Crazy to use BJU Math Worktexts with TM?

[lacell]

Perhaps I'm a little crazy but is there anyone out there that uses BJU worktexts w/o the TM. I'm thinking of using the RS methods of teaching math that I learned from that program to do the hands on teaching, and then having my child do the BJU worktext. He loves colorful workbooks, and I really like the look of BJU's new math workbooks. They seem to hit on a concept multiple ways in one lesson. We are already using MEP, but my son wants more color.

[scrapper4life]

Grade level?

[Gil]

Keep in mind that I have never seen BJU or RS a day in my life, but based on the fact that Arithmetic is Arithmetic and that a good teachers manual will not teach you how to administer that curriculum, but will better equip you to teach that subject, regardless of what the student is using to practice.

 

I say give it a try, worst case scenario is that you wind up needing the BJU Manual, but if RS is doing its job, then you shouldn't.

[PeterPan]

I used RightStart with my dd for levels A-D, selling off my E and G.  This was a long time ago, obviously.  :D  When we jumped from RS, we went through a couple things and landed on BJU.  BJU is VERY compatible with RS, so you're correct in thinking it will be a good transition.  You're also correct that, in general, you're going to find it natural to use methods from RS to explain the BJU things.  However, I think you'll find you want the tms.  BJU, as a philosophy approach, wants the teacher to matter.  They put things in the tm that are not in the worktext, and if you only do the worktext, even doing it all correctly, you are still MISSING components of the full course.  For instance, you'll find the tm will have methods for each learning modality.  Might seem trivial, but my dd was really engaged by the narratives of the lessons.  There will also be some built-in review and questions and problems specifically chosen to make sure the students are understanding the concepts.  People used to come on the board and slam BJU for not enough review, and it would turn out they weren't using the tm!  It's in there!  My dd is quite bright btw, and I found those digging questions in the math lessons useful.  Sometimes what I did was use their review and narrative introduction, teach the concepts the RS way, then use their digging questions.  If you have the tm, you have that *choice* kwim?

 

Sometimes when you look on amazon or ebay or the HSLDA used boards you can find tms cheap.  Obviously that makes a difference too, because paying $15 for the tm is different from paying $70 or whatever full price is right now.  I usually found mine on the cheap used.  You'll get $15 of use out of it, even with your blending idea.  Oh, and I think when they updated to the new edition they put all the ENRICHMENT pages on a cd in the tm!!!  Seriously.  I haven't used the newest edition.  My ds has a bunch of SLDs, so we're just off on our own tangent.  With dd, I really liked having those enrichment pages.  They were sold a different way, in supplemental workbooks.  Now they're all there on that cd in the tm.  That alone would be worth it.

[lacell]

That is extremely helpful Oh Elizabeth. I'm so grateful you took the time to explain your experience!

[lacell]

Grade Level is one 1st grader and one 2nd grader.

[PeterPan]

Grade Level is one 1st grader and one 2nd grader.

Ooo, fun stuff!  I think you'll be happier having the tm and having that choice.  How far have you gone in RS?  RS was really terrific through the first part of C.  So for mental math, 4 digit addition, 4 digit subtraction, fabulous.  After that it got really iffy.  The new BJU editions are STRONG.  I think you're going to be glad to have the tms.  

 

Math is really individual.  Sometimes you nail it on the first try, and sometimes you buy four things and try them each for a couple weeks to figure it out.  It's not so much that one program is better than another, just that you are looking for that good fit.  :)

[lacell]

I'm concerned I will have the same issue with their TM as RS. In fact, it looks more cluttered/overwhelming for my brain :crying:  But I do like that there is a blue script to read. CLE's TM is more my kind of thing. I can clearly see what to read to student and nothing looks cluttered.

[Jess4879]

We started BJU in gr. 2 with my middle kiddo and the TM is very important.  I find it very easy to teach from.  At first glance the pages do look "busy", but they are very clearly laid out.  There are large copies of the student text (with answers) and then each section is clearly marked as review, intro and then the new lesson.  I skim the review and will only review what isn't mastered already. We skip the intro as it's often a weird little blurb about how God relates to math and it's typically a bit of a stretch and completely unnecessary to the lesson.  The teaching is scripted and they typically show more than one way to approach the topic.  There is also quite often a word problem of two to work on together.  The lessons typically take us 15-20 mins or so. 

 

I love teaching BJU math and my kiddo loves the workbook, but she is tiring of the in-depth lessons.  She picks up on concepts quite quickly and she just wants to get it done, which BJU isn't really designed for. We will probably be switching next year. 

 

We used the K level and are attempting the grade 1 level with the my youngest.  I am not a huge fan of the grade 1 level.  It just feels like overkill for something that should be pretty straight forward.  Even at that level though, the meat is definitely in the TM.  If I was to skip anything, it would be the workbook in favor of just doing the lesson hands on. 

[jer2911mom]

I'm concerned I will have the same issue with their TM as RS. In fact, it looks more cluttered/overwhelming for my brain :crying:  But I do like that there is a blue script to read. CLE's TM is more my kind of thing. I can clearly see what to read to student and nothing looks cluttered.

 

I used RS and now use BJU and I much prefer the BJU TM.  I was overwhelmed looking at it at first, too, but I have gotten used to the format now and find it easy to work with.  The use of color as you mentioned really helps.  If my dd does well on the daily review, I skip the review at the beginning of the lesson, unless it includes something that wasn't on the daily review, which has happened only a few times.  I also have figured out that each lesson is made up of several different sections, each teaching a specific concept.  At the end of those sections are often several other example problems.  If my dd understands the concept, I have learned to skip all those extra examples, unless one looks like it is different enough that it might provide additional insight into the concept.  For the most part, though, I let my dd show me on the worktext if she understands the concept, and so far I have not had to go back and use the additional problems.  Learning these strategies has helped me work through the lesson more efficiently.  BJU teaches very well and makes understanding the concepts almost effortless.  I was floored with how well my dd understood long division after her first exposure to it.  I had anticipated it being a difficult concept to grasp and planned to camp out on it as long as necessary.  But BJU just leads them through the concept beautifully.  I think their use of manipulatives really helps the teaching be absorbed more easily.

 

I also have used CLE.  It is very strong on learning the algorithm and math facts.  It was very strong conceptually for 1st and most of 2nd grade.  Toward the end of 2nd grade and into 3rd grade, I started getting frustrated with the lack of conceptual teaching in several areas.  I didn't have enough teaching experience myself to know how to fill in the holes.  I just knew that they were there.  It became very algorithmic in some major areas.  We switched to BJU and although BJU requires much more teaching time from me (which I have learned to shave off as much as possible), I feel like I am teaching the concepts again, which is my goal.  I'm willing to put in the time now to make that happen.  BJU is not independent like CLE and not efficient like CLE, but it's possible to tweak it into a more efficient program than how it's written.  The TM takes more time to adjust to, but for me it didn't take too long and has been worth it.  I am using BJU 5 with my older dd and BJU 2 with my younger.  So I have used BJU 1, 2, 4, and 5 so far.

 

HTH,

Kathy

[alisoncooks]

I know not everyone will agree (and I haven't read the other replies), but I used BJU Math 1 & 2 (just the work text) very successfully with my oldest child. I had the teacher's manual, but absolutely hated the cluttered, school-focused feel.

 

When teaching my daughter, however, I made much use of manipulatives to demonstrate new information, as well as math games for extra practice. We did the front page together, teaching as we went; the back page was independent practice.

 

So, I think one could use just the work text (I'm speaking younger levels, maybe up to grade 3-4), if the teacher is willing to put in the extra legwork to actually teach.

 

(FWIW, we use CLE because I wanted more spiral.)

Edited December 31, 2015 by alisoncooks

[Meadowlark]

We've used BJU for 3 years now after using Singapore and CLE. For the people who feel that the TM is too cluttered, I think it's important to know that you don't have to read everything or do everything that it suggests. It is very clearly laid out and once you get the hang of it, it's very easy to teach from. I usually glance at it the night before and mentally note what the new concepts are. I might use their way of teaching, and I might not. But if I am unsure, I know the support is there for me. I LOVE that being a bit non-mathy. Being a visual learning, I love the charts and everything that they provide. Again, I don't use them all but they're there if I need them. Bottom line is-it's all nice to have right there and you take from it what you want, and leave the rest.