Which math programs do you feel are on grade level,

[HomeAgain]

below grade level, above..?  As compared to public school or a general 'must know' resource list. 

[OneStepAtATime]

I think that responses are going to vary quite a bit.  Different schools use different resources which means a different scope and sequence.  I think the main thing is that all math concepts needed for pre-algebra are solid before you hit that level of math.  Even different pre-algebra and Algebra I material can cover things in a different scope and sequence and different schools expect students to hit that level at different times.

 

For instance, some school districts locally and where my friends/family teach are using Harcourt math textbooks.  Others are switching over to Singapore.  Still others are using Everyday Math.   And so on.  Vastly different in approach, scope and sequence between them.  And some schools are pushing for all students to take Algebra I by 8th.  Some still have most kids taking it in 9th.  Some have them taking it in 7th.  Depends on the school district.  I think now, more than ever, it is really hard to make a blanket statement that all public schools are at XXXXX by so and so grade.

 

"Grade level" is really going to depend on what your local schools are doing.  "Grade level" in a general sense doesn't seem to have that much meaning.  You might look at standardized testing and see what is expected at each level there.  That might give a better idea...

[HomeAgain]

I expect answers to vary, that's why the word "feel" is in there as opposed to a fact based statement. :glare: I know that there are some curricula more rigorous than others, some more gentle...I'm just trying to sort out which and why people feel that way.

 

But thank you for the clarification on the idea that there will be different perspectives.  I appreciate that.

[wapiti]

What was relatively standard for prealgebra and algebra 1 was scrambled a bit by Common Core, which may make comparisons between programs more difficult than it used to be, at least at those levels.

 

When I think about grade level for math, I prefer to think in terms of main topics that have typically been covered in that grade.  For example, for 4th grade, the main topics would be multi-digit multiplication and long division, 5th grade all operations with fractions, etc.  Topics at the 6th and 7th grade levels have always varied widely and that is the time that PS typically allows greater opportunity for acceleration.

 

And yes, it helps to keep in mind that programs may differ in depth as well as in sequence.  Other aspects that may differ:  organization (amount of spiral vs mastery), amount and timing of review, how much the instruction emphasizes concepts vs procedures.

 

ETA, you can also check with your local PS to see what they use so that you'd have something specific to compare.

Edited March 24, 2016 by wapiti

[dori123]

For what it's worth, I think Math Mammouth is generally considered on or slightly above grade level. I think Teaching Textbooks is considered a year (sometimes two) behind grade level, though it's a solid curriculum in its own right. Singapore is about on par with MM, from what I understand. 

 

Saxon seems to be the benchmark, and is on or slightly ahead of grade level, at least compared to our local school district, which is pushing for Algebra in 7th/8th. 

 

Hope that helps; it's hard to generalize math programs. 

[OneStepAtATime]

Well, if you are just looking for a "feeling" I tend to feel that Teaching Textbooks runs a bit behind what the local schools are doing in each grade.  At least when my kids started it, the level they began with was actually all review of concepts they had learned the previous year in school.  They needed the review, so it worked out.  Good program.  Many have used it successfully.  It is one where taking the placement test is critical, though.

 

I think CLE runs ahead in some areas it covers but stays on some topics longer than with the local schools.  For instance, CLE still has students practicing basic math facts (separately from the main lesson) through 5th grade but the local schools are now expecting students to have mastered math facts by the end of 2nd and stop reviewing them at that point.  However, CLE covers a lot more about metric and fractions and a lot earlier than the local schools did for elementary.  There are other topics CLE covers earlier and goes into more depth with than the local ps, too. I would say overall CLE is ahead.  However, it covers pre-algebra over two levels.  Unless you compress those two levels into one year (which many do), it kind of evens out in the end.

 

Math in Focus seems to run a bit ahead of what the local schools are doing, and it also goes into more depth.  There are some years where it doesn't cover certain topics again, though, while the local school continues those topics.

 

MM seems to run on grade level or a bit ahead.

 

I've used other math programs but Math on the Level is such a different approach it really can't be compared to grade levels.  There are no grade levels.  The other programs we tried I don't think we used long enough for me to comment effectively.

 

HTH

[EKS]

These are the ones I have experience with.  Instead of saying if they are above or below grade level, I'm categorizing them as strong, average, or weak.

 

Primary Mathematics (Singapore math): Strong

 

Math in Focus: Strong

 

Math Mammoth: Strong

 

Beast Academy/AoPS: Extremely strong

 

Saxon: Average, weak in problem solving

 

Math U See:  Average for K-6, very weak for the upper grades

 

Teaching Textbooks:  Average, but kids end up a grade behind by 8th grade (assuming you want algebra in 8th)

 

[dancingmama]

Well, my son's school uses Math in Focus so that is "grade level" for us. Math Mammoth seems to be on par with Math in Focus, as is Singapore Math. I found Teaching Textbooks to be behind and not deep enough, but has its place, especially if you do their placement tests. Beast Academy is its only animal (pun intended). It covers topics in sequence but goes deeper. I have my 6th grader doing BA as it comes out as a refresher and giving her the opportunity to go deeper as she loves math.

[8filltheheart]

The programs I have used over multiple yrs and can see their outcomes at the high school and/or college level:

 

On grade level (meaning concepts mastered and solidly prepared for all subsequent math):

Horizons

Math in Focus

Foerster

 

Advanced (meaning prepared beyond what is required and often a step into what they need in upper level courses):

AoPS

 

Behind (meaning not on par with comparable books covering the same topics)

MUS algebra and geometry

Edited March 24, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[KathyBC]

Canada - All of the provinces I am aware of have a December 31st birthday cut-off date. Other than the odd boy born in late December, most children I know of attending public school do so in their birth year. Our grade levels are actually our grade levels. Geometry and probability are included every year so most homeschool math curricula need to be supplemented to match public school guidelines. Unconventional scope and sequence such as Miquon and Math-U-See might make jumping from homeschool to public school in the elementary years more difficult, in theory, though the resulting strong base might be fine. Most curricula is on grade level. A few of the stronger programs, like Singapore and Horizons, might be ahead. True algebra begins in 9th grade.

 

Open to any correction, this is to the best of my knowledge.

[SilverMoon]

.

Edited October 18, 2023 by SilverMoon

[leharper]

We have a second grader in public school.  I originally bought Math U See when she was young because my math knowledge is so poor, and I wanted better for her.  When she is in school we don't use a bunch of extra stuff, except Beast Academy, which is awesome.

 

Math U See in the early years aligns completely with what they are doing in school, except for it introduces time, measuring, money and graphing a little later than school does.  It hasn't introduced Roman numerals at all--our school introduced them in first grade.  It introduced number of days in a month and word problems related to them. Our school hasn't done that at all.  The word problems are pretty much exactly the same.

 

I don't know how Beast Academy aligns because the content is just different.  I would say that it takes math a step further than school does. So it doesn't seem faster, just deeper.  It is awesome and my kid loves it.  How amazing is it to write math curriculum that kids love?  I think mine would need additional math curriculum though.  There isn't enough practice in the book.  It is particularly good for providing extra challenge.

[Holly]

We have a second grader in public school.  I originally bought Math U See when she was young because my math knowledge is so poor, and I wanted better for her.  When she is in school we don't use a bunch of extra stuff, except Beast Academy, which is awesome.

 

Math U See in the early years aligns completely with what they are doing in school, except for it introduces time, measuring, money and graphing a little later than school does.  It hasn't introduced Roman numerals at all--our school introduced them in first grade.  It introduced number of days in a month and word problems related to them. Our school hasn't done that at all.  The word problems are pretty much exactly the same.

 

I don't know how Beast Academy aligns because the content is just different.  I would say that it takes math a step further than school does. So it doesn't seem faster, just deeper.  It is awesome and my kid loves it.  How amazing is it to write math curriculum that kids love?  I think mine would need additional math curriculum though.  There isn't enough practice in the book.  It is particularly good for providing extra challenge.

 

MUS introduces Roman Numerals in Delta...at least I think it's Delta.  

[Penelope]

Singapore doesn't cover Roman numerals at all, even in the Standards edition.

 

I have read for years that Singapore Primary is from half a year to a full year ahead, but I just don't see it. It feels right on to me. I think maybe people think that because it does touch on topics earlier than older typical PS math books. However, actually covering the topics fully seems to occur right on schedule and they end up in the same place, except it can be stronger in problem solving if supplemented with IP and CWP books.

 

Beast Academy is definitely ahead.

[FairProspects]

Singapore doesn't cover Roman numerals at all, even in the Standards edition.

 

I have read for years that Singapore Primary is from half a year to a full year ahead, but I just don't see it. It feels right on to me. I think maybe people think that because it does touch on topics earlier than older typical PS math books. However, actually covering the topics fully seems to occur right on schedule and they end up in the same place, except it can be stronger in problem solving if supplemented with IP and CWP books.

 

Beast Academy is definitely ahead.

 

Singapore is *far* ahead of Everyday Math, which is used in many public schools. Maybe that is the comparison?

[sweetpea3829]

I find Singapore to be somewhat advanced in comparison to what is considered "norm".

 

I mean...they don't dive deeply into it, but they DO introduce multiplication and division in first grade. I really appreciated that when DS9 was flying through (because he's a math sponge...the lucky duck) and I wanted to go a bit deeper without going ahead into the next grade level, kwim?

 

Otherwise...

 

We have MUS on our shelves and I use that with my DD10, who struggles tremendously with math.  Because you cannot compare it by grade level, I would venture to say that...at the end of the elementary program, it would be pretty close to on par with what public schools have covered as far as concepts go.

 

But I do find it to be a shallow program that only covers what's required and does not explore math, expand on math, or even include adequate problem solving instruction (because just slapping a word problem on a page is not instruction).  

 

 

 

We also have Beast and I would say the concepts covered are pretty much grade level expected except...their approach results in a student with a far deeper understanding.  It's HARD, but not necessarily ahead of grade level, if that makes sense.  

[Targhee]

We have used Miquon (only first two books), RS A-C, Singapore PM 1-5, MiF 1A-1B, BA 3A-5A, ALEKS preA, and AOPS (preA, Intro C&P, Intro Alg).

 

I consider all of them (except ALEKS) strong math programs. I think Singapore PM is stronger than MiF. RS has a different sequence so I can't really compare it, but RS B gives you a stronger (more advanced?) conceptual foundation than I think even Singapore does.

 

I will say that although BA covers typical topics for the grade level they cover it deeper. When my DS switched from BA to Singapore PM 5 (standards Ed) it was obvious he was more than read for it - he's been blowing through it at almost double speed because he understands it all so well already.

 

AOPS works similarly. The understanding developed and the problem solving ability gained exceeds the general in-level public school curriculum. Being faster (advanced past grade level) isn't the point - it's the understanding. even Richard Rusczyk (AOPS founder) says there's no rush to calculus, and recommends discrete maths and rich math culture as part of a good math education (not just a race to calculus).

Edited March 25, 2016 by Targhee

[Storygirl]

Three of my kids are in public school now using Everyday Math. In previous years, we homeschooled using CLE.

 

At the fifth grade level, DS11 has not really encountered anything in Everyday Math that he did not already do in CLE level 400 last year. Everyday Math does focus more on conceptual thinking than CLE, but not in a way that I think is particularly instructional or helpful.

 

Based on that, I would consider CLE to be ahead.

 

We used other math programs when my kids were much younger, but I can't speak about how they compare to standard grade levels.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Storygirl

[Penelope]

Singapore is *far* ahead of Everyday Math, which is used in many public schools. Maybe that is the comparison?

We have two local private schools that use Everyday Math, and they have most of their students taking algebra in seventh grade. I don't know how the majority of public schools use it, but I assumed from that that it can't be behind.

 

I figure most elementary programs cover the same things and end up in the same place at the end of grade 5-6- covering basic arithmetic and introduction to geometrical concepts. Introducing things at a simpler level but a grade earlier doesn't seem ahead to me, if they end up in the same place. If so, then it's all a matter of depth.

 

The reason I say Beast is ahead is not just because of depth, but because they cover some things that Singapore Primary does not, or spends only a single page in one book on.

[sweetpea3829]

We have two local private schools that use Everyday Math, and they have most of their students taking algebra in seventh grade. I don't know how the majority of public schools use it, but I assumed from that that it can't be behind.

 

I figure most elementary programs cover the same things and end up in the same place at the end of grade 5-6- covering basic arithmetic and introduction to geometrical concepts. Introducing things at a simpler level but a grade earlier doesn't seem ahead to me, if they end up in the same place. If so, then it's all a matter of depth.

 

The reason I say Beast is ahead is not just because of depth, but because they cover some things that Singapore Primary does not, or spends only a single page in one book on.

 

 

Yes, but Singapore covers things that Beast does not cover, or does not go as deeply in as well.  For example, Singapore 4B covers multiplication and division with decimals while Beast 4D only covers up to addition and subtraction. It looks like they won't cover multiplication and division with decimals until 5C.  

 

I was actually quite surprised and somewhat disappointed by that.  Though I'm confident that...when they do cover it, they'll knock it out of the park.  Because they always do.  

[Targhee]

I think there are so many ways a program can be looked it for determining if it is "on level."

 

One is content. If that is the sole thing you look at some programs, especially the mastery ones, will look behind for a number of years. Even Singapore PM has 4 editions (that I know of) for US markets and each has a lightly different sequence of introducing concepts but all end in about the same place by the end of 5th or 6th grade. And what's the standard of "on-level" sequence we compare to? Common Core?

 

One way to look at it is depth. While Saxon (or even Singapore) might introduce concepts earlier are the at the same depth as say BA? The fractions DS did in BA 4 were deep enough that there was hardly anything new in Singapore 5 on fractions (just unit conversions). we are about to start decimals and I think that the solid grounding in base 10 he got in RS B will make it so that decimals come easy and he won't be at a disadvantage for not covering them in 4th grade.

 

Yet another comparison of whether a math is "on-level" would be an objective assessment of grade level peers who use different programs. So, you compare standardized test results.

 

 

On a separate note, with regards to Every Day Math: My oldest started Evry Day Math in 2nd, after homeschooling K (RS A and Singapore PM 1A and part of B) and a different school for 1st (using mostly teacher designed materials, ALEKS, and some curriculum I don't recall). I saw a lot of really great things that Everyday Math tried to do - conceptual understanding things. However, the limited teacher training and even the limitations on teacher-directed learning associated with the program made it ineffective. And it spiraled (without daily review) in a shallow way, which was hard for some kids. She went from an advanced student to being a year behind in Singapore when she came home in 4th.

 

 

I think Everydaymath and the common core maths *attempt* to approach things in a similar way to Singapore and other "Asian" maths, but so many other factors besides learning math (including textbook publishers, teacher training, testing, and porting the old structures from American maths) got in the way.

[Penelope]

Yes, but Singapore covers things that Beast does not cover, or does not go as deeply in as well. For example, Singapore 4B covers multiplication and division with decimals while Beast 4D only covers up to addition and subtraction. It looks like they won't cover multiplication and division with decimals until 5C.

 

I was actually quite surprised and somewhat disappointed by that. Though I'm confident that...when they do cover it, they'll knock it out of the park. Because they always do.

I think we're just thinking about it differently. I mean things like the distributive property, negative numbers, working with beginning algebraic expressions-- these are things that Singapore barely touches on. And Beast has the "logic" sections, which don't have to be in an elementary math book, but they are there, and Singapore does not have them.

 

what I was trying to say is that I don't think the order, what year something is covered, matters. Beast and Singapore, pretty much have covered what you need to go into "prealgebra" after the fifth level. But MUS, and I think TT, for example, have not.