Math help! Singapore Math Vs. Abeka/Horizon

[tilbutton]

Hello, everyone. Here's just a little backstory to my question: I have two school-aged children plus a preschooler (3 yrs old) and an almost 2 year old. I am due with our fifth in about a month.  I have been using RightStart Math with my daughter (levels A-D), until I finally switched to Saxon at the end of this school year. I started my son with RightStart A in kindergarten this year. I felt like RightStart was a great choice for my daughter since she has ADHD and really needed a hands-on, out of the box approach. She learned the concepts really well and her mental math was impressive to me. I finally stopped using it when her conceptual understanding became significantly better than her ability to "just do the math" so to speak. In other words, she could grasp concepts that were at a very high level, but any number of simple subtraction facts would stall her for hours. She could multiply by "figuring it out" but not by remembering any facts of any kind, so it would take a VERY long time. What finally did me in, though, was the intensity of teaching RightStart. I just don't have it in me! Not with the little ones all around demanding my attention, etc. Once we switched to Saxon, her ability to use her concepts to actually do the drills went up exponentially. She's filling in the gaps and doing really well in math overall. So that is the long version of my experience teaching math thus far. So my question is for my son. We are finishing up his kindergarten year, and I have not felt like RightStart was as good a fit for him. I already kind of hate teaching it (such strong words!), but it seems, if anything, too out of the box for him. He's a traditional sort of fellow and all the manipulatives and tally marks, etc. seem to round about for him. He just wants to get to the adding, subtracting, and using actual numbers already. He also enjoys sitting down and using workbooks (which my daughter couldn't do at his age).

All that to say, I've looked at Abeka and Horizons which seem similar in their approach (is that right??), and I've looked at Singapore. Singapore seems to enjoy a great reputation that I'm not sure the others share, and all three seem to be a sit-down workbook type of program. Can anyone tell me anything more in detail about working with these programs? Singapore is pretty darn confusing with their myriad of textbook options. I feel like I should go with them since I keep hearing about it being better, but I'm not sure if it really is and if it is also a more "out of the box" kind of curriculum or not. My two goals are to find something that is really easy to use and something that doesn't re-invent the wheel but gives a rock solid math foundation. Since I'm just spinning in circles at this point, I would love it if someone could give me some advice from their own experience! Thank you so much!!!

[SoCal_Bear]

Just wondering why you don't mention Saxon as a possibility for him as the way you describe him. If you are pressed for time with littles, it would go easier on you to use Saxon if you are already familiar with using it. You describe him as traditional and enjoying workbooks, so Saxon would seem like it would work for him.

If you want to understand Singapore, I wrote about it here. I would not describe it as a workbook program. It is a conceptual math program. https://lifeatwarpspeed.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/singapore-math/

[tilbutton]

Calbear- thank you so much for your response! I didn't mention Saxon only because I've never heard it recommended for the younger grades and don't know anyone personally who has used it for their littles. My understanding was that it is a different program for K-3 than it is for 4th and above. I've only used the fourth grade book, so I don't know anything about the younger grades. I thought it was more teacher intensive and manipulative heavy. Is that incorrect?  Thank you for the link- I will check that out!

Edited May 31, 2019 by tilbutton

[Ellie]

I don't love Saxon for primary levels. Too many moving parts, too many choices to make, just too much. Math 54 and up are great.

What about Rod and Staff Publishers arithmetic? R&S doesn't do kindergarten, but you could easily work through the first grade book at your ds's speed. There are scripted daily lessons that take, oh, 10 minutes, and then you give your dc the seatwork to do on his own. Yes, you do need to do the oral class time, as that is where the actual teaching is; the seatwork just reinforces what you taught. It's a good combination of actual teaching and independent work. There are visuals, no manipulatives. Yes, you need the flashcards.

[SoCal_Bear]

I have to say that you should expect doing any math with K-2 students to be teacher intensive though not to the degree that RightStart is. SIngapore definitely uses manipulatives in the lower grades as well and does require parental instruction.

 

[Mbelle]

I used RightStart with my older two and had similar experience as you.  Also my kids actually prefer workbook.  People that I know who use Saxon all the way have had great success.   We don't enjoy Saxon (myself or the kids), but it is solid.  I use Horizons and it works and they like it.  I have from time to time also gotten a Singapore book to do liitle bits of for a different perspective.  The difference with Singapore vs the others you listed is that it is more mastery focused and the others are spiral (saxon is incremental..even tinier spiral).  I have not used Abeka math, but I do really like their phonics,

[ByGrace3]

Have you looked at Math Mammoth? It is a lot like Singapore in theory, but to me much easier to implement. Just the worktext. No TM, no 3 books to flip through. Just one book written to the student. 

[8filltheheart]

I have used Horizons with all 8 of my children. (My oldest used Abeka one yr, they are similar but I like Horizons better.) I have also used CWP from SM and MiF (very similar to SM but in combined textbook format). I prefer Horizons combined with HOE ( I don't add in HOE until they are ready for about 4th grade level math.) I use Horizons through their 6th grade text. (That is all they had published back when my older kids were using Horizons and I know the path forward we take.)

[tilbutton]

Thank you all so much for the input.

10 hours ago, Ellie said:

I don't love Saxon for primary levels. Too many moving parts, too many choices to make, just too much. Math 54 and up are great.

What about Rod and Staff Publishers arithmetic? R&S doesn't do kindergarten, but you could easily work through the first grade book at your ds's speed. There are scripted daily lessons that take, oh, 10 minutes, and then you give your dc the seatwork to do on his own. Yes, you do need to do the oral class time, as that is where the actual teaching is; the seatwork just reinforces what you taught. It's a good combination of actual teaching and independent work. There are visuals, no manipulatives. Yes, you need the flashcards.

 

That's similar to what I've hear about Saxon in the lower levels- thank you for the input. I have not looked into Rod and Staff, so I will check that out!

10 hours ago, calbear said:

I have to say that you should expect doing any math with K-2 students to be teacher intensive though not to the degree that RightStart is. SIngapore definitely uses manipulatives in the lower grades as well and does require parental instruction.

 

 

Thanks for the insight into Singapore. I do understand that I'm going to have to teach, I just need it to be a type of teaching that is simple and straightforward rather than something that takes a whole lot of brain power (like RightStart). I'm guessing that part of that is because it is teaching math in a way that is so dissimilar to the way I learned it.

2 hours ago, Mbelle said:

I used RightStart with my older two and had similar experience as you.  Also my kids actually prefer workbook.  People that I know who use Saxon all the way have had great success.   We don't enjoy Saxon (myself or the kids), but it is solid.  I use Horizons and it works and they like it.  I have from time to time also gotten a Singapore book to do liitle bits of for a different perspective.  The difference with Singapore vs the others you listed is that it is more mastery focused and the others are spiral (saxon is incremental..even tinier spiral).  I have not used Abeka math, but I do really like their phonics,

 

Thank you for weighing in! Glad to hear a positive experience with Horizons, and it's good to know the terminology for the differences (mastery vs spiral, etc.). I will keep that in mind.

1 hour ago, ByGrace3 said:

Have you looked at Math Mammoth? It is a lot like Singapore in theory, but to me much easier to implement. Just the worktext. No TM, no 3 books to flip through. Just one book written to the student. 

 

No, I have not- I don't know the first thing about Math Mammoth, but I will definitely check it out.

1 hour ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

I have used Horizons with all 8 of my children. (My oldest used Abeka one yr, they are similar but I like Horizons better.) I have also used CWP from SM and MiF (very similar to SM but in combined textbook format). I prefer Horizons combined with HOE ( I don't add in HOE until they are ready for about 4th grade level math.) I use Horizons through their 6th grade text. (That is all they had published back when my older kids were using Horizons and I know the path forward we take.)

 

I'm glad to hear more about Horizons. Can you tell me why you liked Horizons better than Abeka? Also, do you mind explaining the acronyms for me? I'm not sure what CWP, MiF, or HOE are. Sorry! And thank you!

 

[Janeway]

I found Horizon's to jump all over the place. I did not like it. I looks nice when you look at it, but did not like it. My oldest son stuck it out, but now tells me that he hated it but did not want to admit that to me after insisting he wanted it. He regrets ever using it. Abeka is okay. It is really based on mastering facts and procedures. This sounds like what you want. However, it slows down a lot compared to how quick it goes early on. 

With most math programs, you still need to have the student practice math facts. Maybe spend the summer drilling math facts. There are a variety of ways to do this. But, I do think Singapore Math would be a good compromise. I think you would like Singapore Math best with Abeka as a second choice. 

 

Mif is Math in Focus. It is an American made math program used in the public schools made based on the Singapore Math books. SM would generally refer to the Singapore Math US edition. CWP is challenging word problems. I have used it before but did not think it was a good use of time. It basically gives you the math problems, specifically word problems, but the kind that one would simply find in the next level. To me, it feels like the kind of things that would be given to an advanced student in a class who is forced to remain in a class working at that level. It would give more challenge. I prefer to just move a child on to a higher level when ready rather than supplement with higher level problems while continuing to do the lower level stuff.

 

IF you choose to use SM, make sure you do the placement test. Students generally place about a grade level below where they were in another program. SM covers all of arithmetic in 6 levels rather than the 8 levels in most American programs. I am unsure how RS correlates.

[Janeway]

Also, I agree that you might wish to also look at Math Mammoth, Rod and Staff, BJU, and CLE. Those are all good solid choices too.

[tilbutton]

Janeway, thank you for taking the time to write all that out for me. That is extremely helpful information, and I will take it all into consideration!

[PeterPan]

17 hours ago, tilbutton said:

My two goals are to find something that is really easy to use and something that doesn't re-invent the wheel but gives a rock solid math foundation.

I think maybe you're finding you want to teach a little but not have it be ALL you. You want a workbook but also thorough conceptual instruction. You might like BJU, because it would be all those things. It's what I went to with my dd after RightStart, and I think you'll find conceptually it's very similar. You'll have teacher's manuals, but you can do the lesson quickly and then hand them their workbooks. It's not *independent* but it's solid. The tm will include a cd with extra practice worksheets you can print. 

You might bring in some Tang Math for your dd to get some of that computation faster. https://tangmath.com/products/subscription

[kristin0713]

We started with RS and switched to Singapore around 2nd grade for both kids.  My DD's 5th grade year was a wash due to health issues and then we used several things to get her caught up prior to starting 7th grade.  This year for 7th I put her in CLE.  If I could do it over, I would have done CLE with her from the beginning.  She has totally thrived with the traditional and incremental approach and lots of review.  My 5th grade DS on the other hand has thrived with Singapore.  He is incredibly math minded and has barely needed me to teach him.  For him, the conceptual and mastery approach has been perfect.  

In your situation, I would look at CLE.  It is extremely easy to implement.  New information is given in very small bites and there is thorough review everyday.  

[8filltheheart]

I disagree that Horizons jumps all over. It is spiral. It has lots of different topics covered simultaneously in every lesson but every lesson builds on previous lessons. Topics are covered thoroughly and logically with more than focus on just mastering facts and procedures.  If you teach the books through the series you see the big picture of how the topics are presented and connected. (And I do teach my kids. I don't just hand the books to read the lessons and do on their own.) I personally appreciate the series' progression.

In terms of why Horizons vs Abeka, it has been a very long time. I think ds was in 3rd grade and he is now 30. 😉 IIRC I liked the way teaching was in the student textbook Horizons.

FWIW, my older kids have all been well-equipped for upper level math, including engineer and math/physics majors.  Never had a kid not make an A in college math and their basic elementary math skills are the foundation upon which everything upper level is built. If they didn't have a solid understanding of mathematical operations and their concepts, the weakenesses would have been revealed somewhere along the way.

 

[tilbutton]

Thank you so much, everyone! I feel like I have a better handle on what's available. I appreciate it!