Math curriculum that teaches basic facts

[SchoolonTipTop]

Hello, I'm new here and looking for advice on a good Math program. My husband and I both learned math by learning the plus 1s, plus 2s, plus 3s etc. Now I'm working with my first grader and instead she is learning all of the combinations that can equal 1, equal 2 etc. Maybe its just us but we can't stand this way of learning it! I learned with older Saxon Math and my husband with the older Rod and Staff and we both learned it the way we are wanting but I am doing a newer addition of Rod and Staff and don't like how it is teaching math families. I did BJU press for Kindergarten and liked that but not sure how it teaches the facts when it gets into first grade. Just wanting to find something that is in print and teaches the addition facts the way I learned. Any ideas? 

[Clarita]

Saxon Math is still available. It looks like the Saxon Math sold at Rainbow Resource is published in 1994.

[EKS]

That way of teaching facts is sometimes referred to as "number bonds."  The idea is that it helps students develop better number sense (which is important) to see numbers as being "made" by other numbers.  So for example, when you learn addition facts this way, subtraction facts become obvious.  It is a way of viewing numbers and their relationships that is more sophisticated than simply memorizing facts.  As someone who relearned math from the ground up, I can tell you that the difference between thinking about numbers this way versus the more traditional way is profound and well worth the extra effort required.

Here is an article that talks about it.

Edited Tuesday at 01:17 PM by EKS

[HomeAgain]

The number sense that programs have moved to is a really good thing.  You can always supplement with math facts if you find your child isn't doing well, but a lot of research has gone into the shift toward teaching strategies to find the answer and being comfortable when faced with unknown problems.  I'm not sure if I would be so hasty to move back to something that did not expect a child to think through their math.

If I think of a modern program that fits (maybe Calculadder supplement?) I'll post it here, but I really haven't seen much that willingly stunts a child's growth in this area.

[Gil]

You can automate the math facts in whatever order suits your style without actually going through the expense and hassle of purchasing a specific curriculum or program.

A sharpie + a pack of index cards will become darn near anything you want it to be. But if you can print then you should explore the Math-Drills website. They have worksheets for the basic facts. (You might be able to print for free at a local library, or download all the sheets you want and get them printed at a Kinkos or Target Copy)

Addition by Focus Numbers

Subtraction by Focus Numbers

Multiplication by Focus Numbers

Division by Focus Numbers

If you want to buy something, then the Old School Hooked on Math is pretty much the above, but with 80s style jingles, flashcards and one full set of the Worksheets.

[Lovinglife234]

Math with confidence would be a good one because it will teach you along with your child.  There are games to teach rote memorization (which you want- fluency is important).  However it also teaches the concepts in a simplified way.

another option is math facts that stick.  It is just for math facts and will teach rote memorization through games (along with concepts).

Conceptual math is what you’re not liking.  What you grew up with is procedural.  Conceptual math is what is/was used in other countries with exceptional math scores (think Singapore).

Edited Wednesday at 11:43 AM by Lovinglife234

[Gil]

Hey,

@SchoolonTipTop, I find all these comments about conceptual vs rote in response to this very straight forward question are silly and more than a little weird. Just, for whatever my opinion is worth to you, just know that whatever you decide, please be assured that you can develop a child's conceptual understanding while learning straight-up Math Facts in any order the teacher chooses.

Memorizing math facts in a basic sequence: +1, +2, +3, +4, etc... does not prevent a child from learning to understand number bonds nor does it prevent students from learning to think critically.

It will NOT prevent your student from developing conceptual thinking.
These comments about how you're disliking conceptual teaching are unfounded and off base.

It's no different than teaching phonics. You can teach and automate just the long-vowels first, just the short-vowels first, or you can teach both the long and short vowels-together--but so long as you follow all the way through a good phonics scope and sequence your child will be able to fluently decode.

If you exercises their decoding skills intelligently and thoroughly and teach the finer points--prosody, punctuation, vocabulary, etc then basic comprehension will develop almost organically.

[EKS]

4 minutes ago, Gil said:

I find all these comments about conceptual vs rote in response to this very straight forward question are silly and more than a little weird.

Silly and weird.  Nice.

When I started homeschooling a great many years ago, I had the mindset that came from experiencing a cookbook math education in the 70s.  I had no idea there was something different and chose Saxon because it was familiar.  I eventually started exploring other ways of teaching and learning math, and discovered that the number bond approach was actually the way I had thought about math facts all along, but no one had ever called it anything or even talked about it.  But before this, when my son was having trouble with learning subtraction facts, I discovered that he had never thought about the "answer" in subtraction problem as being the missing addend.  Once he realized this, no more problem.  

So, you're right, one can learn the facts the traditional way and and end up just fine.  But if I had asked a similar question 20+ years ago, I'd like to think I would have appreciated some input on why learning facts as number bonds might be beneficial. 

[AnneGG]

Christian Light Education is  a traditional procedural math, they do include some conceptual math but it is not the primary mode of teaching. 
 

Abeka is traditional/procedural. 
Saxon is still available. I love the k math, but I think I’m alone in that. I’ve never met anyone else that liked their k program. 😂 

I’ve always associated Rod and Staff math with procedural math. We haven’t used the updated versions though. It’s interesting to me that they’ve changed it so much. 
 

re: bju press math. It’s definitely a more balanced math program. Imo it leans more conceptual with each update. 
 

 

[HomeAgain]

14 hours ago, Gil said:

Hey,

@SchoolonTipTop, I find all these comments about conceptual vs rote in response to this very straight forward question are silly and more than a little weird. Just, for whatever my opinion is worth to you, just know that whatever you decide, please be assured that you can develop a child's conceptual understanding while learning straight-up Math Facts in any order the teacher chooses.

Memorizing math facts in a basic sequence: +1, +2, +3, +4, etc... does not prevent a child from learning to understand number bonds nor does it prevent students from learning to think critically.

It will NOT prevent your student from developing conceptual thinking.
These comments about how you're disliking conceptual teaching are unfounded and off base.

It's no different than teaching phonics. You can teach and automate just the long-vowels first, just the short-vowels first, or you can teach both the long and short vowels-together--but so long as you follow all the way through a good phonics scope and sequence your child will be able to fluently decode.

If you exercises their decoding skills intelligently and thoroughly and teach the finer points--prosody, punctuation, vocabulary, etc then basic comprehension will develop almost organically.

I teach remedial math.  Many of the kids I have seen over the years have one thing in common: they can name the facts, but are so disassociated from what the math is doing that they have no idea what is happening as soon as they progress through the first levels.  They can complete algorithms, and cannot take that same idea and apply it to the unknown.  Trying to teach algebra when a kid is stunted with a rote memorization arithmetic curriculum is one of the hardest things.  These are the kids who eventually hate math, the ones who feel lost and left behind over time while their peers make more of a seamless transition.

No, memorization does not preclude learning conceptual math.  What does is a teacher who shies away from teaching the two together, and that's what the OP sounds like. 

You, however, have reduced the thought process to name calling and disregard of fact.  Not exactly a post worthy of more than a hard rebuttal for its lack of consideration of the full process.

[smfmommy]

Regardless of whatever math program you end up using, you can drill math facts online for free with xtramath.com  

[Gil]

On 10/25/2024 at 11:17 AM, HomeAgain said:

I teach remedial math...
You, however, have reduced the thought process to name calling and disregard of fact.  Not exactly a post worthy of more than a hard rebuttal for its lack of consideration of the full process.

I didn't call anyone any names. I said that I found the comments made in response to a very straight forward question "more than a little weird" and "silly". Perhaps you would benefit from taking a remedial reading course?*

*Now that was actually meant as a snarky comment aimed at you. Though it's meant to illustrate my point, you may be offended by that remark if you wish. I won't hold it against you.