Thoughts on CLE math for the long haul... Is it lacking?

[Meadowlark]

So we started with Rod and Staff and switched 2 weeks into the school year to CLE, just because I happen to have the manuals from other kids.

So now we're doing 2nd and 1st grade. I'm trying to decide if I want to continue on for the long haul. My other son did 4th grade CLE and he struggles in math now in school. But honestly, math just isn't his thing so I think he'd be struggling no matter what the curriculum. I can't put my finger on what I think is missing. I'm honestly not doing a lot of teaching. My 2nd grader just gets it-sometimes I have to explain the new concept but rarely. This feels a little off. Yes, we do the beginning section and whatever is in the teacher manual.

Maybe it's a lack of critical thinking? Weak on story problems? I don't know. I love that it's really cementing those basic facts in these early grades, but I wonder at what cost. I don't remember the story problems in 4th grade being that great either. I don't want to do them a disservice by continuing on if they are going to miss out on complex story problems and critical thinking. I'm not sure what to do. It just seems way too easy. All 3 of my kids using it are about to finish their grade levels, and they very rarely get anything wrong or need help. Is there something I'm not seeing? Would you consider CLE advanced, not advanced, what is it? I know, don't fix what's not broken. But I just don't really see the wheels turning and that concerns me.

[Zoo Keeper]

 If you like the base it builds, no need to throw it all out just because it *might* not be hard enough.  It's okay for a kid (especially at 5 and 7) to think that math is something he can do and do well.  I would 5000% rather have a elementary aged kid who feels confident about math, than one who feels defeated because he can never really quite get it.  It is soooo hard to get a kid out of a defeated place in math, because it just keeps on building. 

I think CLE is a good, solid, average program.  Not advanced, but a kid who is advanced could accelerate through the levels at a faster clip if needed. 

If you think it needs supplementing, go ahead and supplement with something like a Singapore Word Problems book.  Or pull from MEP math (stuff from Year 1 and Year 2 would be fine).  Or let them play around on Khan Academy and see how far they get. Or have a Fun Friday every week when you do logic puzzle books or read math picture books or...   I have done/am doing all of these extras with most of my kids in elementary while keeping on chugging through a base math program (R&S).  

Edited March 14, 2019 by Zoo Keeper

[Trilliumlady]

I’ve been using it for two years now and love it.  I’ve heard some say it’s advanced, other say it’s behind level, so I just shrug my shoulders and assume it’s somewhere in the middle.....

The word problems are weak.  I will be supplementing with Fan Process workbooks this summer based of recommendations forms here to help with that and critical thinking, but other than that I truly appreciate the way it’s been scaffolding learning.  Mine are in 3/5 this year, started in 2nd and 4th. Or maybe even before that, can’t remember now....

[ktgrok]

12 hours ago, square_25 said:

I haven’t used it, so take this with a grain of salt!

However, having looked at the samples, it doesn’t look like a conceptual curriculum. I’d want more visuals, more playing with numbers, and more word problems, personally. 

Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not cementing the ideas even if it’s teaching the basics.

You know, it is deceptive in that way. It looks very basic, but there are a lot of ways that it builds understanding without you realizing it. It's sneaky, lol. And takes tiny steps so kids find it easy. My son did it through Algebra 1 and had no issue taking our state end of course exam. My kids are using it now and because we took a lot of breaks for medical stuff I decided to just do Khan for the rest of the year, and my daughter is having no real issue switching to the more conceptual looking program. She's doing the "missions' and in 1 week, 20 minutes a day,  has tested through 60 percent of the third grade so far with nothing wrong. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Ktgrok

[ByGrace3]

We are using CLE Math for the first time this year for my ds. He is doing the 6th grade book. We are a Math Mammoth family but ds needed some drill and spiral this year. And I needed a break from the depth of MM and the multi level steps of EVERY problem. MM is wonderful, but ds and I needed a break. CLE has been perfect for us this year....but that said, it is no where near the depth of MM, it is not conceptual. I am very grateful for the foundation MM provided. CLE is great, and certainly gets the job done-- in a traditional way. If that's what you are looking for, it fits the bill. However, it doesn't have the conceptual depth or depth of word problems of MM.

[Meadowlark]

On 3/14/2019 at 10:35 AM, ByGrace3 said:

We are using CLE Math for the first time this year for my ds. He is doing the 6th grade book. We are a Math Mammoth family but ds needed some drill and spiral this year. And I needed a break from the depth of MM and the multi level steps of EVERY problem. MM is wonderful, but ds and I needed a break. CLE has been perfect for us this year....but that said, it is no where near the depth of MM, it is not conceptual. I am very grateful for the foundation MM provided. CLE is great, and certainly gets the job done-- in a traditional way. If that's what you are looking for, it fits the bill. However, it doesn't have the conceptual depth or depth of word problems of MM.

 

Okay, this is kind of what I was afraid of. I couldn't put my finger on what was exactly missing, but like I said-I don't see the wheels turning so to speak. It is solid, traditional and fine but I may look elsewhere for the future. Thanks!

[EmseB]

3 hours ago, Meadowlark said:

 

Okay, this is kind of what I was afraid of. I couldn't put my finger on what was exactly missing, but like I said-I don't see the wheels turning so to speak. It is solid, traditional and fine but I may look elsewhere for the future. Thanks!

We use CLE as our core math program and do Beast Academy on Fridays, just to throw an option out there. I like CLE, it is solid, but we did want the additional exposure to problem solving and such. Plus it makes math on Fridays "special".

[Syllieann]

We used level 2 and are about to finish 3.  I supplemented level 2 with Fan math speed math (mental math strategies) and math process skills.  In level 3 I'm finding that the mental math instruction is in there, so I dropped the speed math book.  We are still doing process skills for additional problem solving.  I think cle is a parts-to-whole program rather than procedural vs conceptual.  I do occasionally demonstrate something new with manipulatives to provide more conceptual understanding.  For example we used a base ten set to demonstrate why we "carry" or "borrow.  by the time we got to the multiplication algorithm, it was well-established that those numbers go where they go because of regrouping and place value.  Really, I think the simple act of demonstrating the new teaching with manipulatives will always, by default, provide the conceptual understanding.

I do like the fan math supplement, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if I wasn't able to get to it.  The conceptual programs teach the big picture first, then develop the algorithms from that.  Some kids don't have the working memory to do well with that. I would suggest that anecdotal evidence of conceptual programs being better is really just an artifact of weeding out the kids who are weaker in working memory.  I think you shouldn't fix something that isn't broken.  Add a supplement if you want, but having cle be a reliable workhorse will allow you to focus on other things as they pop up:  hands-on stuff, writing, music, art, current events.  There are just so many things that kids can't learn on their own with a workbook.  Save that time for those.

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

We used level 2 and are about to finish 3.  I supplemented level 2 with Fan math speed math (mental math strategies) and math process skills.  In level 3 I'm finding that the mental math instruction is in there, so I dropped the speed math book.  We are still doing process skills for additional problem solving.  I think cle is a parts-to-whole program rather than procedural vs conceptual.  I do occasionally demonstrate something new with manipulatives to provide more conceptual understanding.  For example we used a base ten set to demonstrate why we "carry" or "borrow.  by the time we got to the multiplication algorithm, it was well-established that those numbers go where they go because of regrouping and place value.  Really, I think the simple act of demonstrating the new teaching with manipulatives will always, by default, provide the conceptual understanding.

I do like the fan math supplement, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if I wasn't able to get to it.  The conceptual programs teach the big picture first, then develop the algorithms from that.  Some kids don't have the working memory to do well with that. I would suggest that anecdotal evidence of conceptual programs being better is really just an artifact of weeding out the kids who are weaker in working memory.  I think you shouldn't fix something that isn't broken.  Add a supplement if you want, but having cle be a reliable workhorse will allow you to focus on other things as they pop up:  hands-on stuff, writing, music, art, current events.  There are just so many things that kids can't learn on their own with a workbook.  Save that time for those.

You know, my kids ARE weaker in working memory, so that makes sense to me. A focus on math fact memorization helps kids with lower working memory, making those things automatic and in long term storage which frees up working memory for the bigger picture. 

And yes, very very parts to whole. So you spend a lesson multiplying small numbers in your head, then adding something in your head. Then a week later you are doing multiplication with carrying and it's easy because you already did these other tiny steps. 

And the teacher manual does say to use manipulative for things, i think people just skip that part, lol. 

[ktgrok]

Yeah, I find tons of conceptual stuff in CLE (and yes, I've used other programs , including Math Mammoth and some Beast Academy), but a lot of it is in the teacher's manual. I have seen many people on here say that you can just get the answer key, not the teachers manual so I wonder if that is part of the reason people think it isn't conceptual at all?

[HomeAgain]

My disclaimer: I don't use CLE math. 

However, I was listening to a podcast from A Delectable Education yesterday and it reminded me of this post.  It was on Charlotte Mason and math, and the thoughts of the guest speaker were intriguing.  I think it would fit well with the underlying philosophy of CLE and give you another tool in your toolbox for why you are choosing the programs you do.

[ktgrok]

I also find it funny that people sometimes (not here necessarily) think kids can't use "old fashioned" math and do well in higher level math, a nd yet we put people on the moon using slide rules. Those engineers learned "old fashioned" math. 

[TX Native]

My oldest completed  MEP years 1-4a and then CLE 405-710 ( he just started the 800 books).  MEP was very hands on, deep, conceptual, and interesting.  CLE is straight forward and do the next thing with lots of spiral review.  People say the CLE word problems are weak, and they are light compared to MEP, but I have not supplemented with anything additional since we switched to CLE.  A few months ago, my oldest took his 1st ever standardized test and scored years 12 and 13 respectively on the mathematical calculations and reasoning sections.  My youngest did MEP years 1-2 and then CLE 205-407 (407 is her current workbook number).  She is over a year "behind" average for her grade level.  The only supplementing is a math tutor this year since math is a struggle. She also took her 1st ever standardized test a few months ago "cold" (no prep) and scored just 5 months "below" her grade level in mathematical computation and 2 years "ahead" grade level in mathematical reasoning.  

IMO, CLE is more than sufficient  for the long haul, but I believe that is only for a child that does well with workbooks, spiral approach,  and learning mostly from the written instruction at the start of each lesson.  However, it is great if the teacher is able to walk the student through the new material.  

 

 

Edited March 17, 2019 by TX Native

[TracyP]

My kids have done great with CLE. I sometimes add to it for more challenging word problems or if they are struggling with a concept, but that is not unique to CLE. My two oldest kids have gone from CLE to AoPS (which does not provide enough practice problems or review for my kids, so I also have to supplement at times. Still I *love* AoPS.) with no major hiccups, so CLE works well here.

I know families with kids who have used CLE in the younger years and then struggled when they hit algebra, but I've seen the same with families using Singapore and Math Mammoth. The difference in every single case that I've seen? The parents were not involved in teaching and/or checking for understanding. That is the difference, imo, not the math program. 

[TX Native]

1 hour ago, TracyP said:

I know families with kids who have used CLE in the younger years and then struggled when they hit algebra, but I've seen the same with families using Singapore and Math Mammoth. The difference in every single case that I've seen? The parents were not involved in teaching and/or checking for understanding. That is the difference, imo, not the math program. 

I think CLE can be independent if needed for a child that has a natural ability to understand math, but I agree that parent involvement with teaching and going through missed problems with the child helps.  Also, we haven't done the flash cards part of CLE, because my oldest didn't need them.  I wish I had done CLE with the flashcard practice as instructed in the workbooks with my youngest, because she needed remediation work with simple math facts.  

[KrissiK]

2 hours ago, TracyP said:

My kids have done great with CLE. I sometimes add to it for more challenging word problems or if they are struggling with a concept, but that is not unique to CLE. My two oldest kids have gone from CLE to AoPS (which does not provide enough practice problems or review for my kids, so I also have to supplement at times. Still I *love* AoPS.) with no major hiccups, so CLE works well here.

I know families with kids who have used CLE in the younger years and then struggled when they hit algebra, but I've seen the same with families using Singapore and Math Mammoth. The difference in every single case that I've seen? The parents were not involved in teaching and/or checking for understanding. That is the difference, imo, not the math program. 

I find your last paragraph to be spot on.  We use CLE math, and I love it. But 3 of my 4 kids struggle with math. Greatly. And this is where homeschooling has gotten overwhelming to me, to the point of tears. My kids who struggle tend to get crabby about math and not want to do it, and get frustrated and so they hide it, or just don’t do it and so I have to “chase them down” and work with them, and as patient as I try to be, it is still very difficult. And with three kids that way, and trying to get the rest of our schoolwork done.... I have wanted to throw in the homeschool towel so many times. It’s not that I don’t want to help, it’s just that there is only one of me and I am exhausted.  I have tried to find the “magic formula” math program, but it doesn’t exist. What is going to make or break a kid on math is parent involvement.

[TracyP]

2 hours ago, TX Native said:

I think CLE can be independent if needed for a child that has a natural ability to understand math, but I agree that parent involvement with teaching and going through missed problems with the child helps.  Also, we haven't done the flash cards part of CLE, because my oldest didn't need them.  I wish I had done CLE with the flashcard practice as instructed in the workbooks with my youngest, because she needed remediation work with simple math facts.  

 

Yeah, I have a friend whose kids use CLE mostly independently. Her oldest is doing great in prealgebra (with a different program) so it seems to be working for them. However, I hesitate to mention that because 1) I'm not sure how typical that is. 2) I believe her kids could be doing *even better* with a teacher who was shoring up weak spots and nurturing strengths.

Having said that, her life circumstances havent allowed for that. Her kids are doing great, so I do agree that CLE can be independent.

[KeriJ]

Agreeing with everything OKBud has said here. 

[Trilliumlady]

So just out of curiosity, for those who have used this and responded - how are you defining “for the long haul?”  Do many people use this into high school or would most be using it through middle school and then switching?  Some have clarified this in their answer, others haven’t.  Just curious.

[TX Native]

2 hours ago, Trilliumlady said:

So just out of curiosity, for those who have used this and responded - how are you defining “for the long haul?”  Do many people use this into high school or would most be using it through middle school and then switching?  Some have clarified this in their answer, others haven’t.  Just curious.

For me, "the long haul" would mean using CLE as the main spine for math over at least several years, or through the completion of the levels.  As of right now, my son is wanting to do CLE Algebra next year instead of taking the Algebra class using a different program at his weekly tutorial.  As long as it is working for him, I don't plan to switch it up.  I doubt the revised Sunrise Edition Geometry will be ready the year after next, so he will likely do Geometry at the tutorial or with me using a different program.  I think he is in CLE "for the long haul" (returning to CLE if the revised Algebra 2 is out in 2 1/2 years), but know things can change.  I don't foresee my daughter using it after level 6.  She will likely do better taking math as a tutorial class with a teacher or see a tutor 1-2 times/week.  If those options aren't available to her, she will likely comple te CLE through level 6 before 8th grade and switch to something like Math U See or Teaching Textbooks for pre-Algebra.  So for her, I doubt we're in it "for the long haul".  For her, we're doing it for the foundation and to keep tears away from schooltime as much as possible.  However, I think if she stuck with CLE through all completed levels, it isn't lacking that much.  My guess is EVERY math program has something lacking, but as long as the program lays a great foundation for the student to understand and show competency in most essential math concepts  it will be fine.  I define essential math concepts as things needed to succeed in everyday day consumer and problem solving "life" encounters at a minimum, and (beyond that) things needed to do well in career related math course requirements.  I don't think any math program could cover everything possible and not have any gaps.  I just think math program,publishers can only hope to set the student up to be as successful as possible in math.  Then when there are gaps, hope their program laid a solid enough foundation for the student to figure out how to fill in those gaps when needed for real life or career training.  

Edited March 19, 2019 by TX Native

[vaquitita]

I haven't used CLE 'for the long haul' yet, but wanted to chime in on the conceptual teaching part... My kid who uses CLE hated Singapore math, didn't understand it, didn't get the conceptual teaching. But over the past two years with CLE I've seen her not only grow in her confidence with math, but I've also seen that she does understand concepts and make connections. Eventually. She is a parts to whole learner. She just wants to know how to do something, and then after weeks or months doing it she puts it all together and surprises me with observations on why things work or on the connections between things. Things Singapore math teaches first and the algorithm afterwards. She needs to practice doing it (the algorithm) and then she can understand the big picture. I've seen it repeatedly.

I think that the concepts are there in CLE, it's just that they're taught in a parts to whole manner, whereas in Singapore math there taught in a whole to parts manner. I do have experience with more conceptual math, my other kids use beast academy or Singapore or right start. And my kids that use Singapore or beast academy would hate CLE, but that's cause they're whole to parts thinkers. My youngest I don't know about yet.

[PeachyDoodle]

Totally agree with the parts-to-whole vs whole-to-parts comparison. I think that honestly some kids learn better with one approach than another. We are parts-to-whole in virtually every subject, and that's why CLE works for us.

I define "long haul" as basically elementary/early middle grades. I think CLE is wonderful for building arithmetic skills, but the non-Sunrise upper-level maths are not as good. We transition to Saxon, another parts-to-whole curriculum that gets an undeserved bad rap, for those. My eldest made that switch after about the mid-600's and moved into Saxon 87. It was an easy transition for her, but I wanted to give her time to adjust to Saxon before jumping into algebra. I chose 87 because she was just turned 11 and I wanted to allow her two years of pre-algebra if she needed it. She didn't. She's 13 and almost finished with Saxon Algebra 2. We recently brought in a math tutor because dd has surpassed what I remember from high school and I don't have the time or inclination to relearn hyperbolas and parabolas, etc. She's not struggling, but I want her to have someone she can ask questions of and talk to about mathematical concepts. After the first lesson, the tutor pulled me aside and said that she's incredibly well-prepared and understands math better than most of the private-school juniors and seniors the tutor teaches in her day job. So yeah, CLE did the job and did it well.

My youngest is in CLE 200 this year, and while I don't expect him to be the math whiz his sister is (he is much slower across the board than she), he is absolutely solid on the fundamentals. We do use manipulatives fairly regularly, often as directed in the teacher's guide, or similar. We supplement with c-rods and Education Unboxed videos, with Process Skills in Problem Solving (which is Singapore, but which honestly I haven't found to be all that helpful), and just recently added logic puzzles from The Math Profs. We talk about math in everyday life, as we do with all our other subjects. But CLE is our workhorse, and we intend to stick with it until it no longer works for us.

[Soror]

Ds used Right Start through E or G or something, to the point of pre-alg. Then he did BA, Jousting Armadillos, and AoPS pre-A. I've got plenty of experience with 'conceptual programs'.

My dd1 switched to CLE at the end of last year and dd2 is switching next year. There are strengths and weaknesses to every program. Things like BA, SM, AoPS can be great but they can also be really awful for some, like those who need more practice and review, need more work on memorizing facts, and need things broken down into smaller steps. My dd2 has been using MiF but I just switched her to CLE as she finished her 3rd grade book and there are gaps (decimals), partly because every program has gaps but also because the mastery nature of MiF she has forgotten some things. 

I used to be on the conceptual program bandwagon but seeing it played out, don't even care. I've BTDT, they are not the pinnacle, they are not perfect. 

I plan on keeping my girls in CLE until it stops working, dd1 used 5th and 6th (selected parts because she started it after doing most of Saxon 5 and breaking down) and starts 7th next year. Dd2 is starting CLE4 and dd3 is using Horizons now b/c I had it on hand but I'll switch her the following year or whenever it is I run out of books, Horizons and CLE are similar but I do like CLE better.

Edited March 20, 2019 by soror

[PeachyDoodle]

It's not like "traditional" programs (the ones I'm familiar with anyway) teach the algorithms in a vacuum though. I don't know of any program that expects kids to figure out place value from the carrying algorithm. CLE certainly teaches place value, expanding numbers, etc. alongside the traditional algorithm, while using picture models and manipulatives and such.

I think there's a lot of not-useful hand-wringing around "but does that kid really really really understand numbers or are they just using the algorithm???" IMO, it's much ado about nothing. Some kids really take to numbers and get them. Other kids need a more functional approach and may not ever get past a more general idea of how numbers interact but will hopefully be able to use them effectively in everyday life. Both will be perfectly fine in the end. 

FWIW, my dd pretty much has always worked independently in math, at least since she was reading well. So by 3rd grade. I oversee things, I check to make sure she is following up on her mistakes and understanding where she goes wrong, I am available for questions (now that role falls more to her tutor, but I still step in when necessary). But I don't actively teach most lessons. We have always used "traditional" programs. We tried BA in elementary school and it was a complete flop. She scored in the 600's on the math section of the SAT at 12. I am not the least bit concerned about her mathematical education.

That said, I have no intentions of turning my ds loose by himself next year when he is in 3rd. He's just not ready for it. But that says a lot more about their individual personalities than it does about the program we use. Like everything else with homeschooling, this ultimately comes down to the kid you've got in front of you and what that kid needs to succeed. Expecting any curriculum, in any subject, to work magic if the parent isn't going to put forth the effort of knowing the student they have and doing what's necessary to help that student succeed is a recipe for disaster.

[PeachyDoodle]

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

So "conceptual" versus "traditional" is the wrong axis for me. I want a program to be more "guided discovery" and less "do what the teacher says." 

Which is fine, so long as it's clear that that's a matter of educational philosophy and not right vs. wrong. My philosophy is, shall we say, very different from yours.

Saying things like, "I wouldn't give a child a traditional workbook and let them learn independently" comes off as the latter. You probably didn't mean it that way, but it does.

I think it's important that we don't add to the drama and anxiety that already exists around math education by implying that one philosophy turns out independent thinkers and the other turns out drones. There is so much of that out there already, especially with the Common Core debates. We see it on this board constantly -- somebody asking, "Is this is a *bad* curriculum?" It's not helpful to anyone to think about curriculum in that way. The curriculum that is good is the one that works for YOUR student. A solid math education can be provided using a variety of approaches.

I know we have a lot of people here with experience in the classroom, and I suppose it's only natural that that experience would spill over into these discussions. But the vast majority of us homeschool precisely because we didn't want the one-size-fits-all approach that is necessary when you are dealing with groups of kids. Whatever the experience of traditionally schooled students has been when they reach college is irrelevant to me. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that many of them were taught using the popular conceptual methods -- and that almost none of them used CLE, which is the curriculum under discussion here.

[Syllieann]

19 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

Which is fine, so long as it's clear that that's a matter of educational philosophy and not right vs. wrong. My philosophy is, shall we say, very different from yours.

Saying things like, "I wouldn't give a child a traditional workbook and let them learn independently" comes off as the latter. You probably didn't mean it that way, but it does.

I think it's important that we don't add to the drama and anxiety that already exists around math education by implying that one philosophy turns out independent thinkers and the other turns out drones. There is so much of that out there already, especially with the Common Core debates. We see it on this board constantly -- somebody asking, "Is this is a *bad* curriculum?" It's not helpful to anyone to think about curriculum in that way. The curriculum that is good is the one that works for YOUR student. A solid math education can be provided using a variety of approaches.

I know we have a lot of people here with experience in the classroom, and I suppose it's only natural that that experience would spill over into these discussions. But the vast majority of us homeschool precisely because we didn't want the one-size-fits-all approach that is necessary when you are dealing with groups of kids. Whatever the experience of traditionally schooled students has been when they reach college is irrelevant to me. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that many of them were taught using the popular conceptual methods -- and that almost none of them used CLE, which is the curriculum under discussion here.

Yeah, that line really came off as flippant and clueless.  

Square_25, the op here has five school-age children and a toddler.  I'm going to assume she is checking understanding in the new teaching and grading the work.  I have no reason to suppose she is an incompetent teacher.  Holding the child's hand through the entire lesson when it is clear the child already understands is a huge waste of time.  If she is going over it for 10 minutes per child she has an hour in math each day.  If she instead spends 45 minutes per child she loses nearly 3 hours per day or about 14.5 hours per week.  Her kids are doing fine with cle.  There is an opportunity cost in the additional 14.5 hours.  Maybe it would make their math or problem solving go from the 95th percentile to the 97th percentile or whatever, but she would throwing a huge block of time away from something that might actually improve their education or well-being.  You are not seeing the forest here.

[PeachyDoodle]

28 minutes ago, square_25 said:

The question is how we define working. I’d rather a kid had great models for all the arithmetic operations and could reason with numbers than they knew algorithms. I’d like kids to feel like math is something they could figure out themselves. That’s not a mathematician’s perspective, it’s basic numeracy. 

This right here is what I'm talking about. It's the attitude of "either you do it my way or you aren't giving your kid the best (or even basic! -- good lord) math education."

It's not helpful.

[HomeAgain]

39 minutes ago, square_25 said:

What can I say? I can only share my observations, which do have the benefit of having a large sample. For better and worse, a LOT of kids have to take college calculus.

Absolutely, the right curriculum is the one that works. The question is how we define working. I’d rather a kid had great models for all the arithmetic operations and could reason with numbers than they knew algorithms. I’d like kids to feel like math is something they could figure out themselves. That’s not a mathematician’s perspective, it’s basic numeracy. 

I’m just trying to provide guidance according to things I’ve seen, really. In the same way, I’d expect you could give me guidance on teaching poetry, @OKBud, since I’m emphatically not a poet. If the perspective isn’t useful, that’s fine. 

To clarify, you have a large sample of young adults who are working through higher mathematics.

Consider this board a large sample of teachers of young children who are studying foundational concepts.

I would say there's room for each to consider the other's point of view, with context and subject giving preference to each other.

[PeachyDoodle]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Do you think I'm wrong about what a mathematical education is supposed to accomplish? 

I think you are creating a false dichotomy between mathematical reasoning and the standard algorithm that doesn't exist. And I think that's not helpful. I think it just fuels the anxiety we already see in posts like the OP's.

We are obviously not going to agree. But I am tired of these math wars and the insinuations on both sides that you have to do X to learn math well. 

[PeachyDoodle]

7 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

You can obviously learn algorithms and also learn to reason with numbers. Where’s the dichotomy? 

You're the one who said: " I’d rather a kid had great models for all the arithmetic operations and could reason with numbers than they knew algorithms."

So I'd say: Right there.

ETA: I have no problem with the methods and philosophies you're advocating. But I do hope you will more carefully consider the impact of your words on people like the OP, who are already struggling with the idea that they are somehow not doing enough if they choose less "guided discovery" and more of a straightforward approach. At the end of the day, students who are functionally able to do the math they need to do are fine -- even if they don't get the joy in "discovering" math the way you'd like. (I have to admit, "discovering" math sounds like my idea of hell.) Just like they will be fine if they can read but don't ever the the joy in discovering classic literature the way I would like. There is an ideal and then there is the real world, and we have to live in the latter with the students and circumstances we have.

Edited March 20, 2019 by PeachyDoodle

[PeachyDoodle]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

 

That’s if I had to pick one. But the two are totally compatible... 

Yes. They are. That's kind of been the whole point.

Look, I'm not the only one who's reading what you're saying as setting up this false distinction. You keep moving the goalposts. First you were against "traditional." Then it was about parental involvement. Then it was "guided discovery" vs. "do what the teacher says." So I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. 

Thanks for the conversation.

[Syllieann]

9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Ok, that’s interesting. Why does it sound like hell? Even at the level of the basic operations it’s too boring to think about?

ETA: I see what you mean about increasing anxiety and will consider that.

Because we'd still be living in the stone age if every person had to construct every piece of knowledge that came before them.  It would take forever and there would be very little left of our mortal lives to discover anything new.  It is illuminating and exhilarating for a child to see that they can discover things from time to time, but doing that for all children for every little thing, especially in the foundational arithmetic stage is just absurd.  Again with the massive time-wasting...   Some very bright children will enjoy that presentation, but others will want to choke you and scream at you to just tell them what it is you want them to know so that they can get on with their lives.

[ktgrok]

On 3/19/2019 at 3:50 PM, Trilliumlady said:

So just out of curiosity, for those who have used this and responded - how are you defining “for the long haul?”  Do many people use this into high school or would most be using it through middle school and then switching?  Some have clarified this in their answer, others haven’t.  Just curious.

We used CLE from 5th through Algebra 1. Currently using it from K-3rd for DD9 and DS6 is in K and using the first grade program. Actually, we got way behind due to medical issues so rather than try to ram the last part through we are finishing the year with Khan Academy, and they jumped into it with no issues. Actually, DS finished the K level in two weeks, lol. 

4 hours ago, Syllieann said:

Because we'd still be living in the stone age if every person had to construct every piece of knowledge that came before them.  It would take forever and there would be very little left of our mortal lives to discover anything new.  It is illuminating and exhilarating for a child to see that they can discover things from time to time, but doing that for all children for every little thing, especially in the foundational arithmetic stage is just absurd.  Again with the massive time-wasting...   Some very bright children will enjoy that presentation, but others will want to choke you and scream at you to just tell them what it is you want them to know so that they can get on with their lives.

EXACTLY!!!!

I really love this article : https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/why-johnny-cant-add/

[EmseB]

As an aside, more than anything else, I've found personally (well, my kids) that speed drills lead to more frustration in terms of thinking math should be easy and fast than any other exercise. My "mathy" kid (who will spend eons trying to figure out an aops challenge problem for fun) practically gave himself aneurysms on xtra math, and my less mathy kid took an uncompleted speed drill to mean he was dumb. So I stopped timing fact drills. In case that helps anyone.

[EmseB]

6 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

It's not a stark black and white choice between "reasoning with numbers" and knowing algorithms. 

My kid who has done several years of CLE math (essentially on his own, I might add, but won't because people go nuts about that) 

Oh my goodness. I had a breakdown about this this year. My DH, who places high value on math education and is very concerned about our homeschool in that regard, goes, "Are they getting the answers right? Are they showing their work? Do they come to you if they get stuck? What is the problem, exactly?"

I have one in CLE 400 and one in AOPS pre-algebra. So thank you for saying it out loud even though people go nuts about it.

[Syllieann]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

 

T]he students respond at once: “9 and 1 are 10 and 1 more is 11.”

“Wrong,” the teacher exclaims.

 “The correct answer is that by the definition of 2, 9 + 2 = 9 + (1 + 1). But because the associative law of addition holds, 9 + (1 + 1) = (9 + 1) + 1.

Now 9 + 1 is 10 by the definition of 10 and 10 + 1 is 11 by the definition of 11.”

*snip*

No, we don't think that is what is meant by conceptual math.  I do generally agree with the author, but he takes the example to an an extreme.  I have seen things like this floating around social media, and there certainly are some parents of traditionally-schooled children who believe this, but you will be hard-pressed to find someone on this board who believes that is what is meant by conceptual math.  Most of us have used them at some point.  My oldest has done the first 5 levels of math mammoth and is finishing the sjxth.  My youngest is in level 1 of a conceptual program.

I also leaned toward "conceptual" whole-to-parts math being " best" when I started homeschooling.  But when my 2nd child came to it there were tears of frustration.  Slowing to a pace that didn't frustrate meant doing a page per week.  She's in cle now and is learning, growing, and understanding.  I could have pushed her through the "conceptual" program despite a lack of understanding, but then she might end up in a high school class with an uppity teacher who thinks that her lack of mastery is due to a failure of earlier teachers to "teach conceptually."

Edited March 21, 2019 by Syllieann

[HomeAgain]

9 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

EXACTLY!!!!

I really love this article : https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/why-johnny-cant-add/

I wonder what the author would make of the book, Now Johnny Can Do Arithmetic. 😄 It was written in the 60s/early 70s.

[8filltheheart]

@square_25 It is obvious that you love math and are enthused to be homeschooling. I read your posts that through that filter and with knowledge that your oldest child is 6.5. Equally, in all honesty, I discount the fact that you are a math teacher bc I know that homeschooling is a much different form of education than classroom education. (And I say that as someone with a teaching degree, so it isn't meant negatively. Just my real life experience that classroom teaching is a distinct entity than homeschooling.) 

While I have never seen CLE, I have used Horizons (which is very similar) with all 8 of my children. Over the yrs on these forums (and I have been posting on here since my 30 yr old ds was a 6th grader) there have been some very vocal people who have repeatedly posted that Horizons is only an algorithm-based math program that does not teach students the concepts behind what they are doing. I used to get into lengthy discussions about how Horizons teaches, etc, but people who flip through a book or even used part of the program lack insight to the full spectrum of what the program teaches. Most of the time they just wat to assert what they believe and discount contrary opinions. I sit on my side of my screen and wonder what they think they have been teaching (for those who actually used a text) bc I know exactly what is in them bc I have taught all of them so many times now. I also know the outcome of using it as the foundation for upper level math. (On a completely different note, many of these exact same posters also stated emphatically that preschool ed, early reading (before K) etc all lead to vastly superior adult outcomes than play-based early childhoods. Well, I know where my kids have ended up that way, too. 😉 Life is more like a map......multiple roads can arrive at the same destination. It is the journey there that is distinct.)

FWIW, I would never teach math the way you describe in your posts for multiple reasons. One is obvious and similar to the scenario of the OP, too many children and only 1 me to go around. Second, many of the things you describe are things my kids intuit. My kids detest manipulatives. They don't need them to process conceptually the processes that they instinctively understand. When I work with my granddaughter, otoh, I have to approach math in a completely different manner bc she thinks about things in a different way than my own kids have. Since I am sitting there 1-on-1 with each and every child, it is obvious to me through our conversations what they understand and what they don't. Our interactions tell me how to proceed.

Students can thrive with deep mathematical thinking without approaching concepts the way you describe. (Thank goodness, bc your approach does not appeal to me in the slightest.) The beauty of homeschooling is that you get to teach your kids the way that you want. 🙂

Anyway, I started this post bc I wanted to encourage you to think about starting a Math Kangaroo club or something similar bc it sounds like it would right up your alley. Kids would definitely benefit from having someone like you as their coach. I see what you describe as perfect for math club activities and reminds me of when my ds did Math Counts. I bet it would be something you would probably enjoy bc you could share your enthusiasm for math with other kids and your Dd would get to have fun doing those activities with a group.

 

[mom31257]

I found it when dd was going into middle school and used it throughout middle school for her. She went on into high school math and did very well. She scored very well on her math ACT, went on to do two math classes in college with As and had a very high average in her chemistry for nursing, which she says is because she could do the math. 

I used it in elementary and middle with ds, too, until we started Algebra 1. 

I do have a math degree and could teach any program and make it work, but I feel it is a very solid program. I'm sort of the opposite than a lot of people on teaching math. I feel math should be taught more like classical education, memorize the algorithms when they are young and dig more into the whys and deeper thinking about it when they are older, unless a child is very curious and wants to know why.  And I always introduced lessons with conceptual teaching, but we spend the bulk of the time on getting the algorithms down pat to make upper math much easier. In tutoring several students the last couple of years, I see the results of kids who didn't memorize important steps along the way. It makes it so much harder on them than it has to be. 

[HomeAgain]

9 hours ago, square_25 said:

 

Whereas my mathy kid basically likes fact drills, weirdly enough, but refuses to do arithmetic for the sake of arithmetic. She'll moan and groan if her math work looks like a list of calculations. I have to teach her arithmetic as it comes up in other contexts, or she becomes very unhappy. 

I guess this is back to the "kids are all very different" thing :-). 

I keep coming back to this thought as I drink my morning coffee.  I am all for an education that is meaningful and complete, but I'm not sure if I want to put happiness high on my priority list.  I mean, we tackle unpleasant tasks here because they are necessary and follow them with something more pleasant so there is always a balance in the day.  I do my part: I bring my enthusiasm and love of the subject and praise the effort on these seemingly mundane tasks, and my youngest has seen enough of the Karate Kid to know the value of wax on / wax off.  But sometimes even the boring must be done, at least in this house.  Scales must be practiced, verbs must be conjugated, individual letters must be formed over and over.

I am just curious if this is a method that you plan to continue in all subjects.  I would be interested in following your posts in the coming years and seeing how it works to possibly get some tips to adjust my own household.

[HomeAgain]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

She's also maybe a bit more challenging than your son to keep relatively satisfied? I know you mentioned your son doesn't find math boring, but unfortunately, it's pretty easy to bore my daughter. I was fascinated with numbers at her age, and despite her strong native ability, she's not. When I gave her lists of calculations (and I used to), she'd get upset and she'd take longer than she would for questions that required some problem solving or ones that illustrated a pattern. And ultimately, the questions that were more "fun" according to her still practiced the same skills, so I went with it.

I wonder if how/when you were taught math contributed to your love of it.  Was it different than how you're teaching your daughter?

There are some remnants of my childhood I adored and love sharing similar with my kids so they can be a part of it - the strong focus of folk/fairy tales in K, active book studies in late elementary, DISTAR...little things that I got to share with them and for the most part, they really enjoyed as well, or at the very least were quite satisfied with.  Other things did not sit with me as well and so I searched for other methods to tailor them to my kids.  Like, we used a lot of workbooks to learn language arts.  They bored me to tears and I quite honestly learned very little from them.  Every year my school drilled 4 parts of speech and called it good.  It wasn't until I was forced to as an adult that I really grasped what the rest of grammar looked like.  Spelling was a wash that way.  Math was okay, very traditional.  And forget the rest of the subjects.  So these were things that I studied quite a bit to find methods to reach my own kids.  But I didn't 'fix what wasn't broken', so to speak, and I figured my kids would love methods I loved if they were presented around the same age.

[8filltheheart]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

 

I loved math as a kid, but I really, really loved puzzles. I would want to solve any puzzle anyone would put in front of me and got a serious thrill out of figuring out a tricky one. For me, that's my dominant childhood memory of mathematics, figuring out tricky problems. 

I did hope that the same approach would work for my daughter, to be honest. It's easier to teach kids who are like yourself. But she's just not that into puzzles: she likes them as an occasional change of pace but not as the base of the curriculum. She's very good at them, I think, but she gets sick of them and she doesn't have the same drive to solve something just because it's put in front of her. That might be healthier than my compulsive approach, I don't know. Or maybe just more practical!

Between that and the fact that she's really not into pure calculations (I did try that, and it led to tears), I've had to work pretty hard to keep her engaged. Today, she's doing the Morphing Maze from the Murderous Maths book, which is helping her practice her multiplication and division (thanks again, @wendyroo!), but generally we find a concept she's interested in and park there for a bit, and work on the arithmetic operations along the way as they come up. She's very solid on addition and subtraction so we've mostly been trying to find topics that exercise multiplication and division and the properties thereof. Right now, it's some mix of combinatorics and systems of equations, which sounds really fancy until you realize she's mostly coloring things and seeing how the things she colored are counted by products ;-). 

I don't spend time giving my kids math type puzzles, but I have spent untold hours playing strategy games and building puzzles with my kids. My personal belief is that having to plan mentally multiple steps ahead processing the various outcomes of different decisions in strategy games mentally develops the same skills necessary for critically thinking through complicated multiple step problems. Building puzzles works on seeing patterns that fit together.

My experience with my kids is that learning doesn't have to be directly connected to achieve similarly desired outcomes, so mental math strategies don't have to mastered via math. Works here.

[HomeAgain]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I loved math as a kid, but I really, really loved puzzles. I would want to solve any puzzle anyone would put in front of me and got a serious thrill out of figuring out a tricky one. For me, that's my dominant childhood memory of mathematics, figuring out tricky problems. 

I did hope that the same approach would work for my daughter, to be honest. It's easier to teach kids who are like yourself. But she's just not that into puzzles: she likes them as an occasional change of pace but not as the base of the curriculum. She's very good at them, I think, but she gets sick of them and she doesn't have the same drive to solve something just because it's put in front of her. That might be healthier than my compulsive approach, I don't know. Or maybe just more practical!

Between that and the fact that she's really not into pure calculations (I did try that, and it led to tears), I've had to work pretty hard to keep her engaged. Today, she's doing the Morphing Maze from the Murderous Maths book, which is helping her practice her multiplication and division (thanks again, @wendyroo!), but generally we find a concept she's interested in and park there for a bit, and work on the arithmetic operations along the way as they come up. She's very solid on addition and subtraction so we've mostly been trying to find topics that exercise multiplication and division and the properties thereof. Right now, it's some mix of combinatorics and systems of equations, which sounds really fancy until you realize she's mostly coloring things and seeing how the things she colored are counted by products ;-). 

Oh, I think you misunderstood me!

I was asking specifically how you were taught math.  Sometimes a love of things emerge specifically because of how they are taught and the exposure.  I loved puzzles in school, but part of it was because of the day to day work that led up to that.  I think there might be some pitfalls in trying to make everything palatable or engaging - the finding satisfaction in the mechanics is often a victim. When everything has to be entertainment, we lose sight of the important foundation: working for the sake of learning how to be diligent, independent, and have a mental box full of tools and confidence.

I guess I just worry a little about the balance.  When I offered the above to my children, it was with an idea that they would probably find satisfaction and delight with their progress in them, but also to give them a chance to find that. DISTAR is a very polarizing method on this board. 😄 (Teach Your Child To Read In 100 EZ Lessons)  But I was familiar enough with the ins and outs of it to tailor it to active children and give them the space to find their own satisfaction, even when there were rough days.  Some people run screaming from it and they teach their children with methods that give them satisfaction, even on the hard days.  I'm of the school of thought that a child needs to come to their own conclusion with the materials and methods, but that a teacher can be in tune with that and skillfully guide them to finding good, whether it's in the work ethic or discovering on their own or taking the material and running with it.  That year on folk/fairy tales led my kid down a rabbit hole of his own making and it still continues for him.  He also finds enjoyment in doing his best work in handwriting - not because a row of c is fun, but because he's developed enough to understand the effort it takes to do well.