At what point can Ray's Arithmetic be independent?

[Bics]

I was all set this time last year to start my soon-to-be 3rd grader in Ray's Arithmetic.

 

  For background:  We were not consistent with RightStart her K,1, and 2 year (finally barely got into B), but I wasn't concerned because we reasoned mathematically on long commutes into town, and she could do money, time, and calendar.  So last year, when I finally admitted to myself that I put off math because I didn't like RightStart, I switched to Ray's, which I had picked up in a used book store.  --

 

It got her through addition and into subtraction, but as you know if you have tried to use it, it is quite a departure from the way most of us were raised--I had her make flashcards, I had her reciting the tables of facts, I had her writing them on a cute little chalkboard, I had her copying them on paper--and eventually I felt like she could handle writing the answers to the questions on paper, too--trying to mimic the textbook approach I was most familiar with, I think.  But also because she is the eldest of three, and what she can do independently, she needs to.  So, I was going to rush her through the rest of the first book her third grade year.

 

I used to teach 4th grade, and I spent four years using Saxon 5/4, 2nd edition.  I always planned to put her in Saxon once she got to fourth grade, but then at Circe Institute, there was a discussion about how spiral programs might teach how, but they would never lead a child to actually love math, etc. etc.

 

 

Then we sold our house.  I scrapped Ray's and put her in Rod and Staff 3, and yes, it has been great for her.  Absolutely.  However, I don't really want to continue with it because as good as it is for arithmetic, if I don't teach those lessons and she just works the problems, I can see that she is missing the opportunity to understand--I can see how others condemn it.  

 

Now I am facing building a house starting this summer and into her 4th grade year and trying to be realistic.  Can Ray's be independent? My concerns: the actual teaching seems to be missing (but I understand it is from the principal approach?), and the small font--

and just the logistics, really--is it meant to be oral from the second book on? There is still stuff in the first book that she won't have been exposed to--

 

And so I looked at Strayer-Upton, as well--

 

Help! I am drowning in Math! :confused1:

 

 

 

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

I realize you have a lot on your plate and you are feeling overwhelmed and I sympathize but honestly math, especially math for a child that probably still has quite a few gaps and is only in elementary school, should not be expected to be independently learning this subject. Do you feel intimidated trying to teach this particular subject? Lots do. I know I did. I had to pick materials that gave me quite a bit of guidance. Is there someone else who could take over those duties, at least temporarily, even if it is a Skyping a grandparent?

 

If time is the biggest factor but you are fine teaching this subject there are ways to free up that time. If you just had her reading or listening to audio books for a season for her other subjects, with some minor written output, but only explicitly taught her math would that work? She is still very young. She needs someone to help her learn this subject.

 

Maybe you need to switch resources for a bit. Even if you were to get something like Teaching Textbooks or have her use Khan Academy or even CLE, which is written to the student, you would still need to be directly involved with confirming understanding of the material (and I would commit to checking daily) but perhaps switching to something like that might free you up a bit more, just for the time being.

 

And I'm a little confused on the statement that spiral programs don't teach understanding. Are you saying your were told that spiral programs don't help a child master material? I disagree. I think it depends on the child. Some children need mastery for the material to stick and some need spiral because without spiral the material doesn't stick and some need both. But what some kids also need is a stronger approach conceptually while others thrive in a more algorithmic approach. And some need a combination of both. My kids needed both mastery and spiral plus conceptual alongside a more algorithmic approach. Different kids have different needs. There is no blanket one right way to approach math that magically works for every single child on the planet. If you find a system that works well for your particular child don't stress over what others say should work better.

 

Good luck and hugs. Hopefully you find a good option.

[Guest]

You have to be involved in mathematics.

 

If she is learning absolutely great with R&S, use Rod and Staff.

 

Do library books, read and discuss only for history, science and geography. Pare writing and grammar down to the barest bare bones.

 

But you** have to teach math. Even if you do use a program that is generally thought of as independent.

 

**either you or someone else.

 

 

 

 

But also because she is the eldest of three, and what she can do independently, she needs to.

 

 

^^^ This is false. Eldest kids have the same basic academic needs as everyone else. I get your point... you've got stuff going on and she's the oldest. But it honestly doesn't matter. Now--if you'd said you'd been consistent and enthusiastic all along, but RIGHT NOW you've got some big life thing going on, I'd say hey! take a break, and then get back to your grind asap. But you're saying both that **you** (not your daughter) have been lax in the past and now you want her to do it herself because she's the oldest and you've got stuff going on. Imagine if a school teacher called a conference with you and said that since your daughter is the oldest in the class, she needs to self-teach while the teacher does stuff with the youngest kids in the class. Wouldn't you raise Cain?

 

Fourth grade is not as old as it feels it is when your oldest is approaching it!

[Ellie]

I was all set this time last year to start my soon-to-be 3rd grader in Ray's Arithmetic.

 

  For background:  We were not consistent with RightStart her K,1, and 2 year (finally barely got into B), but I wasn't concerned because we reasoned mathematically on long commutes into town, and she could do money, time, and calendar.  So last year, when I finally admitted to myself that I put off math because I didn't like RightStart, I switched to Ray's, which I had picked up in a used book store.  --

 

It got her through addition and into subtraction, but as you know if you have tried to use it, it is quite a departure from the way most of us were raised--I had her make flashcards, I had her reciting the tables of facts, I had her writing them on a cute little chalkboard, I had her copying them on paper--and eventually I felt like she could handle writing the answers to the questions on paper, too--trying to mimic the textbook approach I was most familiar with, I think.  But also because she is the eldest of three, and what she can do independently, she needs to.  So, I was going to rush her through the rest of the first book her third grade year.

 

I used to teach 4th grade, and I spent four years using Saxon 5/4, 2nd edition.  I always planned to put her in Saxon once she got to fourth grade, but then at Circe Institute, there was a discussion about how spiral programs might teach how, but they would never lead a child to actually love math, etc. etc.

 

 

Then we sold our house.  I scrapped Ray's and put her in Rod and Staff 3, and yes, it has been great for her.  Absolutely.  However, I don't really want to continue with it because as good as it is for arithmetic, if I don't teach those lessons and she just works the problems, I can see that she is missing the opportunity to understand--I can see how others condemn it.  

 

Now I am facing building a house starting this summer and into her 4th grade year and trying to be realistic.  Can Ray's be independent? My concerns: the actual teaching seems to be missing (but I understand it is from the principal approach?), and the small font--

and just the logistics, really--is it meant to be oral from the second book on? There is still stuff in the first book that she won't have been exposed to--

 

And so I looked at Strayer-Upton, as well--

 

Help! I am drowning in Math! :confused1:

 

If she likes Rod and Staff now, there's no reason to change (although the third grade book is still dependent on the oral class time; if y'all aren't doing that, then she's missing out. Sorry.).

 

OTOH, countless numbers of children have done Saxon and loved math, Circe Institute discussions not withstanding. I say give your daughter the placement test, and if she places into Math 54, then do it. She'll be set for life. :-)

 

[WoolC]

If Rod and Staff is working I would continue to use it. I have heard Andrew Kern speak about math in various talks and while it is true that he is suspicious of most modern math curriculum I think the main point he is making is for understanding to occur the student must be allowed to contemplate the truth/idea you are presenting. Here is a quote from a blog article by Kern that I have linked in full below.

 

 

"In the classical tradition, by contrast, mathematics was treated as a contemplative activity. In other words, the students were not treated to a series of intellectual stimuli when they were taught. Instead, they were presented with types of the idea to be learned and they learned how to think by attending to those types. That probably sounds scary to an unfamiliar modern teacher, but in fact it is gloriously simple.

 

If the idea is polygons, then the teacher presents multiple examples of polygons to the students. The students describe them in as much detail as they can to aid their attentive perception. Then they compare them with each other. In a very short time, they will have learned what a polygon is."

 

We use CLE math because my son needs the repeated exposure to concepts for them to stick. Each time I present a new concept in his math I present in the way described above by Kern. What you use doesn't matter as much as the way you teach it. If it helps, I have heard Kern recommend Memoria Press as far as curriculum is concerned and they use Rod and Staff math.

 

Also, I agree with the others that no matter which math you choose to use, the most important thing is that you or someone else teach the math. That must be a priority.

 

 

https://quidditycirce.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/incarnational-teaching-in-kindergarten/

[HomeAgain]

I think you would be slightly appalled if you toured a school and the teachers told you, "oh, yes, from age 8 on we expect them to teach themselves in these subjects."

 

Don't shortchange them at home, either.  Review can always be done independently.  And older children make great tutors for younger ones, playing games with the littles to reinforce concepts in both their minds.  New material, though, it's not enough to plop it down in front of a kid.  They need the banter.  They need to ask questions. They need to play with it. They need to have someone else engaged who can also see the beauty of it.  This was never more impressed upon me as it was my oldest sadly told me, at age 17, that he didn't get his favorite math teacher that year.  He adored her because she was so invested in math and pushed him higher and higher, whereas the other teachers at his school went through the rote teaching method.  He didn't want them.  He wanted a teacher who loved math.  And to think, at one time in his life I almost killed his love for the subject!

[shinyhappypeople]

Rays and Rod & Staff aren't independent at this stage.  

 

It sounds like you're feeling stretched and you need a math program that does most of the heavy lifting for you and will get done. You do have options.  Nothing will be 100% independent.   You'll still need to be available as a mentor and helper, and to reteach some lessons that just don't make sense.  However, by 4th grade plenty of kids can begin to be more independent in this area.

 

In no particular order, you might consider: 

 

Saxon with Dive CDs

 

BJU Distance Learning

 

Teaching Textbooks - do not hand her the discs and assume your job is done.  Check the gradebook frequently, and have her do at least some lessons in the workbook only so you can see if she's really understanding the material and not over-relying on hints and second chances.  You'll also need to supplement if she's still working on math facts.  

 

CLE Math

 

SOS/Monarch/Lifepac (cd's, online, or workbook - same content) If you're interested in this program use the 30 day free trial (you can get a code off their fb page or probably by just asking a customer service rep.)  The trial will allow you to view all the content from all the grade levels before you commit.

 

Ace Math Paces

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by shinyhappypeople

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Rod and Staff - if you teach it properly, meaning that you do the Oral Drill (including chalkboard work), and teach the lesson at the chalkboard, and then do some problems on the concept of the day together, and THEN assign the rest for homework - you'll have everything you need. You're right that she can't just work through R&S student texts on her own. The teaching/interaction is half of the day, and entirely indispensable.

 

Ray's is a conversation. The concepts must be taught, and the problems may be worked at the chalkboard, but you run into a slight problem when the mental math outpaces the physical stamina for copying and writing. Work together, and do as much as possible orally, or one problem at a time on the chalkboard. The problems with multiple steps go well when the teacher is reading the problem and the student is copying down the figures.

 

I agree with shinyhappypeople that you have options if you want your child to learn mostly on her own, but I agree even more with everyone who asked you to PLEASE properly teach math at the grade school level. You are laying the foundation for a lifetime of understanding OR confusion; if you're busy, skimp on almost anything but this.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Bics]

I thank everyone who weighed in to help me.  I see that I was not completely clear, and just to alleviate any consternation out there that my child is neglected, let me add a few things:)

 

I was good at math in school myself, but remember distinctly my pre-algebra teacher getting tired of me asking "why" in class, as I wanted to delve into the layers, and everyone else, including him, just wanted to know how to work the problems and be done.   I also have taught math in 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th grades--so it isn't an intimidation.  I spent four years teaching from Saxon 54 2nd edition (to 4th graders) and loved that the children had the ability to help themselves in the practice problems, because of the lesson reference number.  I think that math is extremely important--students entering college often decide what they will study based on the amount of math required, so I do not want my children hampered by an intimidation in mathematics.  I don't understand the all-or-nothing condemnations from a few of you--the success of Robinson Curriculum and ACE evince that children, if supported appropriately by a text, can teach themselves.  

 

That said, I also read and was influenced heavily by Teaching the Trivium by Bluedorn.  There is a lot to say for not spending precious time in the young years (geared for language acquisition) in teaching abstract mathematics that can be easily assimilated about 9/10 years old when the brain is ready for more abstract concepts.  So, when I say we didn't make RightStart a priority, it was because in the back of my mind I knew as long as we were doing what we WERE doing,I didn't need to let math push other language activities out of the way. This particular child is mildly dyslexic and our days were spent focusing on language.  The idea that I have been "lax" with this child is false; she has consumed large quantities of time in one-on-one work, while the other children have taken a backseat.  Now that she is reading happily and well, and has caught up to where she should be in math in one year (just like the delayed formal math studies suggested she could), it is entirely fair for me switch resources to something that she can do happily and well, allowing me to now turn needed attention to younger children.  (This idea of delayed formal written math curriculum  was confirmed to me, by the way, this year with my 1st grader.  I have her working through Rod & Staff 1st grade, and she became so frustrated at the quick transition to abstract.  We have backed off of it--she is doing small lessons orally from Ray's, subsitizing with household objects, and she enjoys math again.)

 

I also want to clarify that I wasn't speaking as a convinced person that spiral programs would stop a person's love for math; I was speaking as a deer-in-the-headlights reeling from Kern's talk about mastery, and his condemnation of spiral programs.  I promise! :)

 

I put off asking for a few days because I know some posters seem eager to make others feel small, if they can, and I cringe when I read it aimed at others, and cringe more when it is aimed at myself! It is strange, kind of, because other homeschool forums tend to have much less of this.

 

Thank you especially to Onestepatatime, Ellie, WoolC, shinyhappypeople, and Tibbie Dunbar for thoughtful, respectful replies. I will definitely take all you say into account. 

 

 

 

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

I thank everyone who weighed in to help me.  I see that I was not completely clear, and just to alleviate any consternation out there that my child is neglected, let me add a few things:)

 

I was good at math in school myself, but remember distinctly my pre-algebra teacher getting tired of me asking "why" in class, as I wanted to delve into the layers, and everyone else, including him, just wanted to know how to work the problems and be done.   I also have taught math in 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th grades--so it isn't an intimidation.  I spent four years teaching from Saxon 54 2nd edition (to 4th graders) and loved that the children had the ability to help themselves in the practice problems, because of the lesson reference number.  I think that math is extremely important--students entering college often decide what they will study based on the amount of math required, so I do not want my children hampered by an intimidation in mathematics.  I don't understand the all-or-nothing condemnations from a few of you--the success of Robinson Curriculum and ACE evince that children, if supported appropriately by a text, can teach themselves.  

 

That said, I also read and was influenced heavily by Teaching the Trivium by Bluedorn.  There is a lot to say for not spending precious time in the young years (geared for language acquisition) in teaching abstract mathematics that can be easily assimilated about 9/10 years old when the brain is ready for more abstract concepts.  So, when I say we didn't make RightStart a priority, it was because in the back of my mind I knew as long as we were doing what we WERE doing,I didn't need to let math push other language activities out of the way. This particular child is mildly dyslexic and our days were spent focusing on language.  The idea that I have been "lax" with this child is false; she has consumed large quantities of time in one-on-one work, while the other children have taken a backseat.  Now that she is reading happily and well, and has caught up to where she should be in math in one year (just like the delayed formal math studies suggested she could), it is entirely fair for me switch resources to something that she can do happily and well, allowing me to now turn needed attention to younger children.  (This idea of delayed formal written math curriculum  was confirmed to me, by the way, this year with my 1st grader.  I have her working through Rod & Staff 1st grade, and she became so frustrated at the quick transition to abstract.  We have backed off of it--she is doing small lessons orally from Ray's, subsitizing with household objects, and she enjoys math again.)

 

I also want to clarify that I wasn't speaking as a convinced person that spiral programs would stop a person's love for math; I was speaking as a deer-in-the-headlights reeling from Kern's talk about mastery, and his condemnation of spiral programs.  I promise! :)

 

I put off asking for a few days because I know some posters seem eager to make others feel small, if they can, and I cringe when I read it aimed at others, and cringe more when it is aimed at myself! It is strange, kind of, because other homeschool forums tend to have much less of this.

 

Thank you especially to Onestepatatime, Ellie, WoolC, shinyhappypeople, and Tibbie Dunbar for thoughtful, respectful replies. I will definitely take all you say into account. 

O.k. I see what you are saying.   :)  

 

With regards to spiral programs vs. mastery I really, really, really think that entirely depends on the child.  

 

On a side note, regarding your reference to Kern and his condemnation of spiral approaches and how spiral kills a love of math, I understand having something like that potentially influence you.  However, I have found over and over and over that what works for many will almost certainly not work for all.  We are not manufactured in a plant, we are individuals.  What has worked for one of my kids frequently does not work well for the other and vice a versa.  

 

For instance, DD needs quiet and time to focus and a LOT of review but not verbal.  Just math on a page and preferably a BRIEF explanation from me or a video.  She needs time to ponder and if a problem is wrong she needs clear steps for how to review and figure out where she might have gone off the rails.  DS is the opposite.  He learns much better with discussion and whole body movement and trying out different approaches.  He likes talking about math and playing with the numbers in many ways, usually verbally, and with manipulatives and with dry erase markers written with big movement on our large dry erase board.  DD likes workbooks and quiet.  Different kids, different needs.

 

As for the mastery vs. spiral approach, strictly mastery based did not work for either of my children long term and caused them both to feel very frustrated and down on themselves.  They like to understand the why of something and usually do much better with the big picture first but unless we do a LOT of review the nitty gritty just does not stick long term.  They need the big picture AND the pieces broken down into tiny bits and reassembled and they need it done several times over a long period of time for retention.  DS in particular can make some great conceptual leaps but without a spiral review built in he won't recall the details later and ends up frustrated and disappointed in himself.  

 

Therefore, with my two, I have to have mastery and spiral.  I have to have conceptual and algorithmic.  I found relatively early on that combining Beast Academy with CLE worked best for my kids.  They liked the independents of CLE (but I reviewed what they had done daily to make sure they were not off track) and the lessons we did together with Beast.  Now we do CLE with CTC math and other resources.  They actually were so happy when we switched to CLE/Beast from a strictly mastery based program as our spine because it gave them time to really solidify their understanding AND their algorithms.  My nephew, on the other hand, only needed a solid conceptually based mastery program to really do well in math.  Different kids, different strengths and weaknesses, different needs.

 

I agree that pushing abstract math on young children who are not ready can cause serious issues with really grasping math at a deeper level and for some it can keep them from seeing the joy in math.  That certainly happened to me.   I was not ready for abstract math and yet that was pretty much all I got from early on.  And definitely very little conceptual instruction until late in High School where I already had a lot of gaps and confusion so it was too little too late, TBH.  Math was terribly intimidating to me because of the weak foundation that was laid in school.  Learning math again with the kids has been frustrating/intimidating at times but also quite rewarding.  I have a better grasp now than I think I ever did.

 

 Again this depends on the kid, though.  Some kids are ready earlier for the leap to more abstract material, some kids aren't.  In hindsight, if I had had a better understanding of the way my kids learn I would probably not have put DD in school in the early years.  I think she would have benefited from a delayed introduction to formal abstract math lessons and just worked on playing with the numbers and the concepts in a non-formal way for a few years.  Her school shoveled abstract math and worksheets full of numbers at them in 4k and Kinder.  She was not ready.  DS, on the other hand, was ready and enjoyed it.

 

As for kids being able to teach themselves, again I think that depends on the child and the circumstances and the materials used.  Some kids are naturally good at learning math concepts from reading the material themselves and figuring it out through trial and error.  Others are not.  And it may depend on the topic as well.  For example, DD intuitively gets a lot of geometric concepts.  She picks up geometric concepts way faster than I do (and I LIKE Geometric concepts :) ).  Geometry makes sense to her at a level that I have to work for.  Conversely, even basic algebraic concepts are a struggle for her.  Without outside, targeted, consistent instruction and help she flounders.  She could not learn on her own in those areas.

 

With regards to your own child, I am not saying that a child is incapable of teaching themselves many things, and I don't think others were either.  My kids have taught themselves quite a few things.  I think what most of us are saying is that it sounded like you wanted to just hand her the material and completely walk away.  That I don't find a good idea at all, for several reasons, but one of the bigger ones is that it is easy for a student to misunderstand/mislearn something and keep doing it incorrectly for quite a while before the misunderstanding is caught.  It can be challenging to unlearn and then relearn material after something becomes ingrained.  Many parents have regretted turning their child over to completely independent learning too young only to find quite a ways down the road that they have massive gaps that need to be filled.  There are threads regarding that quite often.  It sounded to me (and apparently others) like you weren't intending to do any work with her, just hand her a book and hope for the best.  I am assuming that really what you meant was that she would be working with the material and you would be confirming understanding along the way?

 

FWIW, I don't think anyone was deliberately trying to make you feel small.  I think they just perhaps misunderstood what you were saying and were concerned.  Some of us are a bit more blunt than others but usually I have found once I get to know people here that the comments are from the heart.  I am sorry if you felt sort of attacked.  

 

Anyway, sorry this was so long.  I wish you and your kiddos the best with the new house and I hope you find a program that works for your needs and that of your kids.  

 

Good luck!