right start or miquon?

[jenniferp8]

Which would you choose and why? Pros and cons?

[Spy Car]

I used Miquon, but I borrowed a lot of ideas and activities from RS.

 

I never used the full RS program (I had the AL Abacus book, the Game Set, and place value cards) take any RS comments with a grain of salt.

 

Pros of Miquon:

 

Very inexpensive. Very deep teachers materials (good for a parent/teacher that really wants to get into the "math." Encourages play on the part of the child, with an adult often taking a facilitator role. C Rods are designed to be played with. They are a great tool for children who want to do things themselves. C Rods are also a great representation of the Singapore style math program. Both showing "number bonds" and setting up the Singapore style "bar diagram method."

 

Miquon is a "turn the lights on" type program. For children who thrive on it (and not all seem to) they "see" how an operation or property works (being able to do it themselves) and it is then something they "own." This makes learning fun and very efficient for learners who raps ideas quickly, one they understand concepts.

 

Cons of Miquon:

 

Some parents take one look and are too intimidated to continue. I was almost that guy. Early pages have weird shapes to represent "sets" that would not be an issue if the images were bunnies or butterflies. Some parents do not want to work harder than their children re-learning math, and how to teach it. Not great for people who are not motivated to learn new ideas.

 

It is different and big picture.

 

RightStart

 

I think RS author, Dr Cotter, is spot-on that learning place value early is of paramount importance. She prefers the abacus as a manipulative, I think C Rods and base-10 "flats" (as 100 values) make more sense to children given they cans "see" the relative values by size/length/area (as opposed to identical beads on different wires being of different values which is more of an "abstraction"), but either way the importance of understanding the number system is stressed in RS. That is a good thing.

 

The RS cards (place value and base-10) are really good, and game are fun.

 

I do not like scripted lessons, some people do. RS is scripted. Miquon is the opposite.

 

The abacus (in our case) needed to be "parent controlled." I could use it for "demos" but it turned into a plaything (in a bad way) when handed to the kid. Some children are fine using an abacus as intended. Mine "played" with C Rods, but they were used for problem solving. The abacus (for him), not so much.

 

Know your own kid. And your style.

 

Both are pretty teacher intensive, but maybe in different ways. I liked the sense of autonomy and competence my kid got from being able to do problems himself (with me cheerleading/facilitating) as I believe it gave him competence and understanding at an early age that carries to this day. When we did RS-inspired lessons, I did a lot more talking an demonstrating. Not a "bad" thing, but the other was very special in his case.

 

Miquon is definitely not everyones cup of tea. Those who like it tend to love it. I do. But it is for people looking for a different kind of math education for the usual.

 

Watching the Education Unboxed videos is a nice way to get a feel for one board member's experience teaching/learning with Miquon-like methods where her children. We all have our own "styles" of how to do this, but they are an easy way to see this sort of learning in action.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill
 

 

 

 

 

 

[PagesandFields]

I think they can both be awesome...  I use and adore Rightstart.  I started out wanting to use Miquon...  2 things made me switch...

 

1) I had a baby, a farm, about 4 hours sleep a night, and WAY too much on my plate to spend the time and attention to understand how to teach Miquon effectively.  Rightstart, after the initial investment, makes it so that I can open, skim, and give a good solid math lesson.  We don't do the games with the lessons, but those are rather extras we pick out as we want...  And without the games I can easily cater the lesson to his attention span... So if it's a rough day I won't review what I know he knows, won't do the songs or intro stuff... but just get the right manipulative, and get to the lesson.  So far he's retained everything as long as I go at the right pace..

 

2) This is vague and I don't fully know how to explain it so pardon my random language...  But I was fortunate enough to go to a very good elementary school.  Looking at the Righstart manipulatives... the way they teach... the focus on understanding of 10 and 5...  ALL of the program contains the things that I remember helping math "click" with me as a kid.  Math was always just naturally easy for me to understand later on... and I feel like it is because of this kind of mathematical presentation and my immersion in music... 

 

I don't plan on sticking with RS past C...  because there's something else I want to switch to (by then I'll have another one starting A/B and RS is very teacher intensive)... 

 

Some potential downsides

...  RS A didn't work for us...  it was too slow...  We're doing B for both K and 1st, working through it slowly.  There are days I wish for something simpler (less to pull out, less scripting, etc....) But I stick with RS because with everything else going on in my life I know without a doubt that if I just take the time to do it, and do what it says, I am giving my kid a really solid math foundation...  which to me is invaluable.  

 

To be honest I wish I had the gumption to stick with RS as long as it lasts.  The 2 main reasons I won't are because the mastery approach I think will suit us best (rather than spiral)... and I want something that they can do more independently later.  (Plus I have a slight addiction to Ray's and Life of Fred that I can't rid myself of... I want  a "git 'er done" math so we have enough time to work with those)

[jenniferp8]

What are you switching to? Do you think two kids with two levels would be too intensive?

[jenn&charles]

Which would you choose and why? Pros and cons?

 

I did both and liked both for different reasons. If I could only choose ONE, I think I'd go with Miquon because it allows children to discover different paths to the same right answer. it also encourages math exploration. The only downside is that it's not scripted. You have to wade through the teacher's book and figure out how to teach the lessons, or just "play" to work on building a true understanding of the math concepts. 

 

My fave math program, though is Singapore. I know it wasn't on your list...but I had to mention it anyway. ;-)

[Syllieann]

I did Miquon Orange and part of red with my first, and RS A with my second. Neither is good with a toddler around. If that is an issue for you I can give pros/cons related to that. For the other stuff, I really like the discovery aspect of Miquon and that child was well suited to the approach. I didn't like the narrower scope, and I wanted something that would align better with the scope and sequence of other programs if I wanted to switch or needed to do standardized testing. I do love the versatility of c-rods. I feel like the RS manipulatives are overpriced and some of them are there just to have another thing taking up space...plastic coins, really, why? I do like the focus on subitizing and the play feel with all the games. Right start is more interactive, whereas Miquon is more of the child sort of discovering with a little hint or nudge from the parent. I also prefer a mastery approach and the little bit of spiral in right start makes me second guess myself often. That probably wouldn't be an issue the second time through because I would already have a feel for the level of mastery needed to move on. It may also be better defined in v2 what should be mastered and what is just an appetizer. I'll probably do right start with my 3rd child.

[Btervet]

We are doing both (Finished Miquon Orange/Red and RS A so far, halfway through RS B). I think they work very nicely together, especially as RS doesn't have a lot of written work in levels A & B. I think teaching concepts from multiple approaches is really helpful in cementing understanding, which is one of the reasons I use both. I also don't line them up at all, so the worksheets from Miquon often work as a nice review of stuff already learned in RS, or as a discovery lesson before we learn something in RS.

 

If I had to pick just one, I'd pick RS. It's focus on place value, and it's strategies for addition has been extremely valuable. DS has access to any manipulative he wants for his math (C-Rods, base 10 blocks, or abacus) and he almost always picks the abacus now. Once he learned how to use it, it is faster. RS also has a strong focus on mental work, which I haven't seen in Miquon yet.

[eternallytired]

I used RS primarily, but I bought Miquon and used it some to supplement.  Here's my 2c:

 

Miquon: Very discovery-based.  This can be great, but for whatever reason Miquon's way of doing things worked better for my DD than my DS--it just annoyed him, while she found it exciting.  (Then again, he intuited so much that the discovery was unnecessary.)  Miquon's worksheets are simple, one-color and generally without illustrations.  (Plus or minus, depending on who you are.)  Some of the Miquon sheets are arranged oddly, staggering problems in a way I found visually confusing or overwhelming.  (I skipped those, but if this were my main program, I would have had to block out some of the page as they worked.)  Other pages had very little on them, but encouraged kids to write their own problems.  While this may have been motivating in a group setting--see what everyone comes up with--it wasn't engaging for my kids on their own...even the guy who generally loves coming up with random math problems would sigh and say, "This again?"  The price is great on Miquon (something like $50 for the whole business?), so that's a definite plus.  And it's deceptively simple--while at first glance you might think it's easy and straightforward, it really digs pretty deep into the topics it covers.  You as teacher need to do the legwork to find out where each lesson is going and how to present it well, though.  We did a few pages once a week for about a year--using parts of Red and Orange--before I gave it up.  It was too much work for me, and RS was doing the job just fine.

 

Right Start (2nd ed): Very interactive.  My initial reason for purchasing RS was because my kids were very young and I wanted a playful math that used a variety of manipulatives to make each point, so they'd have lots of opportunities to "get" it.  I love the emphasis on 5s and 10s, the games to reinforce concepts, the sparing use of worksheets early on, the emphasis on mental math strategies.  Really, I love the RS approach in general--I think it's a really strong way to present math.  I had mixed feelings about A.  It seemed to jump through too many topics per lesson and skip around too much, so it was good that I planned to use it informally.  I ended up going through and reading several lessons, then working with my kids on one concept at a time--like sit and play through four lessons worth of patterning all at once, then in our next session move on to the next topic covered in those four lessons.  Level B, though--oh, the glory!  I love B!  It's absolutely amazing!  My only downers for RS are the expense and the uneven pacing (scattershot A, super strong B, really slow C).  I'm still excited to use A and B with YDS, though--but we'll probably not haul out the Miquon, and whether we'll do RS C or use Singapore (or Beast by then?) will likely depend on his personality.

 

ODS is now on to Beast, since he was requesting "hard math" and speeding through RS.  (He did C in something like 3 months, working 3-4 days a week.)  I switched DD to Singapore 2 midway through RS-C, simply because Singapore fit her better (and she was too competitive, looking at her progress through RS compared with her brother's and getting all tense).  She wanted get-er-done math (read: I'd rather have a worksheet with an obvious end than play a game for a while and not know exactly when my lesson will be done), and the visual aesthetic (large text, few problems per page/not too cluttered) and playful style (lots of solve-to-unlock-the-code and cute little cartoony drawings to accompany the problems) are perfect for her.  She's once again squealing that she loves math.

 

As for the feasibility of doing RS with two kids separately--I taught C to ODS and DD at different speeds, so I prepped and taught two RS lessons daily.  I didn't find it to be a problem; often RS B and C lessons end with a worksheet or game that can be done independently (I modified games to make them solitaire-able or used alternate games if need be).  Thus, it was really just a few minutes of review and a bit of introduction to new material for each kid, plus the occasional check-in to see that they're doing fine on their activity.  Because the whole business is scripted, it's easy to see the recommended sequence of activities and all necessary materials at-a-glance, making it very quick to prep.  HTH!

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

It depends on a lot of things.

 

How are you with math, as a teacher?  Can you teach "Asian" math well?  Are you comfortable with the "making ten" idea, with multiplication meaning area, with base ten in general?  If not, I would do RS and consider it a year of teacher education while you learn how to teach in this way.  

 

If you are already familiar with it all, Miquon would be fine, but watch the videos at educationunboxed to learn to teach well with C rods.  

 

I've used both, and I tend to agree with Bill that C rods plus other base ten blocks are long-term better than the abacus.  I only found the abacus useful for visualizing ten as 5 and 5 (and the various ways to make 5 and 10), and using the back side of the abacus for some trading and borrowing faster than with the RS base ten cads (which are great).  

 

So if I were not going to use RS, but wanted a lot of RS benefits, I would simply purchase the place value cards and base ten cards and learn to use them well (educationunboxed uses the place value cards regularly)

 

And I would not think of Miquon as a worksheet program.  The worksheet needs to just be the culmination of a lot of guided exploration with C rods.  

 

Personally, I did some miquon with ds, then moved to RSB, then moved to SM1, all very quickly.  I found I needed the "teacher's ed", and once I understood what the heck I was doing, I was able to eliminate the scripted program, and eliminate the Miquon worksheets, and just go directly to teach a concept.  Once we'd done most of K/1st math, he blew threw the SM 1 books to make sure I hadn't forgotten anything, and moved into SM2 with no issues.

 

With dd, I started straight off with SM1, but taught it in a RS/C-rod way.  So we are moving through it at something closer to the intended pace, but doing lots of hands-on with RS manipulative and C-rods, the "missing element" of the otherwise good SM1 program.  

 

For me, knowing HOW to teach SM from having dabbled in the other programs has made for a very streamlined but conceptually deep math program for my kids, which is important considering I do have little ones running around causing trouble.

 

HTH.  

[EmilyGF]

I used RightStart. Why?

 

1) Montessori roots (and research shows Montessori math leads to very good long term understanding)

2) Excellent manual that requires zero prep time (I have a box with all the manipulatives in bags, glance through the lesson as my child comes to the table, and go)

3) Asian math approach appealed to me

4) Stress on visualization

 

RightStart explicitly teaches good math habits, which appeals to me, too. Both dd8 and ds10 have moved on and now do the lion's share of teaching. I think RightStart really laid a good foundation. I used through E with ds and D with dd (at which time I could tell she didn't want a teacher interfering anymore...).

 

ETA: You can read what Joan Cotter (author of RightStart and PhD in math education) writes of the research on cuisenaire rods. Scroll down to where the question is about colored rods.

 

Emily

[Farrar]

You've gotten good advice here. I think it's really about you as the teacher (and a little bit about your kid as the learner). They're both excellent, though different - I don't think you can say that one is "better" than the other. Miquon can be hard for some people to teach, though it's my favorite and I think the effort of going through the learning curve is worth it. It's also a lot less expensive to try out and there are great free resources to support it (like Education Unboxed). However, if you feel that you need something scripted and fully laid out bit by bit and you have the money, then you should probably go with Right Start.

 

I think the best combo though is Miquon and the Right Start games.

[PagesandFields]

What are you switching to? Do you think two kids with two levels would be too intensive?

 

To be honest if my own brain worked in that Spiral math way I think I would try to do it...  But I tend to be a bit of a check-the-box kinda person...  So while my son seems to flow from lesson to lesson very well, I myself sometimes struggle to maintain the whole picture, (train of thought/progression of the lessons)... does that make sense?  I MAY still try to do it.  I really like the idea of switching to AOPS or maybe Singapore...  If my son (the older) is at the point where he could do some of Beast Academy independently, I plan on doing RS C then moving into BA, then into AOPS...  The schools nearby me use Singapore, so I have considered using that because for any classes, transcripts, whatever it would be so easy to "explain" what we do... 

 

Rightstart for me is really the only lesson that we do that if I get derailed or completely interrupted I have a hard time picking up again.  We're doing sort of K/1st grade stuff... so it might be different in later grades... but I find I really need a chunk of uninterrupted time to do it, whereas with language arts, LOF or Ray's math,  I can pause, take care of whatever disaster a kid or animal created, then pick up where  I left off (this is probably just my issue with the spiral thing though... so others might be fine with it).  Right now finding uninterrupted times for each kid feels impossible... although in a few years it might be simple.  

 

The other reason, to be honest, is that I TRULY want a VERY good solid math foundation... but we're mostly science, story, and music people in my family... so if I can simplify math I would like to.  

 

The other reason is that we often do the Rightstart lesson itself all together on the carpet.  I'll get out the manipulatives and often my littler one wants to sort of join in.  The way it works in our family right now it seems like it would feel very disjointed doing 2 separate lessons...  Whereas if my son (older) was doing a different curriculum at least partly independently then he could join in for review on the littler's lesson if he wanted.  

 

Hope that helps!  What grade are you looking for?  

[Spy Car]

 

 

ETA: You can read what Joan Cotter (author of RightStart and PhD in math education) writes of the research on cuisenaire rods. Scroll down to where the question is about colored rods.

 

Emily

 

 

Dr Cotter's argument in bold:

 

Researchers have found a number of problems with colored rods, where numbers 1-10 are represented by increasing lengths each in a different color. For young children each rod is a “oneâ€; they do not understand why a rod twice as long is called a “two.â€

 

Strange argument.

 

In fact, comparing by length is one of the easiest and most natural ways for children (especially young children) to judge values. Jean Piaget referred to this ability  of children as "the conservation of value."

 

In a short time children are generally able to judge the value of an unseen rod (either hidden inside a bag or given to them behind their backs) without seeing the rod at all. Even earlier a child with his or her eyes closed can tell which of two different rods (one placed in each hand) is greater or lesser in value.

 

If there is a problem with understanding manipulatives where each unit is a "one." it is with the abacus. With the abacus every bead is identical (or in the case of the AL Abacus they are the same beads with 5 yellow and 5 blue beads on each line). Some times these "identical" beads are used to represent Ones, Tens, Hundreds, Thousands, and Ten Thousands, with no differentiation between the physical manupulative and the value, save what wire it is on. This is not a problem for students who've developed sufficient abstract thought, but not as easily grasped as seeing that a Ten Rod is ten time as long as a One Unit Rod.

 

If one has base-10 "flats" as 100 values, Orange Rods as 10 values, and Unit Rods, it is very easy for young children to internalize the relative values. A 100 block is the same area as 100 Units rods. The abacus does not demonstrate this as neatly.

 

Another problem is that 1 out of 12 children has some color deficiency and cannot see ten different colors.

 

This is really reaching. With C Rods the most important aspect is seeing value by length. This would work even if the rods were monochrome. The colors are a secondary cue. 

 

Of the two major forms of color-blindness, one is blue-yellow. The AL Abacus beads are blue and yellow.

 

A more serious limitation of rods 6-10 is that they cannot be visualized, or seen in the mind, because they are not grouped in fives.

 

Simply untrue. Ask any kid who has used C Rods and they can see the number-bonds made with rods in their head. Life will not always give one groups of fives. Programs like Singapore math focus on grouping to Tens (not Fives). RS is the only program I know that teaches grouping to Fives (and Tens). That is not a knock on RS, but for young students who will go on to Primary Mathematics (or similar) from RS or Miquon (as most do) the regrouping to Fives skill will be largely dropped in favor of re-grouping to Tens.

 

A critical precursor skill to success in Singapore math is understanding the "number bonds" that can make up any whole part. For example, 7 can be 6+1, 5+2. 4+3, 3+4, 2+5, 1+6, or just 7. The C Rods make these crystal clear to kids. With rods associated with each value they can (and do ) prove these value relationships for themselves.

 

The bi-colored beads abacus do not have as neat a solution for showing number bonds, instead students must re-group to Fives. Nothing inherently "wrong" with re-grouping to Fives, but IT IS NOT the strategy students will use in Singapore math, where the C Rod type strategy is exactly the same as the Singapore strategy.  

 

Try to imagine 8 apples in a row without any grouping–virtually impossible. Now imagine 5 apples as red and 3 as green–this you probably can do. The Romans grouped in fives (8 as VIII), and composers used two groups of five lines for writing music. Money and clocks group in fives.

The purpose of a manipulative is not only to see the concept, but to help the learner construct a mental model, for example, to learn the facts. Note also that adding two rods does not immediately give the sum.

 

This argument is where true statements get mixed up with falsehoods.

 

It is true that if numbers are represented only as dots, beads, rock, or counting bears it is very difficult to differentiate between 7 objects and 8 objects if they are scattered in no order. It is easier to quickly tell the number of objects if they are grouped in 5s. I know I made cards with tally marks, two rows of red dots (for 10). and RS style bicolored beads to represent all the 1-10 numbers. It does make it easier to see groups and sets if there is an "order" to things. Undisputed.

 

What you don't want a child to do at this age is to "count" the objects, but to see them. I agree with Dr Cotter on this point.

 

But students are not counting C Rods. She is conflating a manipulative that has a value for each rod with a counting bear type manipulative. This is a gross distortion of how C rods are used.

 

In fact, to find the "value" it is impossible to "count" C Rods, where it is certainly possible to count beads, so advantage C Rods.

 

Having two rods does give a student the sum, either by learning those sums through play or by comparing the two rods with another known rod (or two). So if, for example, a child had an 8 rod and a 7 rod (but did not know the sum) they could (themselves) compare the length to a 10 rod and find the difference (which a 5 rod would fill). So a 10 and a 5, which we call 15. This is the same as the Singapore Model.

 

The abacus has no advantage here, and Dr Cotter is misleading, sorry to say.

 

Any concept that can be taught with colored rods can be taught with the AL Abacus without the bother of little pieces.

 

I'd say any concept that can be taught with the abacus can be taught with the rods. The "bother" of the little pieces is the brilliance of C Rods. They allow children the active freedom to play and have fun with things they control. The abacus is delicate and a bound-up manipulative. Playing with the abacus is something that requires tempering by adults, playing with C Rods is something one encourages. 

 

The advantages of the AL abacus are that it better shows groupings to Fives, a skill other programs don't build upon. I also suppose an abacus (if one stuck with it) would be a better calculator in the long run than C Rods. Personally, I used C Rods to make concepts really clear to my kid, and he's got a TI Nspire calculator (not an abacus).

 

I think the C Rods give young kids a much better understanding of relative value by letting them see a Hundred value is one hundred time the size of a One Unit C Rod.

 

I also respect many of Dr Cotter's ideas. Just not this attack on C Rods, which to me seems motivated by self-interest in selling her program vs being an objective comparison of two valid options. many of he statements she made read are either not rue, or distortions of the truth.

 

Too many people on this forum have used C Rods to good effect to let this sort of argument get a free pass.

 

Bill

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Totally agree with Bill.  

 

C-rods are fantastic.  As a child moves through math, they are MUCH better for understanding multiplication, area, perfect squares, perfect cubes, volume...  

 

And as Bill pointed out in a long-ago thread, a child also has a very good ability to estimate length in cm, volume in cubic cm, etc, all from handling the rods.  Ex:  I had my kids doing a creative writing piece, trying to draw out rich descriptive detail.  DS decided to write about coming across a little rabbit in the woods.  He described it as small, and I asked him to use a clearer word, since small was relative and ambiguous.  I asked that he consider using a like or as statement.  What did he come up with?  "The bunny was about 1000 cubic cm in volume."  Yeah.  Excellent mental image...

 

My three year old has absolutely no issue understanding why a three rod is a three and not "one green rod".  Kids really just don't struggle with that at all once you demonstrate things.  

 

My father is a skilled machinist, very mathy.  He spent ten minutes with our box of c-rods while visiting once, and he was just dumbfounded.  "Why would anyone teach math any other way?  These are genius!  Why don't they have these in every school?"  But alas, in the K class where my mom volunteers, it's those freaking bears!!!  lol

 

Bill, I believe the Soroban (sp?) abacus also groups by 5, but the RS people felt it would be "too hard" to teach American kids to use one, so they made the 100 bead abacus instead.  Can't remember where I read that, but it was back a few years ago when I was trying to figure all this out.  

 

 

[Ellie]

Which would you choose and why? Pros and cons?

 

Miquon.

 

The cost of Right Start alone would make it not an option for me. Also, there are just way too many moving parts.

 

I understand c-rods. They make sense to me. Sitting with a child and helping him discover the concepts, then letting him do the lab sheets, is something that is doable for me, and for any math product to work in my home, it must be something that is doable for me.

 

OTOH, I'm not convinced that all children need manipulatives to be successful at math, so I'd have to weigh Miquon and c-rods against a traditional math like Rod and Staff.

[jenniferp8]

[quote name="PagesandFields" post="6529097" timestamp="

 

Hope that helps! What grade are you looking for?

[jenniferp8]

Whoops, still learning how to mAke the quote thing work right. 😊

 

This has been a great thread and you've all been really helpful. Thanks! Between this and some other questions I've asked, I am rethinking my whole math direction and I'm excited about it. My older 3 kids are in PS now so I only have a 4th grade dd and 1st grade dd at home along with an almost 4ds and 3month old ds. I'm thinking I will do a mix of miquon and RS for both since the 4th grader could use some good review and better understanding of basics. Then I may work her into Singapore books rather than the Saxon that my older kids used. It looks like it will appeal to her better. We have a lot of the RS Manips and card games already but older kids didn't really use them. We've never used c-rods so I ordered some to try.

[Farrar]

 

Any concept that can be taught with colored rods can be taught with the AL Abacus without the bother of little pieces.

 

This aspect of Dr. Cotter's argument is especially hilarious to me. I mean, we've all seen what the manipulatives set for RSB looks like, right? The "bother of little pieces" is why I recoiled from Right Start in the first place. Organizing Miquon requires a bucket. Organizing Right Start was something that I wasn't even sure how to do after I saw all the pieces.

[Spy Car]

Whoops, still learning how to mAke the quote thing work right. 😊

 

This has been a great thread and you've all been really helpful. Thanks! Between this and some other questions I've asked, I am rethinking my whole math direction and I'm excited about it. My older 3 kids are in PS now so I only have a 4th grade dd and 1st grade dd at home along with an almost 4ds and 3month old ds. I'm thinking I will do a mix of miquon and RS for both since the 4th grader could use some good review and better understanding of basics. Then I may work her into Singapore books rather than the Saxon that my older kids used. It looks like it will appeal to her better. We have a lot of the RS Manips and card games already but older kids didn't really use them. We've never used c-rods so I ordered some to try.

 

Have you read Liping Ma's book? If not see if you can get a copy from your library, or can get the first edition inexpensively used.

 

She makes a great case for teaching mathematics with depth (as opposed to the typical shallow procedural algorithm-only "traditional" methods often used in the US).

 

Programs like Miquon and RightStart aim for something different. Primary Mathematics is a great natural follow up (we did Miquon and Singapore together as they are synergistic), also the (free-to-download MEP, Mathematics Enhancement Programme, materials are great. Beast Academy is another.

 

The thing about this type of learning is that it excites the mind and makes math fun. You may find yourself using more than one resource just because the kids enjoy seeing different types of challenges. It is so different than a Saxon type of approach.

 

Bill

[scoutingmom]

Btw, I use Rightstart with 4 kids... 1 in E, one in D, one in C, one in A. It is doable.

 

Rightstart isn't spiral, and it isn't mastery - it is in between. Often what looks like a change in topic is also reinforcing the concepts just learned.

 

The abacus is genius. The child gets to understand 100 because they are seeing 100. Put any number on the abacus and my kids can tell you at a glance the number. Multiplication and division makes sense. Yes, side 2, the value of the beads depends on which wire....the same as the value of a digit in a number depends on its location in the number. It reinforces place value. The 2 in 200 is counting how may hundreds.... same on side 2 of the abacus.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[RKWAcademy]

We never really used either, although we own both.  My kids really latched onto the AL Abacus.  They use it with Singapore almost exclusively, although I demonstrate with and make available other manipulatives.  RS games are very good.  If you go with c-rods, check out the Education Unboxed videos.  RS was a bit all over the place for my kids.  They love their Singapore workbooks, and they cheered when we abandoned RS to return to Singapore. 

[PagesandFields]

Sounds like a good plan!  Kinda what I think we'll end up doing too.   :)  I'm glad to hear Bill say Primary Mathematics might be a good follow up... that's what I've leaned toward whenever we end up switching... but we'll see in a few years.  Thanks for this thread!  it's helped me too as I've been doing lots of thinking and planning on math plans this week.   :)

 

 

[Spy Car]

Sounds like a good plan!  Kinda what I think we'll end up doing too.   :)  I'm glad to hear Bill say Primary Mathematics might be a good follow up... that's what I've leaned toward whenever we end up switching... but we'll see in a few years.  Thanks for this thread!  it's helped me too as I've been doing lots of thinking and planning on math plans this week.   :)

 

We did Miquon and Singapore side-by-side. To me (and many others before and after me) they are a perfect complement to one another.

 

Miquon brings the discovery learning and "concrete" hands of learning that Singapore advocates for as part of the concrete>pictorial>abstract progression. Primary Mathematics is "weak" on the concrete dimension (which the HIGs attempts to remedy. Miquon gets children to "discovery" the concepts that Singapore will systematically build upon, so they "own" the concepts.

 

Primary Mathematics takes the "lights are turned on" understanding students get from Miquon and systematically build a Math Model in an orderly progression that just isn't Miquon's strong suit. Together, the Apollonian strengths of Singapore balanced with the Dionysian inspirations of Miquon made a potent mix. Better together, than either one apart.

 

The Miquon teachers books also provide a depth of teaching knowledge to motivated parents. It does take study. This is not "open and go" on the back end. The student pages don't require much from parents, and are not onerous to students who like to think, but one does need to make a commitment to self-education to make the most of a discovery approach.

 

Liping Ma concluded that deep understanding of math on the part of teachers was the critical difference nearly math education in her famous (on this forum) book. That seems right to me. Studying the Lab Annotations topics broadens parent understanding of "conceptual math" teaching that works for Singapore and Miquon (and any other good program). 

 

The Primary Math core student books really offer little enrichment/re-education for parents, even if the objectives of lessons are presented well and clearly (which IMO they are). Again there is synergy to using both.

 

Bill

[LikeToListen]

My 5 yr old uses Miquon along with RS-B. 

 

She plays with both C-rods and Abacus, though she likes abacus for arithmetic and popsicle sticks for place value.

 

She uses Miquon as fun worksheets along with RS-B.  I know it's not the usual way to do it, but she mostly uses abacus along with Miquon books - her preference though.

 

C-rods are wonderful but it will take a while for kids to be able to start visualizing the rods/length in their head and find out what rod would equal a red and black. They could learn color-number/length correspondence in a day and when they see two red rods put together, they could guess the answer (length), but visualizing these in the head need bit more time than it does with abacus.  It doesn't take that long with abacus IMO since they are seen in units and groupings of fives.  I think this is why abacus started becoming DD first choice for arithmetic.

 

Once they are able to visualize both can be wonderful for mental math but abacus gets her there sooner than C-rods for arithmetic.

 

We play with both at home.  This is based on our experience and I understand it could be different with other kids.

[Ellie]

 

 

C-rods are wonderful but it will take a while for kids to be able to start visualizing the rods/length in their head and find out what rod would equal a red and black. They could learn color-number/length correspondence in a day and when they see two red rods put together, they could guess the answer (length), but visualizing these in the head needs bit more time than it does with abacus.  It doesn't take that long with abacus IMO since they are seen in units and groupings of fives.  I think this is why abacus started becoming DD first choice for arithmetic.

 

 

This is why I like to start with Mathematics Made Meaningful before Miquon.

[jenniferp8]

I was thinking Singapore math and primary mathematics were the same program. Is that right?

[LikeToListen]

I was thinking Singapore math and primary mathematics were the same program. Is that right?

 

Yes, singapore math has three different versions for Primary mathematics (elementary grades) - Common core, US edition and standards edition.  Standards has a better home instructors guide and is a little more advanced in covering topics than Common core or US.

 

US edition is also commonly used.

[jenniferp8]

 Standards has a better home instructors guide and is a little more advanced in covering topics than Common core or US.

 

US edition is also commonly used.

 

So if I use US edition (which I have access to already) what will I be missing compared to Standards edition? Is it different enough it's worth buying the other?

[LikeToListen]

So if I use US edition (which I have access to already) what will I be missing compared to Standards edition? Is it different enough it's worth buying the other?

 

I don't use Singapore, just a bit familiar with them.  

 

I don't think you would be missing a lot by using US edition.  Standards were designed to meet the requirements for CA.   The placement tests for 1a & 1b on Singapore website should help to see the differences between what is covered in these editions.

 

http://www.singaporemath.com/Placement_Test_s/86.htm

[Spy Car]

I was thinking Singapore math and primary mathematics were the same program. Is that right?

 

The real name of the program referred to as "Singapore Math" on this forum is Primary Mathematics. There have been many editions (3rd, US, Standards, and CC) used by home educators over the years.

 

Complicating the matter, there is an American version of a Singapore program called Math-in-Focus (My Pals Are Here! in Singapore) that also uses the Singapore Model. MIF is a Singapore math program, but people generally mean PM when they say "Singapore Math" or write SM.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

So if I use US edition (which I have access to already) what will I be missing compared to Standards edition? Is it different enough it's worth buying the other?

 

Depends. The Standards Edition has more content, and especially more review. Some people like the really streamlined amount of problems in the US Ed. Others, myself included, find their children benefit from more review than contained in the US Edition, so prefer the SE. I don't know the CC.

 

Even the SE has a humane amount of problems compared with something like Saxon. 

 

You'll need to make an educated guess. 

 

Bill