BA Scope and Sequence

[Pansen]

I had a biochemical engineer tell me that BA makes no sense as far as Scope and Sequence. She said a lot of it is useless information. For example, the Perfect Square chapter is lame for making a short problem of simple multiplication into a complicated problem of multiplication plus addition. It's an unnecessary extra step. She then said that the next chapter of Distributive Properties is an odd choice for sequence. She doesn't think it's a good math program.

I am not a math wiz by any means and am just along for the ride as my son does this stuff. What do you think about what she said?

[Arcadia]

In terms of comparing with a traditional public school math topic sequence, BA might make no sense. In terms of kids having fun with math, and think outside the box who cares if the scope and sequence is not traditional. I come from a long line of eccentric engineers anyway :)

 

ETA:

I have BA3A-4B. My kids read for leisure

[Pansen]

Right. Her sons did the pubic school route, but both are at students at Stanford (one is entering in the fall).

 

[Crimson Wife]

I happened to have a student working through BA3 and another working through algebra at the same time and I thought it was cool to see how the perfect squares chapter in BA3 related to what my oldest was doing with polynomials. I'm not a mathy person and this happpened last year so I can't explain the connection, but I definitely saw it at the time.

[SarahW]

I had a biochemical engineer tell me that BA makes no sense as far as Scope and Sequence. She said a lot of it is useless information. For example, the Perfect Square chapter is lame for making a short problem of simple multiplication into a complicated problem of multiplication plus addition. It's an unnecessary extra step. She then said that the next chapter of Distributive Properties is an odd choice for sequence. She doesn't think it's a good math program.

 

I am not a math wiz by any means and am just along for the ride as my son does this stuff. What do you think about what she said?

 

 

I'm not sure I understand her complaint.

 

Perfect squares is a good intro to exponents, and it makes sense that that follows multiplication, since it is multiplication.

 

Distributive property follows multiplication because now the student knows two different sorts of operations, addition and multiplication, and it makes sense that the student is told how to use them in conjunction.

 

I agree that BA throws "odd" topics down to lower grades, but that's one of the good things about the program, and that makes it different from everything else. I don't rightly recall learning the triangle inequality in school, maybe a bit in passing in Geometry? But I don't think it's a bad thing to throw it in when discussing perimeter. It gives the student another way to practice the main concept without "do 50 more of the same."

 

 

ETA: NM the 2nd paragraph. My kid has been bugging me on order of operations this week, so I'm seeing it everywhere, lol. But DB also naturally follows multiplication....

[FairProspects]

I had a biochemical engineer tell me that BA makes no sense as far as Scope and Sequence. She said a lot of it is useless information. For example, the Perfect Square chapter is lame for making a short problem of simple multiplication into a complicated problem of multiplication plus addition. It's an unnecessary extra step. She then said that the next chapter of Distributive Properties is an odd choice for sequence. She doesn't think it's a good math program.

 

I am not a math wiz by any means and am just along for the ride as my son does this stuff. What do you think about what she said?

 

I can see where she is coming from on this argument. BA does include a lot of topics that lean more conceptual or theoretical in nature. It is not necessarily the engineer's math and IMHO for that kind of brain it sometimes feels overly convoluted and as if they are trying to "trick" you. That appears to be true for much of the AoPS discovery method in general (although we have not yet personally done the upper levels). Clearly, even the early BA topics do make very deep, interesting connections to higher math. However, I wonder if making those connections is always necessary or desirable, even for STEM kids. Some kids may love that style of thinking about math. Others may not. I say this having seen several young Davidson kids work through BA and watching their responses to the style. Many have been highly successful in other conceptual situations, but not all were fans of BA. (For reference, we have done BA 3A-4A)

[Julie of KY]

I've done all of BA that's published so far and I've got to say I love it. I'm a math-inclined engineer and my oldest is a math geek. I have two kids that have gone through SM and into AoPS and I am using BA (alongside SM) for my younger two.

 

I agree that certain topics may seem overly complicated such as the perfect squares chapter. However, IF kids can learn how perfect squares work this way then they are a step ahead in thinking about how algebra works. Of course you can just multiply it out by hand, but if you understand the theory of numbers then it makes math more understandable, easier, and certainly more elegant.

 

I thought the distributive properties chapter was in a great place in the sequence. I also really like that BA introduces topics that most kids either get much later or never at an elementary level.

 

For someone who is looking at BA from the outside, I can see where they might think a lot of it is useless. However, in the process of teaching my kids, I don't think any of it is useless and I'm super-excited that it is available for my younger kids. My oldest math-loving kid says BA is "epic".

[kateingr]

I've done all of BA that's published so far and I've got to say I love it. I'm a math-inclined engineer and my oldest is a math geek. I have two kids that have gone through SM and into AoPS and I am using BA (alongside SM) for my younger two.

 

I agree that certain topics may seem overly complicated such as the perfect squares chapter. However, IF kids can learn how perfect squares work this way then they are a step ahead in thinking about how algebra works. Of course you can just multiply it out by hand, but if you understand the theory of numbers then it makes math more understandable, easier, and certainly more elegant.

 

I thought the distributive properties chapter was in a great place in the sequence. I also really like that BA introduces topics that most kids either get much later or never at an elementary level.

 

For someone who is looking at BA from the outside, I can see where they might think a lot of it is useless. However, in the process of teaching my kids, I don't think any of it is useless and I'm super-excited that it is available for my younger kids. My oldest math-loving kid says BA is "epic".

Beast is a huge hit at my house, too. (We are in 3C.) I'm a former fifth-grade teacher, and I agree that the sequence is unusual. This is not a get-to-the-point curriculum...it gives lots of practice for the topics in the traditional scope and sequence, but in a challenging and thought-provoking way.

 

Take the perfect squares unit, for example. I don't think the point of that section is to learn number theory tricks with perfect squares and understand them perfectly. That would be pretty pointless for my son at this point. But, it helped him memorize the perfect squares (which are great stepping stones to other multiplication facts), and even more importantly, it forced him to use his brain and connect his understanding of multiplication to both visual and symbolic representations in a deeper way.

 

I have a math degree from Harvard, but I feel like I barely made it through my math coursework because I didn't have the kind of creative, problem-solving background that Beast (and I hope AOPS) provide. I have no idea what kind of academic path my kids will follow, but I expect they'll have much deeper reasoning skills and much more confidence in their ability to tackle non-routine problems because of Beast.

Edited for silly typo, although "I'm have a math degree from Harvard" was a pretty funny one. :)

[EndOfOrdinary]

I think you can rip apart any curriculum.  There is nothing perfect and there is nothing that works for everyone.  Part of using a curriculum is that it works for your family and that you trust it.  If you use only one book in the BA sequence and then change, yeah, there might be issues.  However, that is true with any other curriculum as well. 

 

People complained about Singapore.  People complained about Saxon.  People complain about everything.  If you want your student to have a strong conceptual understanding and they enjoy puzzles, why does it matter what another person thinks?

[jar7709]

I can see where she is coming from on this argument. BA does include a lot of topics that lean more conceptual or theoretical in nature. It is not necessarily the engineer's math and IMHO for that kind of brain it sometimes feels overly convoluted and as if they are trying to "trick" you. That appears to be true for much of the AoPS discovery method in general (although we have not yet personally done the upper levels). Clearly, even the early BA topics do make very deep, interesting connections to higher math. However, I wonder if making those connections is always necessary or desirable, even for STEM kids. Some kids may love that style of thinking about math. Others may not. I say this having seen several young Davidson kids work through BA and watching their responses to the style. Many have been highly successful in other conceptual situations, but not all were fans of BA. (For reference, we have done BA 3A-4A)

I agree. My kids have had different responses to BA. DS used 3A-3D and although capable, there were many battles and he did not thrive with the program. He switched back to MM afterward. I don't know if math will ever be his favorite subject, but he is on much more even footing again now. DD on the other hand has taken to BA like a duck to water and will continue on with the program until she outpaces their release schedule...she's halfway through 3C so she should at least be able to finish the 4 sequence. She is naturally more puzzle-solving and visual than her brother, but I would not be surprised if both of them end up in STEM someday...DS's brain just needs a more incremental and straightforward approach to math. I am very glad BA exists, but like any curriculum option, it's not the magic bullet for everyone.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I agree. My kids have had different responses to BA. DS used 3A-3D and although capable, there were many battles and he did not thrive with the program. He switched back to MM afterward. I don't know if math will ever be his favorite subject, but he is on much more even footing again now. DD on the other hand has taken to BA like a duck to water and will continue on with the program until she outpaces their release schedule...she's halfway through 3C so she should at least be able to finish the 4 sequence. She is naturally more puzzle-solving and visual than her brother, but I would not be surprised if both of them end up in STEM someday...DS's brain just needs a more incremental and straightforward approach to math. I am very glad BA exists, but like any curriculum option, it's not the magic bullet for everyone.

 

Well, and I think this is the real problem, right? If we think that one math program is the bomb, and our kid can't be in STEM unless they use and thrive with that one program, we are doing them a disservice and needlessly stressing ourselves out.  Not saying you (or anyone on this thread) is doing this! But there is a lot of AoPS veneration on these boards, and it can create the impression that it's the only path to success in math, and it's just not so.  Kids have thrived in math before AoPS/BA, and many will thrive without it.

 

That said, I can understand your friend's criticism based on a superficial skim of the TOC, but now that I'm using the program - we're in the perfect squares chapter - I disagree.  The perfect squares chapter, and the distributive property chapter, are ideal ways to practice multiplication and addition, to understand how they fit together, in a deep way, before moving on.  Otherwise, what? you have them do pages and pages of multiplication problems till they get the tables memorized, or you move on to division before they have it down?  I'm loving the chance to wind our way through these chapters while she's getting solid on her tables.  She understands multiplication at this point so much better than her sister did at this stage.  I love how all the problems force her to keep using mental math skills, too.  It's such a better use of her practice time than pages of drill.  The deeper I get into it, the more valuable it seems to me - and the fact that geometry is so integrated into the program, rather than being a stand-alone chapter tacked on somewhere is going to help so much in the long run.

 

Not to venerate BA and imply it's the only or best way  ;)  or even a good fit for all kids.  It's not.  But I think the criticism of the S&S misses the point of the program.