Math on the Level versus Rightstart

[Marsha]

Can anyone compare these two?

 

Which is easier to use?

[Lovedtodeath]

Intriguing question. I think that RS is less expensive and requires less planning, but between the two I would still buy Math on the Level, personally. I don't really know anything. Here's bumping you up!

[chaik76]

Intriguing question. I think that RS is less expensive and requires less planning, but between the two I would still buy Math on the Level, personally. I don't really know anything. Here's bumping you up!

Ooh...why?

 

ETA: Okay...just looked up Math on the Level. There's no way that program would ever work for us, lol!

Edited April 27, 2009 by chaik76

[Lovedtodeath]

Learning at my child's level through real life events with only 5 worksheet problems sounds great. RightStart is hands-on learning, with games and an abacus, but I like the idea of the flexibility and real life application of MOTL.

[chaik76]

Learning at my child's level through real life events with only 5 worksheet problems sounds great. RightStart is hands-on learning, with games and an abacus, but I like the idea of the flexibility and real life application of MOTL.

I think it looks like a really good program...we would just never implement it!

I'm looking at RightStart for next year, just because I. likes hands-on and I love the way they work with groups of numbers. Of course...we're already using both Abeka and Singapore...and both are going fine, so I don't even know why I'm looking!

[PeterPan]

Marsha, I just glanced over Math on the Level here, just to see if I could help. I haven't seen it in person, only the online samples, but I can definitely contrast it to RS having used levels A-D and owning E and Geometry.

 

I guess my major concern is about the many things I notice conspicuously missing.

-There are no thinking questions, no prompts for what you ASK the student to get them to think. RS gives you dialogue for exactly what to say to lead the student into discovering the concept. RS then gives you MORE questions so the student sees it from more angles. It's not enough just to understand at the most basic level; they need to solve it again another way, think of more possibilities. RS does this. MOTL seems more didactic, showing you ways to present it but not actually helping you with the dialogue, the way you interact with your kids. In that sense RS would be much easier to teach.

-The text of MOTL seems very chatty, not professional, and sounds like the way I would explain things if I were writing a math tm. That's fine-if that's what you want- but you should know I'm not a math major and not qualified to write a math manual. Makes me think this person isn't either. Which brings up a bigger issue: I couldn't find the author's qualifications or basis for writing this. I have no qualms with homeschool-generated material, but math is WAY TOO IMPORTANT to leave to chance, haphazardness, or oops, kwim? I want something tested, something standard, something I know works.

-Their 5 a day review approach sounds dandy, but it appears you have to select the 5 yourself from different topical pages. That would take too much time in our house.

-The benefit of the "home-style" instruction gets lost in the upper and more abstract levels, say fractions, where they revert to presentation much like any other traditional tm.

 

I'll go out on a limb, since I haven't even had my early morning pick-me-up, and say I wouldn't dream of using this. It might work out great for someone, but I see a lot of potentially severe problems.

-shallowness of the presentation, lack of connections (fractions, division, etc. interconnect and a good presentation by a person who knows math will focus on that understanding and making those connections)

-too much effort for the mom to pull together the reviews

-too open-ended as far as the amount of daily practice. Although some bright children need less, I think many kids, even bright/gifted/advanced kids, need MORE practice than the mother generally thinks. There can be a disparity between their conceptual ability and what they've actually nailed down. It's too easy for the inexperienced mother NOT to do enough. Curriculum is there for a reason and the quantities are there because they are generally the amounts kids have been found to need to do to succeed. The further I go in this adventure, the more convinced I become of that. You can count on one hand the number of people who come on this board and find themselves dramatically (and I mean dramatically) chopping down the amount of work. Most kids just need to do the work, and having it all planned out and ready to go is a help, not a hindrance.

-The conceptual teaching is not enough superior to justify using it as a supplement for a more standard curriculum. On the other hand, RS has their original format book Activities for the ALAbacust that WOULD make a terrific supplement to a more basic approach. Arranged topically, it would be quite easy to use as a supplement.

 

Marsha, you have older dc, right? Have you looked at the MOTL samples to determine if you would feel comfortable teaching from it? I hate to slam it so hard, since it's something you were interested in. But to me, it brings lots of potential problems without bringing anything superior to the equation to make it worth the added hassle. The home-style presentation options to me seemed lame, like things I could have thought up myself. If you want easy, with hands-on, conceptual teaching, a clear tm, and a standard progression, why not look at BJU? I tell you as I looked at that MOTL, all I could think of was how the BJU math has ALL THOSE THINGS but in a professionally written tm with lots of thinking questions, plenty of practice, color pages for visual learners, interesting themes, etc. Sometimes people go a long way trying to recreate something that was already there. RS is good, BJU is good. You can get a sense for RS by looking at their samples. It is straightforward to teach, very interactive, and my favorite at the earliest levels. I really like the BJU math we are doing now. It's so balanced with conceptual teaching, hands-on, thinking, visual, etc. I just think you can't go wrong with it.

 

Don't know if that solved your problem or not, but there you go. You should fill out your sig so we know more about you and can understand what your situation is. I know I've seen you around here, but I can't remember the details. :)

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

I own MOTL (have read most of it but haven't really started implementing it yet) and RS level A. I have done part of level A with my oldest. My plan is to buy Activities for the AL Abacus and add those strategies in to MOTL. I also own a book about the Singapore approach (can't remember what it is called) and I want to add some of those ideas in as well.

 

I love, love, love the RS philosophy but the scripted lessons in a specified order are just not working for us. The activities often feel too contrived. This is something that I don't like about many other curricula as well. So far, playing games and learning in a more natural fashion has worked the best for us. I guess we just are not "lesson" people. Which is why I like MOTL. It gives me the tools to teach dd math in a way that feels more natural to us. Plus, *I* get to choose the order in which to teach.

 

There is going to be a considerable lesson planning time added to my weeks, especially since I'll be adding in some other approaches. I like planning though, so this is a plus for me. RS would have much less lesson planning time involved and in that respect would be easier to use. Actual lessons from RS would probably take longer. In both cases the teacher would be interacting with the student the entire time.

 

As far as review, it is built right into the program. That's what the 5-a-days are for. A topic does not get put on the 5-a-days until the student understands it well. And when it does, MOTL has a very organized approach for record keeping that helps mom decide how often to review each topic. This is one of the ways that MOTL is tailored to fit your student.

 

That's all I can think of right now. If you have any other specific questions just ask them. :)

[razorbackmama]

Learning at my child's level through real life events with only 5 worksheet problems sounds great. RightStart is hands-on learning, with games and an abacus, but I like the idea of the flexibility and real life application of MOTL.

 

I haven't used RS, but I have used MOTL. The 5 problems a day are for review only. When it comes to learning of new concepts, the child will most likely have to do more.

[razorbackmama]

Marsha, I just glanced over Math on the Level here, just to see if I could help. I haven't seen it in person, only the online samples, but I can definitely contrast it to RS having used levels A-D and owning E and Geometry.

 

I guess my major concern is about the many things I notice conspicuously missing.

-There are no thinking questions, no prompts for what you ASK the student to get them to think. RS gives you dialogue for exactly what to say to lead the student into discovering the concept. RS then gives you MORE questions so the student sees it from more angles. It's not enough just to understand at the most basic level; they need to solve it again another way, think of more possibilities. RS does this. MOTL seems more didactic, showing you ways to present it but not actually helping you with the dialogue, the way you interact with your kids. In that sense RS would be much easier to teach.

-The text of MOTL seems very chatty, not professional, and sounds like the way I would explain things if I were writing a math tm. That's fine-if that's what you want- but you should know I'm not a math major and not qualified to write a math manual. Makes me think this person isn't either. Which brings up a bigger issue: I couldn't find the author's qualifications or basis for writing this. I have no qualms with homeschool-generated material, but math is WAY TOO IMPORTANT to leave to chance, haphazardness, or oops, kwim? I want something tested, something standard, something I know works.

-Their 5 a day review approach sounds dandy, but it appears you have to select the 5 yourself from different topical pages. That would take too much time in our house.

-The benefit of the "home-style" instruction gets lost in the upper and more abstract levels, say fractions, where they revert to presentation much like any other traditional tm.

 

I'll go out on a limb, since I haven't even had my early morning pick-me-up, and say I wouldn't dream of using this. It might work out great for someone, but I see a lot of potentially severe problems.

-shallowness of the presentation, lack of connections (fractions, division, etc. interconnect and a good presentation by a person who knows math will focus on that understanding and making those connections)

-too much effort for the mom to pull together the reviews

-too open-ended as far as the amount of daily practice. Although some bright children need less, I think many kids, even bright/gifted/advanced kids, need MORE practice than the mother generally thinks. There can be a disparity between their conceptual ability and what they've actually nailed down. It's too easy for the inexperienced mother NOT to do enough. Curriculum is there for a reason and the quantities are there because they are generally the amounts kids have been found to need to do to succeed. The further I go in this adventure, the more convinced I become of that. You can count on one hand the number of people who come on this board and find themselves dramatically (and I mean dramatically) chopping down the amount of work. Most kids just need to do the work, and having it all planned out and ready to go is a help, not a hindrance.

-The conceptual teaching is not enough superior to justify using it as a supplement for a more standard curriculum. On the other hand, RS has their original format book Activities for the ALAbacust that WOULD make a terrific supplement to a more basic approach. Arranged topically, it would be quite easy to use as a supplement.

 

Marsha, you have older dc, right? Have you looked at the MOTL samples to determine if you would feel comfortable teaching from it? I hate to slam it so hard, since it's something you were interested in. But to me, it brings lots of potential problems without bringing anything superior to the equation to make it worth the added hassle. The home-style presentation options to me seemed lame, like things I could have thought up myself. If you want easy, with hands-on, conceptual teaching, a clear tm, and a standard progression, why not look at BJU? I tell you as I looked at that MOTL, all I could think of was how the BJU math has ALL THOSE THINGS but in a professionally written tm with lots of thinking questions, plenty of practice, color pages for visual learners, interesting themes, etc. Sometimes people go a long way trying to recreate something that was already there. RS is good, BJU is good. You can get a sense for RS by looking at their samples. It is straightforward to teach, very interactive, and my favorite at the earliest levels. I really like the BJU math we are doing now. It's so balanced with conceptual teaching, hands-on, thinking, visual, etc. I just think you can't go wrong with it.

 

Don't know if that solved your problem or not, but there you go. You should fill out your sig so we know more about you and can understand what your situation is. I know I've seen you around here, but I can't remember the details. :)

 

 

It is geared toward living math, which is why it's more conversational. That said, that is very much NOT my style, and there were some math concepts missing, which is another reason I switched.

[Emmy]

It is geared toward living math, which is why it's more conversational. That said, that is very much NOT my style, and there were some math concepts missing, which is another reason I switched.

 

What did you feel was missing from MOTL? I've been using MUS for the last 3 years and we are in transition to MOTL so I'm genuinely curious - I don't want to miss something.

[razorbackmama]

What did you feel was missing from MOTL? I've been using MUS for the last 3 years and we are in transition to MOTL so I'm genuinely curious - I don't want to miss something.

 

 

Oh yikes, you're going to ask me to REMEMBER something???:lol:

 

Are you on the MOTL yahoo group? A few months back there was a post from some mathy person about the things that she felt were missing and how she was planning to supplement. That's all fine and good since she knew what she was doing, but since I don't, nor do I have time to supplement all sorts of things, I ended up switchng to MUS.

 

There was something else I was going to say, but I got interrupted by the mail run, and now it's gone.:tongue_smilie:

[Emmy]

I am on the group - I will go back and look through the posts, thanks.

 

Don't tell me you are going back to MUS I just sold all 4 years of my stuff! LOL!

 

I really like the idea of MOTL and I see it working very well for us right now- my kids are ones that TOO much drill and workbook pages has them claiming "I hate math" -but I do worry that I won't be able to make it rigorous enough down the road.

[razorbackmama]

I am on the group - I will go back and look through the posts, thanks.

 

Don't tell me you are going back to MUS I just sold all 4 years of my stuff! LOL!

 

LOL well we didn't start out with MUS...this is just what we switched to after MOTL.

 

I really like the idea of MOTL and I see it working very well for us right now- my kids are ones that TOO much drill and workbook pages has them claiming "I hate math" -but I do worry that I won't be able to make it rigorous enough down the road.

 

What you MIGHT do is maybe use something as your "spine" of sorts, to make sure you don't miss anything, but then do it in the MOTL way.

 

I also found it VERY difficult to do the 5-A-Day reviews for 3 children, especially as the olders got into the upper level things and had lots of things to review. I do realize that I was doing some things wrong, but combining was pretty hard and time-consuming.