Charlotte Mason Math

[katemm]

Hi friends!

My daughter is in First Grade and I've been researching all the math programs and reading The Well-Trained Mind for recommendations. Honestly, I haven't liked ANY of the programs!!! 

I've loved hearing and reading about Charlotte Mason's philosophy of Mathematics, and have purchased the first book in the Elementary Arithmetic Series published by Simply Charlotte Mason, because it seems a beautiful way to begin and a way that makes sense to me! However, I want to use a math program because it is beneficial for my daughter's math education, and I'm going back and forth wondering if it would be comprehensive enough. Perhaps I'm skeptical about the method because it's so different from others, and want to know ahead of time if my trust is well placed! As math isn't my strong suit I'm growing to discern why a program would be beneficial and why it wouldn't, and would love help in that.

What are your thoughts on this program? Have you tried it? Does this program stand alone or would you recommend supplementing? Why?

Thank you so much!

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, katemmyers said:

Honestly, I haven't liked ANY of the programs!!! 

Why not? 🙂 What is it you want in a math program? 

I don't know anything about Charlotte Mason's philosophy of math, so you'd have to summarize it for me to get input. 

 

8 minutes ago, katemmyers said:

As math isn't my strong suit I'm growing to discern why a program would be beneficial and why it wouldn't, and would love help in that.

Honestly, I think the best thing you could do to make sure to teach math well is to learn it again well yourself. So if you could study ahead, that would probably be of the most benefit to your daughter. 

[Ellie]

30 minutes ago, katemmyers said:

Hi friends!

My daughter is in First Grade and I've been researching all the math programs and reading The Well-Trained Mind for recommendations. Honestly, I haven't liked ANY of the programs!!! 

I've loved hearing and reading about Charlotte Mason's philosophy of Mathematics, and have purchased the first book in the Elementary Arithmetic Series published by Simply Charlotte Mason, because it seems a beautiful way to begin and a way that makes sense to me! However, I want to use a math program because it is beneficial for my daughter's math education, and I'm going back and forth wondering if it would be comprehensive enough. Perhaps I'm skeptical about the method because it's so different from others, and want to know ahead of time if my trust is well placed! As math isn't my strong suit I'm growing to discern why a program would be beneficial and why it wouldn't, and would love help in that.

What are your thoughts on this program? Have you tried it? Does this program stand alone or would you recommend supplementing? Why?

Thank you so much!

I have to say that the samples on the SCM site do not impress me at all. I think anything you do with a six-year-old for arithmetic is fine; you have to decide if you are willing to teach the way SCM wants you to teach. I couldn't do it. I don't think my dc would have done it, either.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Ellie said:

I have to say that the samples on the SCM site do not impress me at all. I think anything you do with a six-year-old for arithmetic is fine; you have to decide if you are willing to teach the way SCM wants you to teach. I couldn't do it. I don't think my dc would have done it, either.

Now I'm curious! What do they do? 

[caffeineandbooks]

I hear people rave about Charlotte Mason for literature, history/geography, nature study, artist and composer study, and gentle beginnings.  I have to say I've never heard anyone say they chose it because they loved the math.

Especially if math isn't your strong suit, I would look carefully at whether the SCM program provides enough support for you to know how to teach the concepts, not just now but in later grades.  Do you still love their plan for grade 5?  If not, when would you switch, and what would you use instead?

WTM has some useful discussion about conceptual vs procedural math (the why vs the how) and spiral vs mastery based learning.  You should be able to download samples of the recommended programs for free from the publishers' websites, and this might help you make your decision.  As @Not_a_Number says, you could post here with more details about what you do or don't like about the suggestions and people could chime in with ideas.  Do your kids love or hate games and manipulatives?  Does it matter to you whether the book is full colour or black and white?  Do you have five younger children in the background clamoring for your attention?  What strikes you as being different about the SCM program, and what aspects of that do you find exciting and concerning?

[katemm]

Thank you all for your input!

From what I've read I love the way Math is talked about in Charlotte Mason. Beauty, awe-inspiring, discovering God in his created order... The way a child is led to discover answers for himself, treated as capable to be able to grasp concepts, not to have things dulled down or to give him prodding, hints, leading, or telling him the correct answer.

I love that the SCM program is simply a non-consumable hardcover book with a gridded notebook for my daughter. Manipulatives can be buttons or sticks, and I picture myself reading from the book while we sit outside on the picnic rug and use nature as ways of discovering math concepts, ie. bundling sticks in 10's, finding symmetry in leaves... it seems so beautiful and poetic! I love the idea of that.

I really do not like plastic, prepared manipulatives, such as the massive plastic RightStart kit, and really, I love the idea of not relying on manipulatives too much at all. It seems the only other options are programs that use workbooks, which, though visual, can be very unappealing aesthetically with corny cartoons and an overload of busy pictures. To use a CM term, the "twaddle" of illustrations for me! I like the idea of how teaching math may have looked before we had all these plastic manipulatives, cheesy workbooks (my opinion!), and online resources and options...

So, my picture of using the SCM program is beautiful, but, does it teach my daughter mathematics WELL!? I don't know if I'll know ahead of time and may just need to give it a go! I have three children younger than my first grade daughter, and it feels overwhelming to spend a long time with math, so I love the idea of the short lessons in CM. It's just when I compare the program to others, it seems like, surely it must be lacking something?! But, maybe it isn't!

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, katemmyers said:

I really do not like plastic, prepared manipulatives, such as the massive plastic RightStart kit, and really, I love the idea of not relying on manipulatives too much at all.

How do you want to discover math without manipulatives? 

 

1 minute ago, katemmyers said:

The way a child is led to discover answers for himself, treated as capable to be able to grasp concepts, not to have things dulled down or to give him prodding, hints, leading, or telling him the correct answer.

Yes, I think that's a lovely vision. It's also my vision for how to teach mathematics, but then I'm a mathematician and I know how to guide this discovery. I don't think you need to be a mathematician to treat math in this way, but I do think it's important to be very comfortable with mathematical concepts. 

For example, you can't really "discover" place value. Place value is a convention that it took people quite a while to come up with, as you probably know if you've seen Roman numerals. However, you CAN discover how to USE place value to add and subtract. Are you personally comfortable adding and subtracting using place value without the algorithm? How would you guide your child through this discovery process? 

[Not_a_Number]

Well, you've inspired me to look at the sample 😄.

First of all, my kids would be bored silly with those lessons at age 7. My 4 year old would already prefer that I don't "name the thing being added" -- she doesn't think a question is any more interesting if it's about buttons or it's about books or about frogs. In my experience, most kids at age 7 will understand that if you put 2 things and 2 things together, you get 4 things, no matter what the "things" are. 

Secondly, I can't see very far into the book, but I see this: 

"We will introduce the idea of zero as “no objects” a few more times before we introduce the idea of zero as a placeholder in the lesson on the number Ten." 

NO! NO! This is conceptually terrible! The zero is NOT a "placeholder," whatever that may mean, in the number 10. The zero in the number 10 means precisely that the 10 has zero units in it. It's not something new. It's exactly the same zero we know and love. Ugh. 

[caffeineandbooks]

It sounds like Right Start, with its specific manipulatives, might not be for you.  My family use Singapore (Primary Mathematics US 3rd edition).  I see from your other post that you are Australian, so you may like that the 3rd edition teaches metric as well as imperial measurements.  You don't need the textbook, just the [consumable] workbook, which is black and white with minimal illustrations.  The Home Instructor Guide is great because it gives lightly scripted ideas of how to teach the concept to help the child get deep understanding (great if math wasn't your strong suit!).  It does use manipulatives - it's actually quite important for most kids to physically handle things like the bundles of sticks you mentioned - but you don't need to use any particular manipulatives.  You could have your kids find shells to represent ones, and put them into bags of ten, and put ten bags into a wooden chest to represent a hundred, for instance.  You could certainly use buttons or stones or whatever you like.

Perhaps you're permanently in the States, but in the event you ever plan to come back to Australia, it might interest you to know that Singapore runs about a semester to a year ahead of the Australian curriculum, but that it doesn't cover much probability, so if you're returning to any kind of standardized testing in Australia you may want to add in a unit on probability at that time.

[caffeineandbooks]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

"We will introduce the idea of zero as “no objects” a few more times before we introduce the idea of zero as a placeholder in the lesson on the number Ten." 

NO! NO! This is conceptually terrible! The zero is NOT a "placeholder," whatever that may mean, in the number 10. The zero in the number 10 means precisely that the 10 has zero units in it. It's not something new. It's exactly the same zero we know and love. Ugh. 

I think that's what they mean by "placeholder".  If we just wrote "1" and didn't use zeroes as "placeholders", you wouldn't know if it was 1 unit, 1 ten, or 1 million.  The zeroes hold the 1 in the right place so we can read the number, since there aren't any units in that place already doing that job.  Although I agree with you, not many six year olds would seem to need a lesson on the number 10...

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, caffeineandbooks said:

I think that's what they mean by "placeholder".  If we just wrote "1" and didn't use zeroes as "placeholders", you wouldn't know if it was 1 unit, 1 ten, or 1 million.  The zeroes hold the 1 in the right place so we can read the number, since there aren't any units in that place already doing that job.  Although I agree with you, not many six year olds would seem to need a lesson on the number 10...

I know that's what they mean, but WHY in the world does it need a new term? It's not a placeholder any more than the 2 in 12 is a placeholder. It's a number that tells us the number of 1s in the number. The 0 isn't any different than any other digit you can put to fill in the blank in the two digit number

1 _ 

Treating 0 as a "placeholder" is a really common conceptual muddle, I think. I read Liping Ma's book, and people describe the 0s in the multiplication algorithm as placeholders, too, and that's just wrong. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Masers]

I looked at Charlotte mason math briefly, but it seemed like it had a lot of gaps. The reviews from users were pretty mixed.

what about TGTB math? That would seem to hit a lot of what you are wanting. Or you could check out “math with confidence”...first grade is getting released this year. 

[sweet2ndchance]

I agree with the others. SCM is not known for their math programs.

Most children need manipulatives to learn math but those manipulatives can be whatever you want them to be. When I first started homeschooling, some 20 years ago, bean sticks (literally dried beans glued to popsicle sticks) were a popular alternative to plastic manipulatives. But really, pebbles, sticks, buttons, leaves, acorns (bake them in the oven for a few hours to get the bugs out if you will be keeping them inside, you don't want to know how I know this) literally anything will work.

Also, children naturally go from needing concrete manipulatives they can touch to pictoral representations they can see and remember they represent those things they can touch. Then, after much repetition with the concrete and pictoral representations, they can move on to thinking about math in the abstract, such as just numerals on a page. Most children move through all those stages of mathematical learning in their own time. That's why most math programs include manipulatives of some sort and the pictures and drawings.

Here are some alternatives you might look at:

Wild Math Curriculum - Nature based math lessons

Ray's Arithmetic - Something still available today, for free, similar to what Charlotte Mason herself might have used

Ray's For Today - An updated version of Ray's Arithmetic

CLE Math - Minimal pictures in the lessons that are for the most part very simple drawings to help illustrate a concept.

Saxon Math - You don't need to buy a manipulative kit if you don't want to, you can use household items, nature items, whatever you want. The workbook pages have no pictures. Scripted lessons for you.

Life of Fred - Literature based math lessons with minimal stick drawings that you don't even need to show your daughter if you don't want to. Most of the pictures are just for amusement, not concept teaching. 

The Good and The Beautiful Math - as mentioned above, again you can substitute in whatever manipulatives you want, you don't have to use their suggestions

Math With Confidence - A gentle math program that you can, again, use whatever you want to make the concepts concrete for your young daughter, there are pictures in the workbook but they are not particularly cartoony.

[Not_a_Number]

56 minutes ago, sweet2ndchance said:

Also, children naturally go from needing concrete manipulatives they can touch to pictoral representations they can see and remember they represent those things they can touch. Then, after much repetition with the concrete and pictoral representations, they can move on to thinking about math in the abstract, such as just numerals on a page. Most children move through all those stages of mathematical learning in their own time. That's why most math programs include manipulatives of some sort and the pictures and drawings.

I agree with everything else you've said, although I'll say that I've known quite a few kids who could use nothing but pictorial representations from the very beginning. I'm actually not convinced that the tactile nature of manipulatives matters a ton for most kids... however, having less abstract representations that allow one to engage with ideas is absolutely essential. 

And as you say, manipulatives can be lots of things. They don't have to be the specific thing indicated in the program. 

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

12 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I know that's what they mean, but WHY in the world does it need a new term? It's not a placeholder any more than the 2 in 12 is a placeholder. It's a number that tells us the number of 1s in the number. The 0 isn't any different than any other digit you can put to fill in the blank in the two digit number

1 _ 

Treating 0 as a "placeholder" is a really common conceptual muddle, I think. I read Liping Ma's book, and people describe the 0s in the multiplication algorithm as placeholders, too, and that's just wrong. 

I can do you one worse:  When I was in elementary, we were taught to put "X"s when doing multiplication, instead of zeros_

 23

 12

 ____

  46

23X

____

276 

😂

-----------------------

Back to OP:

I agree with everything that has been said.

1.  The best program is the one that significantly improves YOUR comfort and competence with math.  Attentively reading through either Right Start, or the Home Instructor Guides for Singapore Math are decent ways to do this, though there are probably others.  I know this is not always a popular opinion in the homeschool world, but only a few truly bright exceptional children will teach themselves math from a curriculum.  The rest of them will be held back by their parent's ability to teach math.  You must lead the charge up the math hill.  This is not unique to homeschoolers.  No amount of new textbooks will improve public school math outcomes when teachers are not trained in mathematics.  

2.  There is no discovery - or dare I say understanding, period- without manipulatives.  You do not need the giant right start box, I think it's ridiculous as well.  (Right Start is still a top program in my mind, however).  Choose a handful.  I suggest at the bare minimum: unit blocks (I recommend buying two sets or a classroom sized set), place value cards, and counters of some type (here you can indulge in "beauty" and use glass stones or whatever you'd like, certainly not those hideous bears! or be economical and use a pile of pennies or popsicle sticks).  For older kids, i think geometric solids are a must, a pile of real money, and a clock can be handy.  

3.  Curriculum is a suggestion, not a law.  LEARN how to teach elementary math, then teach it.  Use workbooks as pre-made problem sets to save yourself some time.  

4.  I would take time away from literally every other subject except reading to give yourself the time you need to learn how to teach math.  It is probably the single best investment you can make in your school.  You can learn content subjects alongside your kids at a later time, but get math and reading right from the start if at all possible.  

5.  It occurs over and over here and in other homeschool forums:  Kids struggle with math, people suggest new curriculum, kids still struggle with math.  The issue of teacher training is politely ignored.  You CAN learn to teach elementary math well.  You may very well find that a subject you once feared and hated becomes your favorite as you learn, finally, how and why it works.  I have a degree in physics, and I learned more about how math works teaching my oldest son 1st grade math than I ever did in university classes.  So many of us receive an appalling elementary math education.  

- Sorry for my long-windedness.  

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

14 minutes ago, Monica_in_Switzerland said:

I can do you one worse:  When I was in elementary, we were taught to put "X"s when doing multiplication, instead of zeros_

 23

 12

 ____

  46

23X

____

276 

😂

 

Yeah, I read about this in Liping Ma's book, too! It's really ridiculous. And a lot of the teachers quoted in that book really didn't understand what those Xs were all for. Even some of the ones who used zeroes thought they were being used as "placeholders," which is probably why I've become allergic to that terminology 😄 . 

[katemm]

5 hours ago, Monica_in_Switzerland said:

I can do you one worse:  When I was in elementary, we were taught to put "X"s when doing multiplication, instead of zeros_

 23

 12

 ____

  46

23X

____

276 

😂

-----------------------

Back to OP:

I agree with everything that has been said.

1.  The best program is the one that significantly improves YOUR comfort and competence with math.  Attentively reading through either Right Start, or the Home Instructor Guides for Singapore Math are decent ways to do this, though there are probably others.  I know this is not always a popular opinion in the homeschool world, but only a few truly bright exceptional children will teach themselves math from a curriculum.  The rest of them will be held back by their parent's ability to teach math.  You must lead the charge up the math hill.  This is not unique to homeschoolers.  No amount of new textbooks will improve public school math outcomes when teachers are not trained in mathematics.  

2.  There is no discovery - or dare I say understanding, period- without manipulatives.  You do not need the giant right start box, I think it's ridiculous as well.  (Right Start is still a top program in my mind, however).  Choose a handful.  I suggest at the bare minimum: unit blocks (I recommend buying two sets or a classroom sized set), place value cards, and counters of some type (here you can indulge in "beauty" and use glass stones or whatever you'd like, certainly not those hideous bears! or be economical and use a pile of pennies or popsicle sticks).  For older kids, i think geometric solids are a must, a pile of real money, and a clock can be handy.  

3.  Curriculum is a suggestion, not a law.  LEARN how to teach elementary math, then teach it.  Use workbooks as pre-made problem sets to save yourself some time.  

4.  I would take time away from literally every other subject except reading to give yourself the time you need to learn how to teach math.  It is probably the single best investment you can make in your school.  You can learn content subjects alongside your kids at a later time, but get math and reading right from the start if at all possible.  

5.  It occurs over and over here and in other homeschool forums:  Kids struggle with math, people suggest new curriculum, kids still struggle with math.  The issue of teacher training is politely ignored.  You CAN learn to teach elementary math well.  You may very well find that a subject you once feared and hated becomes your favorite as you learn, finally, how and why it works.  I have a degree in physics, and I learned more about how math works teaching my oldest son 1st grade math than I ever did in university classes.  So many of us receive an appalling elementary math education.  

- Sorry for my long-windedness.  

 

 

Wow! Thank you so much!!!

What would your recommendations be for educating myself in math?

Also - I read you are teaching in French/English, I have been scouting out a French language program for our family in an immersion approach. My kids are six and under. I would love to know your thoughts on learning French, and any specific resources you recommend.

[Not_a_Number]

19 minutes ago, katemm said:

What would your recommendations be for educating myself in math?

I know that @EKS has a recommendation for this that I always forget 🙂 . But honestly, working through any solid math curriculum starting from the beginning would work. 

How comfortable are you, personally, with mathematical concepts? I am not asking this as an attack; just trying to gauge where you’d need to start.

[EKS]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I know that @EKS has a recommendation for this that I always forget 🙂 .

It's Elementary Mathematics for Teachers.  Awesome resource!

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, EKS said:

It's Elementary Mathematics for Teachers.  Awesome resource!

I need to write that on my hand or something. I keep tagging you because I can never remember!!

[katemm]

On 2/9/2021 at 5:52 PM, caffeineandbooks said:

It sounds like Right Start, with its specific manipulatives, might not be for you.  My family use Singapore (Primary Mathematics US 3rd edition).  I see from your other post that you are Australian, so you may like that the 3rd edition teaches metric as well as imperial measurements.  You don't need the textbook, just the [consumable] workbook, which is black and white with minimal illustrations.  The Home Instructor Guide is great because it gives lightly scripted ideas of how to teach the concept to help the child get deep understanding (great if math wasn't your strong suit!).  It does use manipulatives - it's actually quite important for most kids to physically handle things like the bundles of sticks you mentioned - but you don't need to use any particular manipulatives.  You could have your kids find shells to represent ones, and put them into bags of ten, and put ten bags into a wooden chest to represent a hundred, for instance.  You could certainly use buttons or stones or whatever you like.

Perhaps you're permanently in the States, but in the event you ever plan to come back to Australia, it might interest you to know that Singapore runs about a semester to a year ahead of the Australian curriculum, but that it doesn't cover much probability, so if you're returning to any kind of standardized testing in Australia you may want to add in a unit on probability at that time.

Thank you!! And thanks, yes that is relevant for us about Australia!

For my clarification, by US 3rd edition do you mean the Primary Common Core edition? 

And in using Singapore Math, their specific manipulatives are not required? I could source all of my own elsewhere? I'm thinking about how in RightStart a lot of their specific manipulatives are necessary for using their program.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

13 hours ago, katemm said:

Wow! Thank you so much!!!

What would your recommendations be for educating myself in math?

Also - I read you are teaching in French/English, I have been scouting out a French language program for our family in an immersion approach. My kids are six and under. I would love to know your thoughts on learning French, and any specific resources you recommend.

 

I wish I could recommend good French resources because I get the question a lot!  But my kids are "born bilingual"- my DH is a French speaking Swiss, and we live in the French-speaking part of Switzerland.  So we use resources for native speakers.  The best I can do is tell you that we love Getting Started with Latin, and the same author has a Getting Started with French book that I've heard good things about.  However, the book will only get you through about one semester of foreign language.  I still think it would be a GREAT jumping off pint.  

 

As for math education, I love love love the videos at EducationUnboxed.com.  I have watched all of them, many of them multiple times.  It really improved my ability to teach, as well as my understanding of just what numbers are and how numbers work.  She uses cuisinaire rods as a manipulative.  I love them, but some people never get into them because they don't take the time to really learn how to use them as a manipulative.  They are not necessarily intuitive, so it is worth spending some time getting used to them if you choose them.  I didn't mention them earlier because of that little initial barrier of getting to know cuisinaire rods.  🙂    

 

There are a few resources for learning how to teach elementary math.  The best one is probably Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics by Liping Ma, but the book is a bit intimidating.  I found a learned a ton by choosing an Asian math curriculum and just really studying the teacher's guides.  I chose Singapore Math and Right Start Math and spent a lot of time reading through them.  I think a more economical route would be to get Math Mammoth instead and read through them.  Math Mammoth is not aesthetically pretty, but the teaching is VERY solid, bite-sized, and cheap.  Addition Facts that Stick was mentioned above, and it is another great resource. 

 

In your initial research, you really want to focus on the "making ten" concept.  For example, when we add 7 + 5, the goal is NOT to have a memorized answer.  The goal is for the child to know that 7 needs 3 to make ten, and that 5 can be broken into a 3 and a 2.  So 7 + 5 is really 7 +3 + 2, or 12 (1-ten 2-units as we would say in our house for first grade).  This is a combination of number bonds (what are the different groups 6 can be broken into?) and tings that make ten (1&9, 2&8, ...).  

 

I hope that helps get you started!  

 

[caffeineandbooks]

6 hours ago, katemm said:

Thank you!! And thanks, yes that is relevant for us about Australia!

For my clarification, by US 3rd edition do you mean the Primary Common Core edition? 

And in using Singapore Math, their specific manipulatives are not required? I could source all of my own elsewhere? I'm thinking about how in RightStart a lot of their specific manipulatives are necessary for using their program.

No, I mean "US edition", the older one from before common core.  The covers all look like this (but with different colours, and sorry the pic is so enormous - I don't know how to resize it): 

And you'd probably want the Home Instructor Guide by Jennifer Hoerst.

Yes, any manipulatives will work.  In first grade you'll be doing a lot of making ten - so seven of something plus three of something, for instance - and some bundling of ten things.  In our house we've used toy cars, small candies like M&Ms, fake spiders, craft sticks, milk bottle caps.  For bundling things, we've used ten gems in a draw string bag and ten bags in a treasure chest, or ten tiny sea creature erasers sitting inside a milk bottle cap, or ten craft sticks bundled with an elastic band, or lego blocks joined together in sticks of ten.  Different programs will vary slightly on what they include when, but this particular program has kids understand numbers up to 100 in first grade, then up to 1000 in second grade, so manipulatives you have a lot of (packet of dried beans? jar of buttons?) are helpful.  In second grade I bought some official base 10 blocks from a school supply store (there are vintage wooden ones available if you can't stand plastic) and they have been really helpful for bigger numbers - the large solid 1000 cube and 100 flats that can't fall apart save a lot of time counting when compared to the little bags of gems that the toddler liked to mess with 🙂  A deck of cards is super handy too.

[Not_a_Number]

May I ask what you dislike about manipulatives? I know you said you don't like the plastic stuff, but do you also just dislike the idea of having them? 

I will say that I personally think that manipulatives that indicate a "10" that can't be broken up are very useful. Right now, we're using poker chips for that, which are plastic and not what you want. But perhaps you could get something you think of as beautiful or appropriate and designate one color of them to mean 10s and the other color to mean 1s? That would work just as well as anything else 🙂 . 

[katemm]

8 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

May I ask what you dislike about manipulatives? I know you said you don't like the plastic stuff, but do you also just dislike the idea of having them? 

I will say that I personally think that manipulatives that indicate a "10" that can't be broken up are very useful. Right now, we're using poker chips for that, which are plastic and not what you want. But perhaps you could get something you think of as beautiful or appropriate and designate one color of them to mean 10s and the other color to mean 1s? That would work just as well as anything else 🙂 . 

Thanks, yes, it's more just the type of manipulatives, and feeling like I'm empowered to know the why behind them - what the goal is, and why do I need this one or that, etc. So all of this discussion is SUPER helpful along that line!

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, katemm said:

Thanks, yes, it's more just the type of manipulatives, and feeling like I'm empowered to know the why behind them - what the goal is, and why do I need this one or that, etc. So all of this discussion is SUPER helpful along that line!

Ah, got it!! Aside from place value manipulatives, you can really use anything for counting 🙂 . We played lots of card and dice games with the kids in my classes.

[Eilonwy]

On 2/9/2021 at 9:37 PM, katemm said:

From what I've read I love the way Math is talked about in Charlotte Mason. Beauty, awe-inspiring, discovering God in his created order... The way a child is led to discover answers for himself, treated as capable to be able to grasp concepts, not to have things dulled down or to give him prodding, hints, leading, or telling him the correct answer.

I love this description as well, and I always want my children to be inspired by math!  I had a look at the SCM books, and they remind me of the Waldorf approach to math in some ways, such as the emphasis on the physical world, not wanting to move to abstraction too quickly, and a wonder-based approach. 

My family's experience with Waldorf math with my oldest was that by Gr. 4, she was really bored, and she had decided that she was not really a math person.  We have kept a Waldorf approach for many other subjects, and continued Waldorf geometry, but for the rest of the math curriculum we switched to a modern conceptual approach and have used that with the younger two as well, so far.  The switch renewed my daughter's interest and confidence in math, and I found that she was able to see a lot more of the beauty and awe with the more comprehensive and creative math curriculum.  I think there have been a number of advances in math thinking and teaching since the early 1900's, and that although I respect the innovative thinking of Mason and Steiner, I don't think it benefits children to stick to it too rigidly.  

Finding a good conceptual curriculum might allow you to achieve more of your goals in math for your children that what the SCM books look likely to do, after looking at Gr. 1 and Gr. 3.  This could also give you a chance to experience the beauty of math yourself, which really helps to be able to pass it on, in my opinion. 

[katemm]

3 hours ago, Eilonwy said:

I love this description as well, and I always want my children to be inspired by math!  I had a look at the SCM books, and they remind me of the Waldorf approach to math in some ways, such as the emphasis on the physical world, not wanting to move to abstraction too quickly, and a wonder-based approach. 

My family's experience with Waldorf math with my oldest was that by Gr. 4, she was really bored, and she had decided that she was not really a math person.  We have kept a Waldorf approach for many other subjects, and continued Waldorf geometry, but for the rest of the math curriculum we switched to a modern conceptual approach and have used that with the younger two as well, so far.  The switch renewed my daughter's interest and confidence in math, and I found that she was able to see a lot more of the beauty and awe with the more comprehensive and creative math curriculum.  I think there have been a number of advances in math thinking and teaching since the early 1900's, and that although I respect the innovative thinking of Mason and Steiner, I don't think it benefits children to stick to it too rigidly.  

Finding a good conceptual curriculum might allow you to achieve more of your goals in math for your children that what the SCM books look likely to do, after looking at Gr. 1 and Gr. 3.  This could also give you a chance to experience the beauty of math yourself, which really helps to be able to pass it on, in my opinion. 

Wow, fantastic thoughts. Thank you so much!

This resonates for sure. And up until a month ago I have been all-in on Waldorf education, so I get where you're coming from and appreciate your perspective!

[katemm]

On 2/10/2021 at 4:26 AM, sweet2ndchance said:

I agree with the others. SCM is not known for their math programs.

Most children need manipulatives to learn math but those manipulatives can be whatever you want them to be. When I first started homeschooling, some 20 years ago, bean sticks (literally dried beans glued to popsicle sticks) were a popular alternative to plastic manipulatives. But really, pebbles, sticks, buttons, leaves, acorns (bake them in the oven for a few hours to get the bugs out if you will be keeping them inside, you don't want to know how I know this) literally anything will work.

Also, children naturally go from needing concrete manipulatives they can touch to pictoral representations they can see and remember they represent those things they can touch. Then, after much repetition with the concrete and pictoral representations, they can move on to thinking about math in the abstract, such as just numerals on a page. Most children move through all those stages of mathematical learning in their own time. That's why most math programs include manipulatives of some sort and the pictures and drawings.

Here are some alternatives you might look at:

Wild Math Curriculum - Nature based math lessons

Ray's Arithmetic - Something still available today, for free, similar to what Charlotte Mason herself might have used

Ray's For Today - An updated version of Ray's Arithmetic

CLE Math - Minimal pictures in the lessons that are for the most part very simple drawings to help illustrate a concept.

Saxon Math - You don't need to buy a manipulative kit if you don't want to, you can use household items, nature items, whatever you want. The workbook pages have no pictures. Scripted lessons for you.

Life of Fred - Literature based math lessons with minimal stick drawings that you don't even need to show your daughter if you don't want to. Most of the pictures are just for amusement, not concept teaching. 

The Good and The Beautiful Math - as mentioned above, again you can substitute in whatever manipulatives you want, you don't have to use their suggestions

Math With Confidence - A gentle math program that you can, again, use whatever you want to make the concepts concrete for your young daughter, there are pictures in the workbook but they are not particularly cartoony.

Thank you so much for your thoughts and these suggestions!! I so appreciate your help.

It caught my attention, and something sparked, when you suggested Wild Math. I actually purchased Wild Math's Kindergarten, but haven't used it and have just kind of moved on and discounted it as a viable option. 

I had a thought today - what about combining the Charlotte Mason Elementary Arithmetic with Wild Math?

Wild Math seems to teach the same content as good math programs, just unconventionally. (Anyone have experience with Wild Math?) We would have much more opportunity for manipulatives, and to play with and see math. Combined with the Charlotte Mason principles and language of math I love, this combination together could potentially achieve the same goals that other good math programs do, particularly for the early grades..?

[Not_a_Number]

I'm going to chime to agree with @Eilonwy -- you may very well have more luck communicating the beauty of math if you use a program that makes seem both comprehensible and cool. My very mathy DD8, for example, was utterly bored with arithmetic and needed it spiced up with far more abstract ideas to make it seem interesting. Making her math about buttons and frogs and butterflies wouldn't have made her like math. What made her like math was the feeling that she could understand it herself (hence the conceptual curriculum Eilonwy suggests) and also doing cool stuff like learning about binary numbers and combinatorics and negative numbers and early algebra... 

I think it can be hard to figure out how to make a subject interesting and beautiful and meaningful if you've never found it meaningful yourself. Honestly, I have the same struggle with subjects I never really enjoyed, like poetry or history. It's hard for me to know how to make something I never got into fun. 

@katemm, when you say you want to communicate the beauty of math... what does that mean to you? 🙂 What about math would you like your kids to like? What parts of math do you yourself enjoy? 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, MGS said:

I kind of wonder why not just use what you have bought?  Kindergarten and first grade you really can do nothing wrong.  Try wild math now,... then scm math, it is totally fine for first grade.  Any math in kindergarten and first grade is fine.  Is she fluently reading?  If not that is where 90% of your energy (and hers) will be at.  So long as you keep her love of learning you are doing great!

I don't really agree with that, I'm afraid. I do think you can teach bad habits even this early. 

On the other hand, the sort of "unschooly" thing that this program does probably doesn't hurt or build particularly bad habits. It just seems boring and imprecise. 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, MGS said:

🤷‍♀️If OP likes it.. curriculum matters, what, 10%?  The rest is up to the teacher.  It is still teaching addition and subtraction, number sense, place value, etc.

But if the OP is weak in math herself, then a curriculum that actually teaches her is a really good idea. 

I don't even use curriculum. So in some sense I agree with you. But I wouldn't be able to pull this off in physics, you know? 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, MGS said:

It looks like it does have a lot of hand holding.

The samples I saw seemed conceptually weak to me. That's mostly what I'm responding to 🙂 .

If it were me, I'd pick a program with a really strong explanation of place value, since that's the hardest thing about elementary math before you get to fractions. Many people who've only learned math procedurally struggle with it and struggle with communicating it to their kids. I saw this firsthand with the parents of the kids in my homeschooling classes... if all they had ever done was "carrying" and "borrowing," they really couldn't help the kids with how to use 10s and 1s like we did in class. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, MGS said:

It may be, but I’m assuming it’s not entirely procedural since she uses manipulatives and has sticks bundled in groups of ten.  This is from level 2... there is regrouping here as well.

I'm sure it's not entirely procedural! 🙂 I'm just wondering if it's solid enough to really communicate the ideas. If it jumps between dimes and pennies and sticks and buttons and whatever, it may be too disjointed to help assemble a mental model for anyone who is still shaky. 

You're right that using a curriculum that speaks to one is important, though 🙂 . I guess that I'd suggest that if the OP goes that route, she also works through something like Singapore or Math Mammoth on her own time, working considerably ahead of the student. That is, assuming that the OP needs review in those concepts. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, MGS said:

In that case, Zearn.org is free and self paced, with actual teacher lessons, so that might be a good way to get familiar with it.  I know after using it I could see what Singapore and Math Mammoth was all about.

Does it have you actually practice the skills? 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, MGS said:

Oh yes, it’s an online curriculum (k-5, soon to be through 😎

Ah, cool! 

[Eilonwy]

On 2/12/2021 at 3:44 PM, katemm said:

This resonates for sure. And up until a month ago I have been all-in on Waldorf education,

We’ve found that history, social studies, and art from a Waldorf approach have worked really well, as well as the block schedule for most topics.  The main thing that didn’t, really, was math, partly due to the block schedule, and also because it seemed to leave out all the really cool stuff, focusing on basic arithmetic and nothing else. @katemmI’d love to hear more about what you like about math and want to communicate about math, similar to what @Not_a_Number was asking.  I have learned new ways to understand math through helping my kids (and going through their books on my own). I definitely think you can increase your own understanding and enjoyment. I couldn’t see any samples of Wild math, and I don’t really know anything about that one, though I find the idea intriguing. Do you find the lessons in it inspiring to you?

Edited February 15, 2021 by Eilonwy

[gradchica]

I’m still working out my thoughts on this, but I don’t know about the whole trying to make things fun or engaging through a curriculum. I have tried pretty much every math curricula and...it’s still math, dressing it up or down w graphics doesn’t do much to engage. Advancing concepts before they can grasp them has not done it either, just frustrated them (so trying really conceptual curricula wo enough procedural knowledge/practice has not worked for us). Trying to introduce the wonder factor early (reading books on Fibonacci and the golden ratio and such) haven’t done too much because they couldn’t grasp even the lower rungs of those mysteries tight enough to want to learn more. I’m starting to think this is like trying to teach higher science without the math background to fully grasp it, or the frustration of trying to listen to a foreign language movie without having studied enough grammar and vocabulary to hook you enough to inspire more learning and an appreciation of the beauty there. There’s a level of basic understanding (arithmetic) that isn’t very fun or terribly interesting in itself but is the necessary gateway to entering into the beauty of investigating the relationship between these numbers and operations and how they interact when used in different ways. 
 

The only thing that has made math interesting to my kids is mastery and the ability to move on to and actually understand the “cool” concepts, plus an attitude of wonder in my part. I can’t say anyone gets super excited about another day of Singapore work, BUT—and this has been huge—my 5th grader has started reading math books for fun after Singapore sparked a discussion on infinity and how the concept of zero developed (I think from a problem in 6A that involved the fun does .9999 =1). I ordered some some books for adults on zero and similar topics and he’s been steadily going through them. Then when someone here mentioned Murderous Maths, I bought them and he and his brother (5B) are going crazy doing all the problems/tricks. They’re really getting into it because they have the foundation, built by not so thrilling daily work.
 

All that being said, We have done Mindset Math before and are going back to it with some friends this week—I appreciate those problems for helping them to find the “ah hah!” of discovering relationships and feeling things gel in their minds. There are more books out than when I started (even one for my 1st grader!), so that might be a worthwhile supplement to a solid but not exciting curriculum to encourage exploration and wonder. 

[Not_a_Number]

36 minutes ago, gradchica said:

I’m still working out my thoughts on this, but I don’t know about the whole trying to make things fun or engaging through a curriculum. I have tried pretty much every math curricula and...it’s still math, dressing it up or down w graphics doesn’t do much to engage. Advancing concepts before they can grasp them has not done it either, just frustrated them (so trying really conceptual curricula wo enough procedural knowledge/practice has not worked for us). Trying to introduce the wonder factor early (reading books on Fibonacci and the golden ratio and such) haven’t done too much because they couldn’t grasp even the lower rungs of those mysteries tight enough to want to learn more. I’m starting to think this is like trying to teach higher science without the math background to fully grasp it, or the frustration of trying to listen to a foreign language movie without having studied enough grammar and vocabulary to hook you enough to inspire more learning and an appreciation of the beauty there. There’s a level of basic understanding (arithmetic) that isn’t very fun or terribly interesting in itself but is the necessary gateway to entering into the beauty of investigating the relationship between these numbers and operations and how they interact when used in different ways. 
 

The only thing that has made math interesting to my kids is mastery and the ability to move on to and actually understand the “cool” concepts, plus an attitude of wonder in my part. I can’t say anyone gets super excited about another day of Singapore work, BUT—and this has been huge—my 5th grader has started reading math books for fun after Singapore sparked a discussion on infinity and how the concept of zero developed (I think from a problem in 6A that involved the fun does .9999 =1). I ordered some some books for adults on zero and similar topics and he’s been steadily going through them. Then when someone here mentioned Murderous Maths, I bought them and he and his brother (5B) are going crazy doing all the problems/tricks. They’re really getting into it because they have the foundation, built by not so thrilling daily work.
 

All that being said, We have done Mindset Math before and are going back to it with some friends this week—I appreciate those problems for helping them to find the “ah hah!” of discovering relationships and feeling things gel in their minds. There are more books out than when I started (even one for my 1st grader!), so that might be a worthwhile supplement to a solid but not exciting curriculum to encourage exploration and wonder. 

I can tell you which early concepts DD8 found fun AND accessible, if you like. Just one kid’s experience, but it’s something. (I can also tell you what I liked at her age.)

[Mirror]

I have used the SCM Arithmetic 1 for my daughter from 4.5 years on and off. You are encouraged to use manipulatives with it whatever you have to hand, once you get to place value you use bundles of sticks. I like it for its simplicity and the early introduction to Mental Arithmetic and the thorough way it taught 1 -100. However for me it supplemental my daughter would have been bored with the slow place and the formulaic pattern to each and every chapter. 

If you like the idea of doing maths outdoors and using natural items have a look at Wild Maths. For me its another supplemental maths program but it pairs nicely with SCM, stopping it from becoming stagnant and providing a fuller maths program. 

 

I decided not to buy Arithmetic 2 at $44 for pdf book that is mostly supplemental in our home school I felt it did not offer enough to make the price worth it.  

[Eilonwy]

21 hours ago, gradchica said:

There’s a level of basic understanding (arithmetic) that isn’t very fun or terribly interesting in itself but is the necessary gateway to entering into the beauty of investigating the relationship between these numbers and operations and how they interact when used in different ways. 
 

The only thing that has made math interesting to my kids is mastery and the ability to move on to and actually understand the “cool” concepts, plus an attitude of wonder in my part.

There is an element of balance in terms of understanding concepts and practicing procedures, which is not always interesting. They build on each other. One of the biggest benefits to switching to a more defined curriculum was that the practice problems were specifically chosen to promote better conceptual understanding and help that cycle of concepts and confidence in procedures keep going.  This was something we couldn’t easily do on our own, with the Waldorf approach of practice through doing a couple of questions that the teacher makes up, every day. That said, there will always be areas where you have to try different ways than what a book uses to allow you child to grasp the idea, and for that, it really helps to understand what your method is trying to teach.  
I completely agree that having an attitude of wonder and interest helps a lot. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 hours ago, Eilonwy said:

This was something we couldn’t easily do on our own, with the Waldorf approach of practice through doing a couple of questions that the teacher makes up, every day.

I'm kind of curious about this 🙂 . Was there any guidance about how to make up questions or progress? 

[Eilonwy]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm kind of curious about this 🙂 . Was there any guidance about how to make up questions or progress? 

There was very little guidance on how to make up good questions or how to evaluate when it was appropriate to move on, or circle back to older concepts. Introduction of concepts was kind of scattered, and the block schedule meant that you’d introduce a number of new, sometimes only loosely related concepts over a short period of time, then do daily practice of these and other review topics for another 2 months or so while the main lesson focused on science or writing, etc.  I now recognize that if you have a good understanding of both the math concepts and *how to teach them*, then making up your own questions could be really effective and completely responsive to the child’s needs and interests.  Despite strong math backgrounds, we didn’t have math teaching experience, so we gradually developed a bored, somewhat math-disliking child who was shaky on place value.  The math-teaching expertise built into the math curriculum helped a lot to show where the problems were and to build back up. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Eilonwy said:

There was very little guidance on how to make up good questions or how to evaluate when it was appropriate to move on, or circle back to older concepts. Introduction of concepts was kind of scattered, and the block schedule meant that you’d introduce a number of new, sometimes only loosely related concepts over a short period of time, then do daily practice of these and other review topics for another 2 months or so while the main lesson focused on science or writing, etc.  I now recognize that if you have a good understanding of both the math concepts and *how to teach them*, then making up your own questions could be really effective and completely responsive to the child’s needs and interests.  Despite strong math backgrounds, we didn’t have math teaching experience, so we gradually developed a bored, somewhat math-disliking child who was shaky on place value.  The math-teaching expertise built into the math curriculum helped a lot to show where the problems were and to build back up. 

Yeah, teaching is very much its own thing. A long time ago, I was a high schooler who was more than proficient at the concepts and absolutely lousy at explaining my reasoning 😉 . So I do remember how that goes. 

I think the helpful thing about teaching experience is just seeing what concepts usually trip kids up. Everything seems easy once you know it! It's hard to remember how tricky something basic like place value is... or even the fact that we interchangeably use subtraction and division to mean different things and we don't even think about it. But for kids, if you tell them that 12/3 means 12 split into 3 groups, and then also use it to solve the problem "How many 3s fit into 12?", well... that's confusing! 

[MK2222]

On 2/9/2021 at 7:37 PM, katemm said:

I really do not like plastic, prepared manipulatives, such as the massive plastic RightStart kit, and really, I love the idea of not relying on manipulatives too much at all.

If you would be interested in manipulatives that are aesthetically pleasing, you could look into Montessori manipulatives. The beads are especially beautiful and have a nice feel to them.

 

[Masers]

Op, the post about Montessori manipulatives reminded me of Shiller math. Look into that curriculum. It’s the closest thing to homeschool Montessori math....which is amazing. My two older sons attended a Montessori preschool/kindergarten. My second got his year cut short last year because of the pandemic, and then we homeschooled this year due to Covid stuff. And this would have been his last year in the primary program. 😞

but my oldest had a super strong foundation in math, and a love for it, too. It fizzled our a bit when we had to switch to a more worksheet heavy, traditional curriculum. 😞 But the Montessori manipulatives are wonderful, And the number sense is so strong. There’s a huge focus on place value. It’s not uncommon for preschoolers and kindergarten age students to start grasping multiplication and division after that point, the foundation is so strong! 

[katemm]

11 hours ago, Masers said:

Op, the post about Montessori manipulatives reminded me of Shiller math. Look into that curriculum. It’s the closest thing to homeschool Montessori math....which is amazing. My two older sons attended a Montessori preschool/kindergarten. My second got his year cut short last year because of the pandemic, and then we homeschooled this year due to Covid stuff. And this would have been his last year in the primary program. 😞

but my oldest had a super strong foundation in math, and a love for it, too. It fizzled our a bit when we had to switch to a more worksheet heavy, traditional curriculum. 😞 But the Montessori manipulatives are wonderful, And the number sense is so strong. There’s a huge focus on place value. It’s not uncommon for preschoolers and kindergarten age students to start grasping multiplication and division after that point, the foundation is so strong! 

This is interesting to me and will explore! Thank you!

 

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HELPFUL INSIGHT AND SUGGESTIONS!!! LOVE HEARING YOUR EXPERIENCE!!

[stripe]

As far as I know, Charlotte Mason used textbooks for math and didn’t really implement the same teaching method for math.

I am personally a huge fan of CIMT’s MEP program, and it has a very amazing year 1 (don’t skip it! Don’t listen to people who say it’s pre-K!) that basically only covers up to 20 but has a very logical structure. It uses a lot of manipulatives like acorns or other items the child can collect, not plastic gee gaws. Ron Aharoni (Arithmetic for Parents) recommends kids make various manipulatives themselves — I did this with one kid, and it was fun. We made many sticks of ten with balls of modeling clay that had we marbled together. 

....Doesn't CM talk about making ones own multiplication table out of objects?

Anyway MEP didn’t spend a lot of money on fancy graphic design. It’s functional but not “cute” by any stretch of the imagination. I used most of the Reception level and was so sick of these drawings of the family.

[wisdomandtreasures]

I owned and then sold books 1 and 2 of this curriculum. It's basically an overpriced, pretty, wannabe Ray's Primary Arithmetic with CM terms ("pure number") thrown in. The answers take up half the book because they're like this:

Answers:

1. 17 cents.

2. Five marbles. 

3. 2 apples.

etc. So it looks like you get this nice thick book but it's just the answer key taking up too much room. in the Ray's answer key, which is a separate book, the answers are written like this: 

1. 17 cents. 2. 5 marbles. And so on.

I just was not impressed with it. The lessons go something like this: "Eighteen. Gather 18 items. Count them forward. Count them backwards. How many groups of 2 in 18? How many groups of 3 in 18? Groups of 6? Groups of 9? 18 take away 1 is... Take away 2 is..." Then it would have a few review problems and go onto the next number. It doesn't have as much review as I'd like. I just expected more for $54 for just the book. My oldest child did Ray's with various manipulatives, plus different math puzzle books (Math Detectives, Family Math, and hands-on projects like baking, measuring, estimating prices at the grocery store, calculating tithing, helping me make a budget, and estimating square feet of different rooms for remodeling projects and of the garden beds so we could buy enough compost and mulch) until I just didn't feel confident in my ability to go further, about 5th grade level. Now he is nearing the end of CLE Math 5 and loves it. If you have an older, thorough program (Ray, or others I've seen but haven't tried are Frank Hall and Strayer-Upton) you can do what this program does and save your money.

[katemm]

8 hours ago, wisdomandtreasures said:

I owned and then sold books 1 and 2 of this curriculum. It's basically an overpriced, pretty, wannabe Ray's Primary Arithmetic with CM terms ("pure number") thrown in. The answers take up half the book because they're like this:

Answers:

1. 17 cents.

2. Five marbles. 

3. 2 apples.

etc. So it looks like you get this nice thick book but it's just the answer key taking up too much room. in the Ray's answer key, which is a separate book, the answers are written like this: 

1. 17 cents. 2. 5 marbles. And so on.

I just was not impressed with it. The lessons go something like this: "Eighteen. Gather 18 items. Count them forward. Count them backwards. How many groups of 2 in 18? How many groups of 3 in 18? Groups of 6? Groups of 9? 18 take away 1 is... Take away 2 is..." Then it would have a few review problems and go onto the next number. It doesn't have as much review as I'd like. I just expected more for $54 for just the book. My oldest child did Ray's with various manipulatives, plus different math puzzle books (Math Detectives, Family Math, and hands-on projects like baking, measuring, estimating prices at the grocery store, calculating tithing, helping me make a budget, and estimating square feet of different rooms for remodeling projects and of the garden beds so we could buy enough compost and mulch) until I just didn't feel confident in my ability to go further, about 5th grade level. Now he is nearing the end of CLE Math 5 and loves it. If you have an older, thorough program (Ray, or others I've seen but haven't tried are Frank Hall and Strayer-Upton) you can do what this program does and save your money.

Thanks for sharing this!