Teaching math this way . . . does anyone do this?

[Marylou]

Here is a cut and paste from www.triviumpursuit.com

 

Have any of you taken this approach to teaching math to your students? We are following this advice and it sure makes for happy, peaceful school days. I have talked to several homeschooling parents and they say that their math lessons ruin their otherwise enjoyable school days. Since I am new to these boards I would like to know if there are others who have taken this approach, and if so, were you pleased with the results?

 

By Harvey and Laurie Bluedorn

Early Language Skills First

 

So our focus before age ten is building language skills – speaking, reading and writing – especially vocabulary. This is the primary index of intelligence throughout life. Do things in a concrete way. At age ten, when the brain physically changes, and begins to make the complex connections, you begin the more complex and abstract learning. With this emphasis in the early years, we lay a proper foundation for a full academic load later.

Early Informal Math

 

Our Research

 

We have often been asked about our suggestion that math before age ten is best taught "informally." This seems most uncustomary to many. At the end of this article we have placed our article History and Research on the Teaching of Math. This information also appears in the Appendix of our booklet series. We very much want to learn if there is any contrary research or historical evidence. Everything which we encounter on the question continues to confirm this common sense view on the matter. We continually receive positive and enthusiastic feedback from families which have followed these suggestions – though many at first followed somewhat apprehensively. We are still waiting for our first negative feedback. We’re somewhat surprised. We at least expected there would be some families which were generally lax or unschooling in their approach, and would try to blame their math troubles on our recommendations. But we recommend no lax learning. Lax learning lacks learning.

What We Recommend for Math (and Grammar Too)

 

It’s the Method, ______

 

What we and others recommend regarding math is basically what was practiced with outstanding success until the twentieth century, when formal math before age ten was largely introduced into the world. Cultural math failure coincides with the innovation of early formal "workbook" math. We argue that it’s the method. We believe in math before age ten. But we believe the evidence is against workbook math before age ten. The developmental evidence appears very supportive of that view. The same is true with grammar – not language, but grammar. It is best to learn to speak and read and write a language before age ten. But grammar – identifying Gerunds and Participles – is best left until age ten. (Approximately age ten.)

The File Drawer Analogy

 

Math and Grammar can be "learned" – and "learned" – well before this time, but it’s not the kind of learning we want. We compare it to putting information in the wrong file cabinet – you have trouble later finding it and using it. At age ten, the information is literally stored in a different part of the brain than before age ten. (Again, approximately age ten.) Learning math in an abstract workbook fashion before age ten literally causes the brain to be structured differently. If the child depends upon his early math learning drawer, and does not develop a new file draw for later math learning, he runs into a brick wall when he encounters algebra. (We like to mix our metaphors.) Now, if he learns abstract workbook math before age ten, then he will either develop a second math memory after age ten (and, hopefully, not have a cross-indexing problem), or else he will begin to fail in upper math. But if he learns math in a concrete – not abstract – way before age ten, and he begins to learn abstract workbook math at age ten, then the brain will develop properly, the right connections will be made, and – assuming normal abilities and developments elsewhere – he will advance in math at a regular pace without unusual difficulties. The same is true with grammar.

The Computer Analogy

 

Or, to put it in computer terms, some word processors can handle some simple calculations. You can type in the data, and it will work with numbers on a simple level. But if you want to do complex calculations, you have to load a much more complex program on the hard drive. Until about age ten, children only have word processors. About age ten, the more complex spread sheet program begins to be loaded up on the hard drive. If you enter all of your math information in the word processor, then it is likely that when the child switches to the spread sheet program, the data will not be compatible. Formatting errors will abound. You’ll have to re-enter the data. Why not do something more profitable until the spread sheet program is up and running?

Time Better Spent

 

We are satisfied that the time spent studying math – which the young child is not yet developmentally equipped for – could better be spent developing verbal skills – which the child is a sponge for at these early ages. Deal with numbers in a concrete and verbal way until age ten. Use actual objects when you can, and when you can’t, then use words and names for actual objects. Our culture is so full of numbers and measurements, that we let them pass without notice. Teach the names for numerical values with dominoes. Teach counting with cards or Rummikub. Teach addition with checkers or chess. Teach base ten and place value with money or Cuisenaire rods, or other manipulative math programs. Teach measuring systems with tape measures, measuring cups, weight scales, odometers. Teach fractions with pies and cakes and cooking. Teach area by garden plotting and room arranging. One mom who had struggled with waiting in math wrote us that her son wrote down on a Sunday school form that math was his favorite subject. Since they didn’t do math, she was surprised and puzzled. When she asked her son why he wrote down math, he said, "What do you mean, Mom? We talk about numbers all the time." When she sat down with her son and looked through a math program, she discovered that he already knew it all. This may be a little more intuitive and less structured than we have in mind, but it demonstrates well how these things are taught as part of life.

The Ideal and the Real

 

In our opinion, the ideal would be to learn to speak and write several languages and to become familiar with a wide scope of literature before age ten, which lays a wide and solid foundation for formal math and grammar beginning around age ten. Everything seems to point to this as the best course to take. But we have never said "don't ever teach math before age ten." The whole idea is as ridiculous as it sounds. You cannot avoid exposing your child to arithmetic concepts. They will discover it on their own at a very early age. Teach them what they are ready to learn. But teach them in a concrete way, not in an abstract way. That’s what informal math is. It is not leaving the child to discover what he wants. Also, we have never said, "don't ever teach formal math before age ten." We have always said that that was a judgement call to be made by the parent, and if you should have a precocious little tyke who wants to learn math and works well with workbooks, then you would probably be mistaken if you were to hold him back. But if you force him beyond his developmental capabilities, then you are more prone to cause developmental abnormalities. In other words

And O ye fathers, do not aggravate [/exasperate] your children, rather, nurture them to full maturity in the correction and counsel of the Lord. — Ephesians 6:4, Very literal translation.

O ye fathers, do not overstimulate [/provoke too far] your children, in order that they should not be broken in spirit [/disheartened]. — Colossians 3:21 Very literal translation.

[Karen sn]

I accidentally did this.

I have a college education and realized that I didn't really remember any of it.

Then I started homeschooling myself for the nursing school entrance exam.

I LOVED teaching myself algebra and geometry and really GETTING it.

For the first time in my life I really understood the deeper mystery of it. The beauty within it.

 

I also learned so much more in my study of anatomy and physiology. Although I had taken that class years before - and done well - I hardly remembered any of it. This time around I got to study at my own pace - I was reading for fun. Going off into tangents on topics that weren't on the test - but I wanted to know about them (like the Kreb's Cycle of the mitochondria).

 

So when it came time to really get serious with dd's education - I realized that she didn't have to know it all right away and that we would suffer less if we just took it easy. We did a TON of science, because it's all around us and we really love to explore nature. We worked on reading and writing. SOCIAL SKILLS!!!! MANNERS!!! MANNERS!!! MANNERS!!!! And my dd has perfect penmanship.

 

But we always talked about numbers. It's everywhere in life if you spend even only a small amount of time with them. We talked alot about money and even played cash register - ME: "The item costs $12.97 and I give you 15, count back my change." And she starts with "12.97", giving me 3 pennies - saying "98, 99, and a dollar making 13" then counts 2 singles and says "fourteen and fifteen."

 

We always speak correct English - aside from a little southern slang.

And I will tell you what - when she reads or hears something that is incorrect - she mentions it.

 

Now we are really working on Michelle's Math.

Dd can add pretty large numbers in her head.

We're working on understanding and memorizing the multiplication table.

In a month or 2 (or 3) we are going to start Life of Fred Fractions.

 

I feel that I can teach to a child who is *ready* in one year what it would take 5 years to teach to a child who is not ready. And what's the point of rushing? I don't want her to hate math or grammar. And she could never hate science because it's always been fun!

 

Thank you for pasting this because it has put into writing what I feel and I can't wait to show my boyfriend this!

[Homemama2]

I also agree with this. Last year my son was in K and after spending about 4 weeks in a curr., I read their book and thought we'd give it a try. We 'did' spend time on math each day, but always used manipulatives, never did workbook pages, etc. I guess we did more of Ruth Beechicks approach to math maybe. I was amazed by the end of the year that my son was at a second grade level for almost all areas of math. He didn't know what 5x4 is written out, but if I said "I have 5 groups of skittles, and there are 4 skittles in each group" he could tell me how many. However, this year when we started first grade I was nervous about going without a program (I'm not sure why-we don't have testing in our state, but I just didn't want him to get behind). so we are using rightstart which also uses few workbook pages, and I let him use the abacus whenever he wants. We are very pleased with it. I'd love to hear other responses to this bc I've been wondering if we shouldn't give Bluedorn's method a try again.

[Ellie]

I did, but not on purpose. We started hsing in 1982, and I just never found anything I liked for math. Older dd took all her math at the community college: basic arithmetic (no college credit), pre-algebra, algebra 1, algebra 2, statistics. She was probably 14 or 15 when she started with the basic arithmetic. Younger dd did some of Saxon's Math 87, then she did pre-algebra and the rest and the community college.

 

Here's an article orginally published in 1935 that discusses this same thing.

[A home for their hearts]

I think this sounds like a wonderful way to approach math, but if you are a little nervous about teaching your own dc math without a math curriculum what would be the best math program to use?

[prairiegirl]

I am hoping to do this with my youngest. We still do math but not a formal program. We just use manipulatives, games and storybooks. I use RS with my other two so I am fairly confident in teacing math the RS way without the program. I know that I would not have been able to do this with my oldest cause, at that time, math freaked me out.

[Ellie]

I think this sounds like a wonderful way to approach math, but if you are a little nervous about teaching your own dc math without a math curriculum what would be the best math program to use?

If I were starting from the beginning, I'd use Rod and Staff.

[tullyfamily]

... and we LOVE it! We made the switch at the end of last year- we had been doing Saxon up till that point. But what we discovered was that dd could only do a word problem if it was phrased Saxon's way. She would ace the drill but struggled w/ truly understanding what she was doing. We talked w/ sevearl math people who raised big concerns w/ Saxon's approach.

 

I've posted this before, but we are using Ray's Primary Arithmetic & then the Practical Arithmetic series (you can go here to see this: http://www.keepersofthefaith.com/Catalog/Math_Books_73.asp) I like these curr b/c they are heavy on the why & word problems but also have drill. I've never been a big fan of Ruth Beechik but I LOVE the parent guide she wrote for Ray's. We are still wrapping our minds around this new approach & I still wonder how to work in all the higher math (or decide which to teach) but my kids are finally LOVING math. AND they are learning better!!! Yahoo! :)

 

- Heather

[A home for their hearts]

If I were starting from the beginning, I'd use Rod and Staff.

 

We are using R&S and I don't think it's the kind of curriculum that is described with this theory of learning math, I think it's the exact opposite unless I'm misunderstanding. :confused:

[Marylou]

Then I started homeschooling myself

 

I can't read this sentence without smiling! I love it!

[tullyfamily]

:iagree:

[Ellie]

We are using R&S and I don't think it's the kind of curriculum that is described with this theory of learning math, I think it's the exact opposite unless I'm misunderstanding. :confused:

Yes, it is the complete opposite, but I don't know how you could buy a published math program of some kind that would *not* teach math in the lower grades, which is the point of the article. So if I were not following that plan, I would use R&S.

[Lovedtodeath]

What about Math on the Level? Is it like this?

[SonshineLearner]

I have a five year old that we're "not doing any math with"; I did read the Bluedorn's book and agree with them. The way he's catching onto math is by life experiences and oral presentations. For example, he skip counts, and we read lots of Living Math books (By Greg Tang, and others like Cindy Neuschwander's Sir Cumference and others...) He plays with Legos and Cuisenaire rods and Unifex Cubes. I saw what my bright fifth grader did at the end of second grade...and what she's still doing in 5th grade...It's about the same. (She's at home full-time this year.)

So, with my son, I won't do a formal program. We are going to start using the Abacus with a program I got from NurtureMinds.com that encourages "visualizing" the abacus in your mind as well as using one. I'm excited about this. We still won't do the writing part of the program...

:-)

[Ellie]

What about Math on the Level? Is it like this?

I have not seen Math on the Level in person, or actually talked to anyone who has used it. It does look interesting, and it might fit in with the concept of delaying formal math instruction.

[usetoschool]

I did, but not on purpose. We started hsing in 1982, and I just never found anything I liked for math. Older dd took all her math at the community college: basic arithmetic (no college credit), pre-algebra, algebra 1, algebra 2, statistics. She was probably 14 or 15 when she started with the basic arithmetic. Younger dd did some of Saxon's Math 87, then she did pre-algebra and the rest and the community college.

 

Here's an article orginally published in 1935 that discusses this same thing.

 

About half way through the article is a long list of things that they can be learning.

[Spy Car]

I think they are half-right.

 

Young children do need concrete ways to "see" numbers. So thing like Cuisenaire rods, tally sticks, dots, geo-boards, a Right Start abacus, measuring with rulers and tape measures, weighing things in a balance, solving inequalities with "concrete" items, are all vital.

 

And not "drilling" young kids with a fixation on their learning "math facts", which is what I understand they are criticizing as "workbook" math, is also a point well taken. I cringe when I read the threads about distressed mothers who's young kids don't "know their math facts" and I wonder if the approach is all wrong?

 

But children hardly need to be 10 years old to begin to make the connection between "concrete" manipulative and the "abstractions" of numerals and notation. A young child's mind can link concrete to abstract, in fact making this link is essential. That, and critical thing games, learning patterns, shape puzzles, and understanding how base-10 works, can all be done early. And I believe these sort of "mathy" activities help wire the brain for future math success.

 

But just holding off on math until a child is 10, I believe, would be a huge mistake.

 

Bill

Edited February 2, 2009 by Spy Car
un-killing a cat

[Laura Corin]

 

But children hardly need to be 10 years old to begin to make the connection between "concrete" manipulative and the "abstractions" of numerals and notation. A young child's mind can link concrete to abstract, in fact making this link is essential.

 

Calvin was in a Montessori school for a year and learned absolutely nothing in maths: he made no connection between the concrete (blocks, beads, etc.) and the maths he was supposed to be learning. His best friend learned an enormous amount using the same materials that year. If someone had explained to him, say, that he was working on squares and square roots, he would have learned, but just learning-by-using-manipulatives is not how his brain works.

 

Laura

[Gwenny]

This idea really intriques me. I love the idea of delaying math. Not delaying practical and hands on math, but the drill, the written math, and rote memorization. As a previous poster mentioned, she taught herself math for nursing school. I had to do the exact same thing! It is shocking the simple math that I could not perform (and I was an honor student)! I knew how to pass my highschool tests with A's and not understand a thing.

 

Now that my daughter is in K, we informally do math and read lots of "living math" books and she understands so much better than I do already.

 

In VA, we have to test yearly and I'm not sure how I could continue to do this. I opted her out of K this year (even though we do K work), and then next year I can say she is in K (but really do 1st grade work). This would only give me an extra year before I test. I just bought MOTL because I think it has a lot of ideas for teaching math practically and concretely, and it has no workbooks. I haven't recieved it yet, so I can't tell you much more than that about it.

 

I'm going to try to find the Bluedorn book as it seems to go along with my own personal philosphy. To bad the library doesn't have it.

Gwen

[Mallory]

We do a math lab idea for the early grades- and I think Miquon fits in with this idea especially if you really use it as written, NOT as a series of workbooks. The Get a Grip lentil kit from TOPS is fun too, as well as game books like Family Math or Games from Math.

 

We have lots of math things available- dominos, geoboards, the lentil kit, balances, rulers, compasses, Miquon, rays, holey cards, geometric shapes, living books, and on and on ;)

 

We are all pretty mathy, and math has never been a fight around here, but they just pick something to explore and we mess around and talk about it. There is a place they have to check off that they did "math" today and occasionally I might pick something for them or encourage them to finish a book they started, but for the most part math is playing!

[Spy Car]

I think Miquon fits in with this idea especially if you really use it as written, NOT as a series of workbooks.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I could not agree more!

 

This means reading and implementing the "ideas" and approaches contained in Lore Rasmussen's 3 Miquon "teachers books": Lab Annotations, Note to Teachers, and First Year Diary.. The Miquon method (especially if adapted and expanded by an involved teaching parent/learning partner) is an amazing way to teach math concepts to a young child without throwing "the baby out with the bath-water".

 

Personally I wouldn't get within a 1000 ft of a Bluedorn book, as I find there ideas odious in the extreme. Mileage there may vary.

 

Bill

Edited February 3, 2009 by Spy Car
typos

[Lovedtodeath]

And not "drilling" young kids with a fixation on their learning "math facts", which is what I understand they are criticizing as "workbook" math, is also a point well taken. I cringe when I read the threads about distressed mothers who's young kids don't "know their math facts" and I wonder if the approach is all wrong?

:iagree::iagree:

[Novafan]

My boys' first introduction to math was in Montessori school and this is similar to what they experienced there. I am highly impressed with the Montessori method, especially when it comes to math. I try to keep that element available to my boys, but we have also transitioned to traditional math in our home. They are working through Singapore math. We're lucky so far in that math is not only not painful, my boys love math and do it without any distress. But, I think that has to do with that foundation that they received in their Montessori school and I believe that their school did a wonderful job bridging the concrete math (using the classic Montessori materials and lessons) to the abstract math (problems on paper or in their head). Sometimes I'm amazed at how well my boys "get" their math problems because they "see" it and truly understand it, it's not just memorized.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Novafan

[Rosie_0801]

I think this sounds like a wonderful way to approach math, but if you are a little nervous about teaching your own dc math without a math curriculum what would be the best math program to use?

 

How about Math on the Level? It's basically a packet of teaching guides. When and how you teach a topic is up to you, but there's a concept list so you know you aren't missing anything. Most kids, according to that program will start formal maths at around grade 1. The formal maths is limited but effective 5 problems per day. That can't hurt anyone :)

 

Rosie

[Karen sn]

This idea really intriques me. I love the idea of delaying math. Not delaying practical and hands on math, but the drill, the written math, and rote memorization. As a previous poster mentioned, she taught herself math for nursing school. I had to do the exact same thing! It is shocking the simple math that I could not perform (and I was an honor student)! I knew how to pass my highschool tests with A's and not understand a thing.

 

Now that my daughter is in K, we informally do math and read lots of "living math" books and she understands so much better than I do already.

 

In VA, we have to test yearly and I'm not sure how I could continue to do this. I opted her out of K this year (even though we do K work), and then next year I can say she is in K (but really do 1st grade work). This would only give me an extra year before I test. I just bought MOTL because I think it has a lot of ideas for teaching math practically and concretely, and it has no workbooks. I haven't recieved it yet, so I can't tell you much more than that about it.

 

I'm going to try to find the Bluedorn book as it seems to go along with my own personal philosphy. To bad the library doesn't have it.

Gwen

 

Well - I wonder if you can get in under a group.

I have heard that here in Tennessee I can get in with The Farm instead of doing those stupid tests with the state. In Florida all we had to do was show progress and be evaluated by a FL teacher. My childhood friend is a teacher so it was easy! And she was impressed with what we do as well.

 

I think they're called umbrella schools.

[Heather in VA]

I think Shiller math probably comes the closest to this. It is Montessori based (much more so than RightStart) and allows a child to see and connect the concrete to the abstract. My older two girls went to a Montessori school and both have an excellent math foundation.

 

I saw Laura's post about Calvin learning nothing in his Montessori math program. Knowing that Calvin is a bright kid, I have to assume that the materials were not presented properly to him. It isn't a manipulatives only program. The child still needs to be guided to understanding the connections etc.

 

Heather

[Maria/ME]

I SO agree with the Bluedorns on the Math/Grammar subject, and appreciate this topic coming up. Reinforces more in my mind.

 

Our history:

 

My dd went to K where I could just SEE that math was confusing her. For heaven's sake they were teaching them money! She had no basis for comparison and could not "see" those number in her head. AFter K we started homeschooling. We did Saxon. Oh, she could memorize, but I could see the confusion and how much it upset her. Abstract and solid answers are not how my daughter thinks. She likes to answer essay's and think about IDEAS. So I came across the whole Bluedorn idea and "delayed" math. (I don't care for that name...but there it is...) Of course, we still used manipulatives, talked about numbers, talked about mathematicians and what they do. I wouldn't say math was a huge part of our lives, but it was there...waiting...and I took this same approach with Grammar. She just was NOT getting FLL at all. Frustration all over the place.

 

And my own experience I did not want to be hers. I have terrible memories of not understanding math, staying in recesses working on math...hating it, feeling inadequate. And guess what? At age 40 I grabbed Saxon high school algebra (which I flunked 20 years ago) and LOVED It. I GOT it. And my daughter saw how much fun I was having. And she wanted to know about negative numbers and she said "WOW!! Math is SO cool!"

 

Anyway....I understand the poster who felt nervous teaching math w/out a curriculum. I get that. I have purchased Right Start (I don't know about Shiller but I'll check out that link!) and she was still not ready for that about a year ago. But I love it. I understand math better because of it. Please check out Living Math. There are some great ideas to follow over there and a loose curriculum set up. YOu can also purchase a curriculum now, I believe, too. You CAN do this.

 

Ten isn't a magical age either. My dd is almost 11 and just starting some basic interest in math. It's just starting....very slowly...to click w/her. I practice "strewing" math books around the house to pique her interest (those recommended by Living Math) and we have been delving into Math History (per Living Math) and she loves history...so math has come alive for her and is making sense to her as to WHY we need to use it....

 

Meanwhile, per Grammar. Analytical and Jr. Analytical Grammar are very much behind the "delayed" theory. I haven't found anything else that works with that, and while I k now this thread is about Math I would be very interested if anyone has any other suggestions per Grammar (or perhaps I should start a thread on that...)

 

That having been said: I know of kids who EAT UP math at a very very young age. I say if they are ready and want math problems and "get" it,then go for it. I do believe, (based on nothing but my own observations) that would be the minority of children. (Like my friends son, who at age four said "Hey mom! Four sets of Four is sixteen!")

 

Sorry this may be a bit disjointed...I wanted to respond before dashing off to make supper... Sorry!!!~Great thread, Great ideas!!~

Edited February 2, 2009 by Maria/ME

[Lovedtodeath]

Easy Grammar starts in 3rd grade, and doesn't start diagramming until Jr. High.

 

I wonder if Math on the Level and Living Math are similar to what MFW offers with their integrated math activities.

 

Rosie, thanks for mentioning Math on the Level.

[Marylou]

Thanks for all the replies. I've learned a lot.

 

Donna

[Karen sn]

I SO agree with the Bluedorns on the Math/Grammar subject, and appreciate this topic coming up. Reinforces more in my mind.

 

Our history:

 

My dd went to K where I could just SEE that math was confusing her. For heaven's sake they were teaching them money! She had no basis for comparison and could not "see" those number in her head. AFter K we started homeschooling. We did Saxon. Oh, she could memorize, but I could see the confusion and how much it upset her. Abstract and solid answers are not how my daughter thinks. She likes to answer essay's and think about IDEAS. So I came across the whole Bluedorn idea and "delayed" math. (I don't care for that name...but there it is...) Of course, we still used manipulatives, talked about numbers, talked about mathematicians and what they do. I wouldn't say math was a huge part of our lives, but it was there...waiting...and I took this same approach with Grammar. She just was NOT getting FLL at all. Frustration all over the place.

 

And my own experience I did not want to be hers. I have terrible memories of not understanding math, staying in recesses working on math...hating it, feeling inadequate. And guess what? At age 40 I grabbed Saxon high school algebra (which I flunked 20 years ago) and LOVED It. I GOT it. And my daughter saw how much fun I was having. And she wanted to know about negative numbers and she said "WOW!! Math is SO cool!"

 

Anyway....I understand the poster who felt nervous teaching math w/out a curriculum. I get that. I have purchased Right Start (I don't know about Shiller but I'll check out that link!) and she was still not ready for that about a year ago. But I love it. I understand math better because of it. Please check out Living Math. There are some great ideas to follow over there and a loose curriculum set up. YOu can also purchase a curriculum now, I believe, too. You CAN do this.

 

Ten isn't a magical age either. My dd is almost 11 and just starting some basic interest in math. It's just starting....very slowly...to click w/her. I practice "strewing" math books around the house to pique her interest (those recommended by Living Math) and we have been delving into Math History (per Living Math) and she loves history...so math has come alive for her and is making sense to her as to WHY we need to use it....

 

Meanwhile, per Grammar. Analytical and Jr. Analytical Grammar are very much behind the "delayed" theory. I haven't found anything else that works with that, and while I k now this thread is about Math I would be very interested if anyone has any other suggestions per Grammar (or perhaps I should start a thread on that...)

 

That having been said: I know of kids who EAT UP math at a very very young age. I say if they are ready and want math problems and "get" it,then go for it. I do believe, (based on nothing but my own observations) that would be the minority of children. (Like my friends son, who at age four said "Hey mom! Four sets of Four is sixteen!")

 

Sorry this may be a bit disjointed...I wanted to respond before dashing off to make supper... Sorry!!!~Great thread, Great ideas!!~

 

I really like what I saw and heard on the Analytical Grammar site.

I am interested in the Jr.

But no where on her site could find how to order or the cost.

 

Are you starting a "delayed" grammar thread? I'd join in on that one as well!

 

ETA - where did you start her (yourself) in Right Start?

And could you list a few of your favorite living math books?

My dd is 11 and while we have always discussed math and gammar, we are just now "getting serious" and you seem to be on the same page of introduction but with more knowledge.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Karen sn

[ekarl2]

I really like what I saw and heard on the Analytical Grammar site.

I am interested in the Jr.

But no where on her site could find how to order or the cost.

 

 

 

We're in the process of redoing our web site (woo hoo!). There are links down the left-hand side of the page, the top-most says "Order Now." You may have to scroll up to see it. Jr. AG is $39.95 for the set (teacher and student).

 

Blessings,

[Maria/ME]

Karen sn:

 

HA, Ha, ha....that "more knowledge" part...I don't know about that...:D

 

Junior Analytical Grammar(JAG) sample can be downloaded on their site. Go to the left hand menu bar under the highlighted (in yellow) SAMPLE section. Oh, I'm glad to hear the site is being revamped!! Also check out the video on JAG, HERE. Or if that link doesn't work click on Product Info Videos. To order and find prices go to Order Now. Student workbook and teachers book is 39.95. It's a good fit for where we are.

 

My dd is almost 11 and I agree, we're just getting serious about math and grammar. Math, lately, has been more about books, history and going down any road my daughter wants (negative numbers, subtraction, multiplying using chocolate chips (weird they keep disappearing!) and finding patterns in numbers). I really have to refer again to Living Math site for some of my favorite books. (You'll really love this site,b ut it does take some time to sit down and really peruse it...grab some coffee and a few minutes alone!)

 

Check out the Math Reader List. Some of the books are a bit "young" for us and you can tell that right away... We like Sir Cumference books altho we haven't read all of them. Any of these seem to be at her level of interest. Sometimes the concepts are beyond her reach, but she loves the story's and it seems she remembers them. I'm hoping the ideas expressed will come to mind later as "pegs" on which her brain to connect with, kwim? These are two more I really like: Mathematicians are People Too and What's Your Angle, Pythagoras? Oh, and the Grapes of Math we liked....she sat with that and found patterns of her own, not expressed in the book. Oy. Math wants me to have "set" and "correct" answers and not come up with my own! But I allowed her the freedom to play with numbers and shapes even if it's not the "right" answer the book wanted...I was just happy she was finding patterns and designs and figuring out number on her own!

 

Check out the Lesson Plan section of Living Math for an overview of how Julie suggests teaching math. She has a written curriculum HERE. But you can really just use her suggestions and the websites given,too. (Personally, I'm better at buying something as a guideline, but many just use suggested stuff on her site and go with their own flow.) So far, this seems to be working for us. If nothing else my daughter is showing more of an interest in math and is not scared of numbers. She gets frustrated with worksheet/book stuff. She relates to history well.

 

Oh, you asked about Rightstart...we've put that on the shelf for awhile, but I started with Level B and I got most of the manipulatives. I found it more time intensive for ME as I was re-learning a way to teach...but the book gives the parent/teacher prompts and really helps you teach the concepts. Don't skip any, either! I tried and found I had to go back...they build a good foundation.

 

I should start a thread on delayed academics...but right now, I have a ton to do...but here and here are two good articles, with some resources.You could try a google "delayed academics" and go from there.

 

I would be interested on how many people here at WTM follow or loosely follow such an idea. Homeschooling gives us such freedom for our children, doesn't it?!

 

I'd love to exchange ideas and thoughts now and then as to how your journey goes in math/grammar. Please feel free to PM me any time!

[Reya]

This is true only when math is "taught" badly.

 

Then again, it's usually taught badly.

 

Forget delaying it--just teach it right the FIRST time.

[CookieMonster]

I understand what they are saying (I just skimmed that article, FTR), but I think you could go too far and do your student a disservice following their advice. (Not that anyone here will, but I could see how it could happen.)

 

For me, the gist of what they are saying is that workbook math doesn't actually teach much to young children. Translation: abstract numbers on a page only go so far. I agree with this. But, for me, I'm not comfortable throwing out the math curriculum until 6th grade. I also don't think it's necessary. I think what is missing from the workbook math program is concrete examples. Generally, we put away our oranges, apples, cars, and blocks after Kindergarten. They should be left on the table and used as often as a child desires and needs them for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division - for every single problem on the page if the child wants, up to fifth grade. If a child does 5 divided by 1 with counters every single time, because she can and it's encouraged, it will not take her long to internalize the reality of the abstract numbers and symbols. She will know what it means - as opposed to just knowing how to satisfy a rubric.

 

I don't see any reason to completely toss a math program out of my curriculum. I do see reason to supplement with counters, living math, and mental arithmetic. Doing so would result in a student who understands mathematics.

 

Just my $.02.

[Marylou]

This article is almost a year old, but I just found it this morning.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-03-13-math-panel_n.htm#chart

[Cabertmom]

Very interesting article. It seems that it would tend to support the Bluedorn's idea, doesn't it?

 

We are currently using Analytical Grammar and love it. I guess you could say that, other than conversations on grammar (which I really enjoy), we did do delayed grammar, and it has been great for us.

 

I would, however, feel quite trepidatious about doing the same thing with math. Maybe that's simply because I'm not as confident about how to teach math as I am with grammar.

[Bloggermom]

I wanted to bump this up because I am planning to go this route with my 6 year old. He just uses Dreambox and Math Whizz and I am holding off all workbooks until he is at least 8.

[silliness7]

We don't get serious about math until 4th grade (age 9) when we start Saxon. I use a BJU work text and we do 1 page per day. It's super fast, super easy. If my dc have trouble with anything we get out some manipulatives and work problems that way. If there is something on the sheet we can't do because I don't have the teacher book or some kind of special manipulative they require we skip it. I'm basically looking for a very simple and painless introduction to numbers and the various ways we use them. I don't trust myself to do this "naturally" while doing life so I do have a workbook but I don't assign it as independent work. I use it to talk about math WITH my young dc. 10 min. max for 1 page. This does free up tons of time for reading out loud, listening to them read out loud, talking about books and memorizing poems and Scriptures.

Edited March 3, 2011 by silliness7

[wapiti]

My boys' first introduction to math was in Montessori school and this is similar to what they experienced there. I am highly impressed with the Montessori method, especially when it comes to math. I try to keep that element available to my boys, but we have also transitioned to traditional math in our home. They are working through Singapore math. We're lucky so far in that math is not only not painful, my boys love math and do it without any distress. But, I think that has to do with that foundation that they received in their Montessori school and I believe that their school did a wonderful job bridging the concrete math (using the classic Montessori materials and lessons) to the abstract math (problems on paper or in their head).

 

We have had the same experience with Montessori math. It is also worth noting that Montessori can be implemented poorly, etc., and not all teachers are equally effective (keeping my fingers crossed yet again with a new teacher for one of my kids). However, I have seen a bit of inconsistency in our school once the student is finished with the usual montessori materials. Ironically, math is one of the reasons I pulled my fourth grader out of the same school and we are now hs-ing. Still, I couldn't be happier with the foundation in math for the early and very early years.

 

This experience prompts me to highly recommend math with manipulatives especially for the younger students, until that foundation is laid. The time for that will vary from student to student.

[BeachyMum]

This is a very interesting thread. My oldest child was scarred by drilling math facts (ps, part of K) and then Saxon. We moved on to Singapore and the more creative, colorful approach really resonates with her.

 

I wanted to mention that they have some books that are Kindergarten Mathematics Readers that are wonderful as well as a set appropriate for grades 1-5. I bought them on the Singapore website, and since they are essentially literature and not worksheets/flash cards/standard math manipulatives, they have eliminated 'math anxiety' from my older two children's lives. The best part? They are learned SO MUCH!

[Mommyfaithe]

I think they are half-right.

 

Young children do need concrete ways to "see" numbers. So thing like Cuisenaire rods, tally sticks, dots, geo-boards, a Right Start abacus, measuring with rulers and tape measures, weighing things in a balance, solving inequalities with "concrete" items, are all vital.

 

And not "drilling" young kids with a fixation on their learning "math facts", which is what I understand they are criticizing as "workbook" math, is also a point well taken. I cringe when I read the threads about distressed mothers who's young kids don't "know their math facts" and I wonder if the approach is all wrong?

 

But children hardly need to be 10 years old to begin to make the connection between "concrete" manipulative and the "abstractions" of numerals and notation. A young child's mind can link concrete to abstract, in fact making this link is essential. That, and critical thing games, learning patterns, shape puzzles, and understanding how base-10 works, can all be done early. And I believe these sort of "mathy" activities help wire the brain for future math success.

 

But just holding off on math until a child is 10, I believe, would be a huge mistake.

 

Bill

 

yep. :iagree::iagree:

 

some kids can think abstractly...and some, like me, take a looong time to get there. I think you can teach things informally most of the time as a homeschooling parent. How could you even help it. Learning doesn't stop because we leave the school room. I don't think waiting until 10 to discuss mathematical ( or grammaical) concepts does anyone a favor, but jumping into a workbook program from day 1 isn't the best of all worlds either. It comes down to meeting the child where they are and then bringing them along for the journey.

 

Faithe....