Jump to content

Menu

Which math curriculum in light of The Singapore Issue?


ExcitedMama
 Share

Recommended Posts

I had thought I would start Singapore math with DS but now I'm nervous about that given what I've been reading about the potential changes to Singapore. Since we haven't even started yet I'm not going to snap up the ones they have out before they're gone. From the other thread it sounds like maybe they'll be out for maybe another year or couple of years before being phased out. That makes me nervous about starting a program that won't be around long. The new CC doesn't seem to be going over well and it doesn't sound like the other version is too popular. Given that what should I do? It didn't seem like MIF was well loved but is that my best option now? What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could use the U.S. edition. I dont think that is going out of print. The first two levels of US edition are almost the same as Standards, anyway. And lots of people still use the U.S. edition and never switched to Standards. Honestly, I am not sure Standards is really any better. When it came out, there were certain vocal people on this board that made it sound that way. I switched to Standards after level 2, and continue to do so with the next children because i now have all the HIGs. But I find a few things about Standards annoying, mainly that they throw one or two exercises of random topics in, here and there, just so they can say they meet the Standards for that grade. But they don't really cover them well and the topics seem out of place. I think the U.S. Edition is better in that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were starting over in this situation, I would do Miquon to Beast Academy, supplementing with Singapore's U.S. Ed. Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems.

 

Math Mammoth also makes a good supplement, or an excellent full program on its own if format and incremental teaching isn't a problem for your child(ren). You certainly can't beat the price.

 

I would also recommend Elementary Mathematics for Teachers to those starting out, whether you will use SM or something else. This book was indispensable to me as a learning tool. You need several of the student textbooks to complete the problems sets. Here is the listing that includes them all (although I bought mine years ago and purchased Standards books and used the pdf for adaptations for that series).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I really wanted Singapore, I think I'd start with Standards now, then switch to U.S. in a couple years or when Standards is discontinued. The reason I'd start with Standards is because most reviews indicate the HIG is much clearer and it would be nice to have the clearer HIG for starting out.

 

If I wanted the general methods of Singapore but wasn't attached to that as a curriculum, I'd go with RightStart. (Which, in fact, is what I do use.) generally Singapore math methods blended with Montessori-ish approaches. RightStart's new edition is easy to follow along with and you'll be enough behind the release dates for it that you won't risk finishing a level before the next is out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The math program that has made the biggest impact on ds' math skills is definitely Miquon. We supplement with living math books, Life of Fred, and other stuff just for fun. We plan to do Beast Academy once Miquon is almost finished. Ds is very strong in understanding the concepts in math, and that can greatly be attributed to Miquon.

 

Although Singapore Math is excellent and I really liked it, it made ds cry and hate math. It took months to recover, but he loves math once again and has asked for Miquon for next year (even given the choice of no curriculum he still wanted Miquon). I would be reluctant to invest in a lot of a math program until I knew it was a fit for my child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using Singapore Common Core edition (1A WB, 1B WB and 2A TB + WB) and haven't had any issue so far. I did buy 1A and 1B textbooks in Standards edition based on recommendations but regretted it because the Standards textbooks matched well with the CC workbooks (which means the Standards textbooks have the same contents with the CC textbooks) but the Standards' price was higher. I have a background in engineering so didn't need/use HIG anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Standards edition is more popular on the forum, but the U.S. Edition is excellent, too. If you're just starting out, it's still a great rigorous and conceptual option for your math curriculum. If you've already done your research and feel good about Singapore, go for it, and don't let fear hold you back. :) There will always be a bazillion options, and the publisher says on the website that they will offer the U.S. Edition indefinitely, so it should really be okay.

 

OP, you asked about Math in Focus. It's very good, too, but it's quite a bit more expensive, and it only has a teacher's guide (not a home instructor's guide) so you'd have to do a some modifying of the activities to make them work with just one child. (You'd also need to ignore a bunch of it, since teachers guides are so overstuffed with so many options for lessons.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are certain vocal people here who feel that Standards is better than the US edition, but I'm not convinced. Beast Academy made ds cry and Miquon really wasn't our cup of tea. Singapore US fits us just right and I'd still pick it were we beginning our homeschool journey this year instead of 5 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were starting over in this situation, I would do Miquon to Beast Academy, supplementing with Singapore's U.S. Ed. Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems.

 

This is what I'd use if I had more little ones to teach. I credit Miquon with my own kids' strong start in conceptual math, and Singapore with their mental math & word problem strengths. Beast wasn't available when mine were young, but I like what I've seen very much.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you've been around this forum awhile you'll come to realize that there is a certain "the sky is falling" type panic that sets in that is driven more by hysteria (and ideology) than reason. I sincerely doubt alignment with the common core is doing to jeopardize what is a very strong math program. Other strong math programs, including Beast Academy, are "common core aligned."

 

I like the Standards Edition. I prefer it to the US Edition, but the US Edition isn't junk. I've not used the Singapore CC versions, but I'd temper the worrying with a grain of salt.

 

Bill

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what is changing?!

 

Standards has a few more topics, but the two are not radically different.  I've used some from both.  I do think Standards is slightly better, but US is good too.  Math in Focus is also good.  Really you can't go wrong with any of them.

 

In order to sell materials to schools the publisher needs to have materials that align with the common core standards. That applies to any publisher of math texts that wants to sell to public schools.

 

There will be years of time for people to evaluate the different editions and decide with cool heads which version works best for them.

 

We need some of those "Keep Calm" t-shirts :D

 

Bill

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what is changing?!

 

Standards has a few more topics, but the two are not radically different.  I've used some from both.  I do think Standards is slightly better, but US is good too.  Math in Focus is also good.  Really you can't go wrong with any of them.

 

When you look at the S&S you will see the changes that have been made from the Standards to the CC edition.  Most of the changes occure in the higher levels.  They seem to have taken out just about all of the algebraic concepts in the CC edition.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My perception of the "problem" is that the fuss isn't over cc per se, but the fact that the new version has no hig, and the timetable for any possibility of hig is unknow. That is compounded by singapore's reputation of discontinuing previous versions with little notice. I would go with mm (which I use) or right start (which I also use, but only at the a level).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are certain vocal people here who feel that Standards is better than the US edition, but I'm not convinced. Beast Academy made ds cry and Miquon really wasn't our cup of tea. Singapore US fits us just right and I'd still pick it were we beginning our homeschool journey this year instead of 5 years ago.

 

For me, the issue is the HIG. The Standards Ed. HIG has been incredibly helpful to me. Personally, I can't imagine teaching the program without it. It was just the right amount of hand-holding, never too complex, without any invisible expectation that I would know more than I actually did. And not too much teacher-ese. 

 

When you look at the S&S you will see the changes that have been made from the Standards to the CC edition.  Most of the changes occure in the higher levels.  They seem to have taken out just about all of the algebraic concepts in the CC edition.

 

And this would concern me too, although I have not personally verified it. (As someone has seen two kids all the way from SM1-6 and will soon be finishing up my youngest child, I have no need to worry myself personally, thank goodness!) I am not a sky is falling kind of person, and I don't give half a wit about CC. I know that the CC label is many times meaningless, simply slapped onto something or other that didn't even change at all except for the bright, shiny new emblem. But if the level of challenge of the math we love has changed, that would displease me greatly, and it would certainly cause me to look elsewhere. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My perception of the "problem" is that the fuss isn't over cc per se, but the fact that the new version has no hig, and the timetable for any possibility of hig is unknow. That is compounded by singapore's reputation of discontinuing previous versions with little notice. I would go with mm (which I use) or right start (which I also use, but only at the a level).

 

I think this is a misperception. One can still purchase the US Edition, despite it being long in the tooth. There were panics many years back when the Standards Edition came out, but they said the US Ed would not disappear without advance notice and it hasn't.

 

Now they say they will keep the Standards Edition around for at least 2 or 3 years. If people decide they strongly prefer the SE (and buy it) my hunch is they will listen to customer demand (as they've done with the US Ed) and keep it in print.

 

They did retire the "old" CWP series which many loved, but swiftly replaced it with a new CWP series. 

 

It is not like they have abandoned their customers. There will be plenty of time to sort things out.

 

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you look at the S&S you will see the changes that have been made from the Standards to the CC edition.  Most of the changes occure in the higher levels.  They seem to have taken out just about all of the algebraic concepts in the CC edition.

 

Ah

 

I'm merely curious.  My older kid is past elementary level and my younger kid is finishing up elementary with something else. 

 

But man I hate when I find something I love and then it gets changed or discontinued. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a misperception. One can still purchase the US Edition, despite it being long in the tooth. There were panics many years back when the Standards Edition came out, but they said the US Ed would not disappear without advance notice and it hasn't.

 

Now they say they will keep the Standards Edition around for at least 2 or 3 years. If people decide they strongly prefer the SE (and buy it) my hunch is they will listen to customer demand (as they've done with the US Ed) and keep it in print.

 

They did retire the "old" CWP series which many loved, but swiftly replaced it with a new CWP series.

 

It is not like they have abandoned their customers. There will be plenty of time to sort things out.

 

Bill

Many homeschoolers have more than one child, so being forced to switch to the new edition (even if it's great) will require that they purchase all new materials instead of simply replacing the workbook. Furthermore, many people seem to feel that the standards hig is superior to the U.S. hig. If you'd like to view everyone as alarmist, feel free, but I think you misunderstand the concern for most homeschoolers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many homeschoolers have more than one child, so being forced to switch to the new edition (even if it's great) will require that they purchase all new materials instead of simply replacing the workbook. Furthermore, many people seem to feel that the standards hig is superior to the U.S. hig. If you'd like to view everyone as alarmist, feel free, but I think you misunderstand the concern for most homeschoolers.

I don't believe I misunderstand the concern, the Standards Edition is not discontinued. The needs of the marketplace means they need an edition that is aligned to the common core, but the SE is still around. The US Ed is still around.

 

Some peole were alarmed when the SE came out because it was aligned with "standards" of the school system of California. There was hue and cry about that. turned out it was more advanced than the US Ed. It will all shake out. I highly doubt they will wreck a strong math program by aligning it with the common core. If it turns out home educators prefer the SE (and keep buying it) they will propabally keep it in print, just like they've kept the US Ed in print.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go with the US edition. It has been around longer, and honestly I think more people use it and/or have used it. It is an excellent tried and true program. 😉 I emailed Singapore Math and was told that the US edition will not be discontinued. Hopefully that is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can view the differences of all three on this chart:

 

http://www.singaporemath.com/v/PMSS_comparison.pdf

Thanks for posting this.

 

I don't like evaluating math programs based on scope and sequence charts alone, as they don't reflect the quality of instruction and the logic of the progression. That said, one can see the SE and CC programs are substantially similar. There are some areas where the inclusion of items in the CC version interest me. The Common Core objective of having students be able to "explain their reasoning" is actually a great objective, and one I've been mindful of in our own math journey.

 

One area that seems regrettable to me is the degree to which introductory algebra and working with variables seems to be dropped from the CC vs the SE.

 

The places where the SE has concepts not covered in the CC (best I can tell) are also the topics and concepts taught brilliantly well in Ed Zaccaro's Primary Grade Challenge Math and Real World Algebra books. We supplimented with these books anyway (using SE) and the value appears even greater for filling the holes in the upper elementary CC Edition program.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this.

 

I don't like evaluating math programs based on scope and sequence charts alone, as they don't reflect the quality of instruction and the logic of the progression. That said, one can see the SE and CC programs are substantially similar. There are some areas where the inclusion of items in the CC version interest me. The Common Core objective of having students be able to "explain their reasoning" is actually a great objective, and one I've been mindful of in our own math journey.

 

One area that seems regrettable to me is the degree to which igntroductory algebra and working with variables seems to be dropped from the CC vs the SE.

 

The places where the SE has concepts not covered in the CC (best I can tell) are also the topics and concepts taught brilliantly well in Ed Zaccaro's Primary Grade Challenge Math and Real World Algebra books. We supplimented with these books anyway (using SE) and the value appears even greater for filling the holes in the upper elementary CC Edition program.

 

Bill

The issues at the upper grades with algebraic material are my primary concern and that issue has been pointed out in all the early threads on the topic. The samples available online for CC do not include the work with variables that DD knows and loves, and that I want for DS. Math in Focus, which hews more closely to standards than US, will continue to offer more algebra, but the format is less than ideal. I suppose kids could use the CC workbooks with the Standards texts but they may not have enough practice with single variable equations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issues at the upper grades with algebraic material are my primary concern and that issue has been pointed out in all the early threads on the topic. The samples available online for CC do not include the work with variables that DD knows and loves, and that I want for DS. Math in Focus, which hews more closely to standards than US, will continue to offer more algebra, but the format is less than ideal. I suppose kids could use the CC workbooks with the Standards texts but they may not have enough practice with single variable equations.

 

I would badly miss working with variables and working with algebraic equations if it was missing from an upper elementary math program. I do not see excising them as a positive. There are, however, other very good resources available to fill the void, like the aforementioned Zaccaro materials (strongly recommended), and brilliant games like Dragonbox 5+ and 12+, and things like Hands-On-Equations.

 

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missing in the discussion is the noteworthy consideration that the Singapore Method tries to get students to understand the mathematical ideas underlying algebra without resort to jumping into using variables and algebraic expressions in any case.

 

That is why they promote the use of the "bar-diagram" method for word problem solving, and down play "algebra" in the elementary school years. One may agree with this approach (or not) but they do develop an alternate means of problem solving that does transfer to understanding "how" algebra works, as opposed to a simply procedural approach.

 

Bill

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not need the Teacher's Guides to use Math in Focus. At least I haven't yet and we're about to finish the elementary series. All of the instruction can be done using the student text book which you can find in great condition used on Amazon for very little money. The workbooks can be purchased new through Rainbow Resource for about $10 each. I bought my oldest's fourth grade math for the entire year for $40 doing this. If you have any more Math in Focus questions, then please ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the point that Primary Math helps develope algebraic thinking from the earliest books, but without needing to use variables.

 

I am not sure what to think of the CC series. Removing the "algebra" topics from grades 4 and 5 doesn't bother me at all. It's not that it shouldn't be taught, but that maybe there are better ways to teach it for students who are ready for it. For example, the algebra lessons in grade 4 SE are among those I feel to be extremely scant and thrown into the books just to check a box. It is the same for some of the topics that SE addresses a year earlier than the US edition. Some of them feel forced and aren't covered thoroughly enough to lead to a strong understanding. I had thought that one of the reasons thought to be responsible for Singapore's (the country's) success with math curriculum is that they did not attempt to cover too many topics but that they covered the most important topics at greater depth, and I think there is a danger in trying to throw too many topics into the standard curriculum when they have to be insufficiently covered to include them, or when time has to be taken away from multiplication, long division, and basic number sense in order to move other topics into earlier grades. So I think that many children in school need to have a better grasp of the basics before worrying about a few random lessons on the Cartesian plane and introduction to variables in grade 4 and 5. Certainly those topics are appropriate for students who are stronger in math and need less repetition, but then they might do better with better materials that cover these topics better and provide more practice with them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...