, however, a program heavy in math would be a slog for him. Give him three or four languages (which would have wrecked me in school) and he is so happy.

 

It was important for me to realize that this year. Every kid doesn't need to be a STEM kid. Feel out where your son might want to go.

[Gil]

Don't worry about being flamed. We are probably the biggest Math Mammoth Groupies on this board but MM has served us extremely well. The boys at 6 and 7 years old are working on MM6 now. We're going to continue on with select units of MM Gold and Green when we finish the 1a-6b sequence of light blue. We love Math Mammoth, we adore Math Mammoth and we admit that a great deal of MM was easy (because we started 1a well below their ability level and they completed the first few grades in their entirety within a year) but we did 1a-3b because there was benefit in doing it.

 

I'm pretty confused about your original post, not really sure what you are getting at or asking, but some people will find MM "not challenging/rigorous" enough and others, like us, will just be tickled pink by it. We love MM here, but MM works for us. Extremely well. I have always done math games and lessons with my boys, freestyle ever since they were toddlers, we learned to count, skip count, place value, and explored the four operations before the boys were coordinated enough to hold a pencil.

 

The boys are great with the big picture thinking, and getting concepts but I also wanted to be sure that they were getting enough practice because they catch on very quickly but then a while later totally goof it up. (Whats addition again?)

 

I like the way that MM develops everything incrementally, conceptually and there is tons and tons of practice. I have the boys do all of the problems, even when they know the material (In the beginning, if they whined I'd tell them: "if its so easy, then do it quickly! I expect neat handwriting because your mind isn't taxed by the math task!"), so far, MM has only helped us. All the practice has built their accuracy, cemented concepts, built fluency in skills, bolstered their confidence, their handwriting is (mostly) legible and they are loving math. They are good at the basics of showing work/steps.

 

If Math Mammoth weren't working for us, I would change it. In a heart beat and not look back. But, we use some supplements on their grade level. We occasionally do drills on other things, I try and challenge them where they are at and pose them interesting problems. The books that we use, they are mere-guides, they are tools. They aren't, by default, maths end-all, be-all definition.

 

You may need to supplement MM--we do. You may need to ditch MM--we would, if we needed to. You have be willing to flex and stretch with your student.

I'm toying with the idea of using all free math resources around the web for the next couple of years after the boys finish their current goal. I have been questioned by some people who don't think letting the boys go so far ahead in math is wise, but they are happy doing it, they are actually learning and retaining and so I am allowing it.

 

I guess you have to really be careful that you aren't expecting Math Mammoth to be something that it isn't or to do something that it doesn't/cant do...For us, we have had success with MM but we use it for what it is, and we use it as written. We knew that going into it, so we have had no reason to be anything but happy.