Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel Singapore Math is pretty perfect. For some reason, teachers dont love it. Homeschooling parents love it.

Homeschool mom of 4 here; did not love Singapore at all. Still a believer that more drill is needed in the younger years (although I think they may have added some to the US version after we abandoned it). Now moved on to AOPS.

I cannot believe you say there are not enough drills in Singapore math. Beside the textbook, there is a workbook, then an extra workbook, and the word problems books, these are not enough practice for you? Did you get the whole curriculum?

AOPS is not available for the littler kids.

Anonymous wrote:I feel Singapore Math is pretty perfect. For some reason, teachers dont love it. Homeschooling parents love it.

Homeschool mom of 4 here; did not love Singapore at all. Still a believer that more drill is needed in the younger years (although I think they may have added some to the US version after we abandoned it). Now moved on to AOPS.

No, In the second grade Singapore Math teaches multiplication table.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything is better than Everyday Math. It is horrid. I say this as a person who has taught Singapore Math to her kids, so I can see how important it is to conceptually understand math. It is a dumbed down, Americanized version of Asian math. It never teaches anything in depth. One day is measuring, the next day is shapes, the next day some problems involving money. It is taught on a superficial level. What the teach in third grade Everyday Math is taught in first grade Singapore Math (Marshall Cavendish version).

+1

I'm not defending Everyday Math in the least. We've had our problems with it. But is it really true that its 3rd grade level is what Singapore math teaches in 1st? My son just finished up 3rd grade as was doing triple digit multiplication through the lattice method. 328 x 427 = 140,056. There's no way he would have been able to do that in first grade. I was surprised he was doing it this year.

Yes, I think that was not entirely correct. My first grader in Singapore math is not learning multiplication of three-digit numbers yet, although she's understands the concept of multiplication.

What is the lattice method?

This. It's the only good thing about Everyday Math. I can find their odd algorithms online to watch and learn myself.... lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sL3er67G9g

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything is better than Everyday Math. It is horrid. I say this as a person who has taught Singapore Math to her kids, so I can see how important it is to conceptually understand math. It is a dumbed down, Americanized version of Asian math. It never teaches anything in depth. One day is measuring, the next day is shapes, the next day some problems involving money. It is taught on a superficial level. What the teach in third grade Everyday Math is taught in first grade Singapore Math (Marshall Cavendish version).

+1

I'm not defending Everyday Math in the least. We've had our problems with it. But is it really true that its 3rd grade level is what Singapore math teaches in 1st? My son just finished up 3rd grade as was doing triple digit multiplication through the lattice method. 328 x 427 = 140,056. There's no way he would have been able to do that in first grade. I was surprised he was doing it this year.

Yes, I think that was not entirely correct. My first grader in Singapore math is not learning multiplication of three-digit numbers yet, although she's understands the concept of multiplication.

What is the lattice method?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything is better than Everyday Math. It is horrid. I say this as a person who has taught Singapore Math to her kids, so I can see how important it is to conceptually understand math. It is a dumbed down, Americanized version of Asian math. It never teaches anything in depth. One day is measuring, the next day is shapes, the next day some problems involving money. It is taught on a superficial level. What the teach in third grade Everyday Math is taught in first grade Singapore Math (Marshall Cavendish version).

+1

I'm not defending Everyday Math in the least. We've had our problems with it. But is it really true that its 3rd grade level is what Singapore math teaches in 1st? My son just finished up 3rd grade as was doing triple digit multiplication through the lattice method. 328 x 427 = 140,056. There's no way he would have been able to do that in first grade. I was surprised he was doing it this year.

Anonymous wrote:Anything is better than Everyday Math. It is horrid. I say this as a person who has taught Singapore Math to her kids, so I can see how important it is to conceptually understand math. It is a dumbed down, Americanized version of Asian math. It never teaches anything in depth. One day is measuring, the next day is shapes, the next day some problems involving money. It is taught on a superficial level. What the teach in third grade Everyday Math is taught in first grade Singapore Math (Marshall Cavendish version).

+1

Anonymous wrote:Anything is better than Everyday Math. It is horrid. I say this as a person who has taught Singapore Math to her kids, so I can see how important it is to conceptually understand math. It is a dumbed down, Americanized version of Asian math. It never teaches anything in depth. One day is measuring, the next day is shapes, the next day some problems involving money. It is taught on a superficial level. What the teach in third grade Everyday Math is taught in first grade Singapore Math (Marshall Cavendish version).

+1

And like PPs have pointed out, whether a math program is aligned to common core standards really tells you very little about its quality. In fact, any one of us could pick up the standards for K or 1 at the very least and create an illogical, silly, and poorly designed curriculum around it that would provide children with a terrible introduction to math.

Everyday Math is just the worst. My kids' private school uses it and ugh! It is incredibly language heavy, both in the amount of reading and writing that is required, so if you are a slow reader or have any kind of language processing or handwriting issue, too bad! It can be really tough on ESL kids. There is also a heavy emphasis on having kids explain in writing how they solved a problem. Math has its own language. Requiring students to constantly translate their equations back into words is dumb.

It is called a "spiral curriculum" but it just seems disorganized to me. Literally 20 minutes in class might be spent on a concept before moving on to something else and then that same concept doesn't come up again for weeks. There is no time for mastery for slower learning kids so they spend a lot of time relearning each time a concept pop up, and there are limited opportunities for enrichment for advanced kids so they can be bored. Also there is little emphasis on learning math facts or standard algorithms. Certainly math should not be all memorization but having a solid foundation of those skills is necessary later for advanced math.

I have one advanced student who loves math but was bored by EM, and one struggling student who thinks he is bad at math because of EM. I don't know anything about Go Math but if at least the topics are organized conceptually and there is more time for mastery or enrichment that would be a huge improvement over EM.

I feel Singapore Math is pretty perfect. For some reason, teachers dont love it. Homeschooling parents love it.

Anonymous wrote:^^i also want to add we have been using go math for 4 years I think. Previously, we used Saxon. I can after that. My colleagues love to trash go math. They loved Saxon and still use some of the drills from that curriculum. This is 4th grade, and we find our kids don't learn multiplication well enough in third grade to move on. But we still do. My only issue with go math are the word problems being so far outside these kids life experiences. And the program is all word problems as per cc. It really creates this interference sometimes.

I would create my own word problems. More work, but in the long run worth it to keep from dealing with confused kids and irate parents.

Yes, like every other math curriculum you have to supplement with Go Math. Why it is not possible to create "the perfect" math curriculum, I couldn't tell you.

Anonymous wrote:Every curriculum can be common core aligned. My dd's school uses math in focus which is Singapore and cc aligned. And it is an independent private school.

I have taught go math. I found it tedious, but if you are a good teacher it gives you enough to work with for sure. If you are not...oh boy...it is just awful.

^^i also want to add we have been using go math for 4 years I think. Previously, we used Saxon. I can after that. My colleagues love to trash go math. They loved Saxon and still use some of the drills from that curriculum. This is 4th grade, and we find our kids don't learn multiplication well enough in third grade to move on. But we still do. My only issue with go math are the word problems being so far outside these kids life experiences. And the program is all word problems as per cc. It really creates this interference sometimes.

Anonymous wrote:But what do you call the math program followed by public schools? I call it CC curriculum because it was written for CC.

It depends on the school district as to what CCSS aligned math program they use. Could it be Go Math or Engage New York?

Every curriculum can be common core aligned. My dd's school uses math in focus which is Singapore and cc aligned. And it is an independent private school.

I have taught go math. I found it tedious, but if you are a good teacher it gives you enough to work with for sure. If you are not...oh boy...it is just awful.