Math curriculum

I may be able to help or i know someone that may beable to help you

Our entire school district uses the University of Chicago math program. The basis of the program is that “there is more than one way to skin a cat” (my analogy of course). As a parent I think it is wonderful and even my sons who are LD love math and they even have some math disabilities.

This program sounds wonderful. (but then on some days a ray of hope in any form does) Can you tell me how to find out more about it?
I do appreciate any information or tips you can give me.

Thanks :)
Michele

I wonder what kind of LD your sons have. My ds is in a school with Chicago math and she loves it, but my son would have floundered as it is very language intensive and he has a language disability. The mother of one of my daughter’s classmates tells me her ds also has a langague problems and is totally lost with Chicago—she was able to keep up (and do well) at her old district where they used Saxon math.

Hi Michelle,

Absolutely, here is their website (http://everdaymath.uchicago.edu) It is really great because it is not the tedious arithmetic that we parents are used to. It is games, hands-on and deals with the everyday things. Amazingly second graders are beginning to use algebra and not even knowing it. By the time they tackle actual algebra they are familiar with the basics. They also use many different strategies, games, etc for learning the basics which encompasses all of the different learning styles especially our kids with the learning differences. The kids have a ball. I wish I had this when I was a kid. I absolutely hated math because I could not retain everything that needed to be memorized. I’m really glad that our kids are using this program. Hope this is helpful.

Hi wondering,

My middle son (4th grade) has dyslexia (reading and writing difficulties, reversals, etc.) and auditory processing problems. His memory for retaining math facts and their operations is awful. But with the strategies, games, etc. that they apply toward mathematics in this program just help make things click. My younger son is in 1st grade and following his brothers path right behind him. Both of my son’s learning styles are definitely hands on which is emphasized in this program, a big bonus for us! And if one way doesn’t work for him, they offer another way. When I was a kid there was one way to do math problems and I never connected math to the real world and I hated it. Everyday math is what this program is based on. Please check out their website (http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu) also I know that SRA has another multi-strategy math program (www.sra-4kids.com) I’m a believer in options for math because I had to develop my own way of doing it since the traditional way I did not understand. Hope this is helpful.

I don’t know the Chicago Everyday Math program in person but have heard a lot of negative things about it both from this board and from other parents I know. The one school I looked into that was using it in Grades 5-6-7 did *not* have the high standard that would be expected — it was a private school I was considering sending my daughter to, and the math standard was actually lower than some of the public schools, not a selling point for this program.

Another program I don’t know in person, but I have heard very positive things about Singapore Math. It is supposed to be very visual and very applied, which is important.

Discussing problems and looking at various ways to solve them is absolutely vital — but then so is actually *doing* the math. This was a huge failing point of the New Math — there was lots of talk *about* math, but very little *doing* math.

And I am always skeptical of programs where people ooh and aah about these wonderfully advanced kids doing algebra in second grade — if they are so advanced, where are the kids doing calculus successfully in Grade 9?? They are not there, point blank. The kids may be doing multiplication and division and pre-algebra in Grade 2 — with the teacher guiding them and in actuality doing most of the work; and then in junior high they are frantically trying to catch up and get addition and subtraction and writing numbers straightened out so they can get into a basic high school program.

Having taught every grade in school as well as college, and working now as a private tutor, I would be MUCH happier to see kids in Grade 2 *using* addition and subtraction day by day and really mastering all the ins and outs of these two operations, until they knew them upside down and backwards. Then they could do multiplication in Grades 3 and 4 and master that absolutely so they didn’t have to learn it all over again, and division and fractions in Grades 5 and 6 and master that absolutely so they didn’t have to be taught it all over again — and then in junior high they would be able to do pre-algebra and algebra and fly through them, instead of frantically re-teaching every subject every year.

I think that you missed my point. First, if the school began using the program in grades 5-6-7 they were guaranteed to fail. The program is for grades K-6 and like anything must start from the beginning, not pick up somewhere in the middle. Second, algrebra as an academic subject and the using algebra are two different things. Algebra is dealing with general statements of relations, utiliziing letters and other symbols to represent specific sets of relations. Therefore, it CAN be applied to everyday situations and can be used by second graders with damaging them. And it is a positive exposure. I did not see my statement as bragging. I think that you might want to research the program thoroughly before condemning it. I also hope that you have first-hand knowledge of Singapore math before recommending. “I heard” statements can get you into dangerous situations. I was suggesting University of Chicago Math because all three of my children have been through the program. My daughter is in 6th grade and has been very successful in math. She has not regressed and had to be taught the basics over and over again as you claim. Our school report card also indicates that our math scores exceed many other schools in the state and it has been attributed to our math program of choice.

Hi!

I came across your emaail….I use Saxon 3 Math with my 4th and 5th grade students….I like this series because it deals with A LOT od hands on activities….it also uses a lot of manipulatives that the students seem to enjoy…now granted, my kids are quite low….EMR status…..so they often are off task…but if you have a decent group of well behaved students, it will work well…keep in mind though that it is VERY structured!

Matt

Well, I believe you may have missed my point too.

(1) You are absolutely right, of course the same thinking skills apply to problem-solving in kindergarten artithmetic and in college calculus, and one of the major problems in the majority of math teaching in North America is that there is too much copying and filling in and too little thinking being taught. Yes, definitely a problem-solving curriculum is a good thing. Difficulties occur when you go too far in *either* direction, too much rote memorization without any reasoning, *or* too much experimenting and talking without any grounding in fact. It is a fine line to draw. Apparently your school is working on a good balance, and that is excellent. Other schools that have used this program have been less successful according to the reports here.

(2) I have taught all grades K through college, and I now work as an on-call private tutor. A *lot* of kids, and schools, do well by certain measures in elementary, and drop like rocks in middle and high school. Doing well in Grade 6 is certainly good, but it is unfortunately not always a predictor of success later. I’d love to hear from you after your daughter and classmates have done Geometry or Algebra 2 and see how things are going then, how many are still successful in math and going on with science and technical subjects.

(3) There is a reason my post says “I heard”. I am a math teacher and I do attempt to be logical and exact in my statements, and yes, I am here reporting hearsay from other people posting on this board. You can take hearsay for what it’s worth, and that’s exactly why I phrased it that way.
On the other hand I do *know* from both experience and reading (check out, for example, the Third International Math and Science Study, TIMSS) that there is a big problem in North American schools in general in math, and one of the biggest parts of that problem is that elementary arithmetic is not mastered well so that much of middle school is wasted in re-teaching, and high school math cannot be learned because the foundations are lacking. The consistent North American pattern is good scores in Grade 4 especially on rote learning, weaker scores in Grade 8, and dreadful scores in Grade 12. Places that are successful in teaching math, all the way from Finland to Taiwan, follow much the same pattern: (a) problem-solving is central; classes consist of discussion and application, not filling out worksheets and test cramming; teachers are said to “develop the concepts” ie actually teach (b) a *few* topics are chosen for each year, and they are taught in depth and mastered; the school and teacher do not try to teach the entire math curriculum every year, but focus on one part of it and make sure it is well understood. From your description (see, this is hearsay too!) the Chicago math program is doing well on the first point of problem-solving, I don’t have any information about teaching time versus paperwork, and it still has the problem of focus

My child has a language disability and she does well with Saxon Math 1 in first grade. I am a special ed. teacher and some of our resource rooms are using it. I have read that Singapore is not great for LD kids; it is geared more for the advanced learner and is not very hands-on. But it apparently is very well planned and obviously gets good results for those who can use it! I wish I had saved the article but I didn’t.

Janis

I, too, have known kids with LDs who were utterly lost in the program because of the language demands, and because it didn’t provide enough practice. The theory behind it is fantastic, and when it works, it’s fantastic — but the needs of the kids left behind need to be addressed.

I guess then the Saxon might be good for the kids left behind. The one criticism I most often hear from parents of on-level learners is that there is too much practice and repetition in Saxon (boring). To which I say…then do a few problems to check for mastery and move on!!! Better to have it there for those who need it. Everyone else can do the amount necessary for mastery.

Janis

Have you tried Math Your Way? Cathy

Janis, Not sure Mary MN would agree that Singapore isn’t great for kids with LD. From her posts, however, I gather her daughter’s LD is more in the visual-spatial area, and not language. I’m wondering if the Singapore approach works better for visual processing LDs, while the Saxon approach works better kids with language LDs.

I continue to have doubts about Chicago math for any LD, however. It’s not terribly structured—bits of paper come home everyday that seem unrelated to the previous day’s paper. Have no idea how a parent with an LD kid could supplement at home to help their child succeed if they were floundering with Chicago math.

I have (perhaps unjustified) suspicions about curricula that depend on great teachers for success, particularly in elementary grade math. (I think Chicago math may fall in this category.) Very few primary school teachers ended up there because they are math whizzes. I prefer a curriculum like Saxon (don’t know about Singapore) that even a math phobic could teach successfully.

“wondering” writes

I have (perhaps unjustified) suspicions about curricula that depend on great teachers for success, particularly in elementary grade math. (I think Chicago math may fall in this category.) Very few primary school teachers ended up there because they are math whizzes. I prefer a curriculum like Saxon (don’t know about Singapore) that even a math phobic could teach successfully

I second you absolutely!! Even as a math person, when I first walked into that Grade 1 classroom I didn’t know everything to do and I certainly didn’t hjave six different ways to teach numbers readily available; good workbooks were a Godsend (even if I thought they were awful at first, I learned to appreciate the good presentation).

I have a theory about curricula in general, which I call the thirty-hour day/Martha Stewart theory: Lots and lots of experimental curricula have wonderful creative ideas and could be excellent, if the teacher and the student had thirty hours a day to spend on them. For those of us mortals who only have twenty-four hours and have to sleep, eat, and do five other classes, these curricula are doomed to failure, not because they are bad but because they overreach.
Or, it has been pointed out that Martha Stewart shows how to make all sorts of wonderful crafts in an afternoon, and you can do it too if you have a staff of forty behind the scenes. For those of us mortals who have to do our own shopping and picking up and other duties of life, it’s going to take a lot longer.

I have mixed feelings about the language-in-math issue.

On the one hand, the phrase “word problem” is redundant — out here in the real world, how are people going to give you things to work on? In cartoons? No, we use words all the time and that’s a fact of life. I use some old texts that I was lucky to learn out of, in which all the math is presented in story and diagram form; pure computation is only about 10% of the book, so you can’t lose sight of the meaning. I always ask when was the last time you were in an office and people were scrambling around frantically trying to get the worksheets filled in and graded? The answer of course is never, because worksheets and checking off answers are an artificial construct of schooling. In a business you are frantically running around asking for facts and measures that mean something. Using words to communicate math is vital.

On the other hand we had the disaster of New Math in the seventies, and one of the characteristics was that the books suddenly became three times as thick and twice as long and wide and twelve times as heavy; there was actually less math in them (I have examples), but was there ever a lot of verbiage! The problem with the way the programs worked out was that there was a lot of talking *about* math, but very little *doing* math. Teachers taught days and weeks of lessons just on memorizing definitions, without any sense of what these definitions might help you do. Formulas were presented as if they came from outer space and students were expected to memorize formulas and do reams of calculations for no clear purpose. Students saw math as endless years of memorizing pointless trivia and either gave up or worked as trained seals. The originators of the programs didn’t mean it to turn out that way, but like whole language, this is what happens out there on the front lines.

There has got to be a happy medium here! I’ve seen it done in my own schooling, I’ve done it myself, and I know it can be done. Part of it is the text — and what I have heard about Singapore math sounds good although I have to see it myself to make a definitive judgement — and part of it is what you decide to do with the text.

I know that Chicago math would be a disaster for my LD son!!!!

I bought Singapore math last summer and really liked it though. I thought there was a nice balance between concepts and practice. My son has both language based LD and visual spatial weaknesses. It uses lots of pictures which I liked. It doesn’t spiral like his regular classroom text which I liked. Unfort. I dropped it when school started—it is a lot better than what he is doing at school. I will use it as review next summer, I think.
I have never seen Saxon math so can’t comment on it.

Beth

Victoria, Great analogy! BTW—do you have any idea why Saxon math elicits knee-jerk opposition from some people whom you know have never looked at it? My observation is that they tend to be Everyday Math supporters and view themselves as progressives with regard to education. They seem to think that Saxon is a rigid, dry, drill and kill type series and are very outspoken against it. The books for fifth grade do treat math as a very serious subject (no color pictures) and are perhaps a bit dry, but the K-4 books are great—lots of hands on activities with manipulatives and applied problems plus (and this is very big but it shouldn’t be) a very incremental appraoch to word problems—students have one-step word problems every day for several years, then two-step problems are introduced and practiced thoroughly before three step problems are even attempted. Still, no color pictures…

I teach LD students- some have weaknesses in math because of various issues- memory, organization, sequencing, language processing, metacognition, visual spatial weaknessses, etc… Others are strong in math in spite of their language based LD. I use Addison-Wesley as the base of my program and I supplement it with creative activities including lots of movement and role playing, math journal, etc… My students do very well. I teach in a structured and multisensory manner.I provide guided practice and lots of repetition with practice until mastery. I engage their interest with my own enthusiasm as well as by adding the arts, movement, drama, etc… They practice at home. they learn their math facts with old fashioned flash cards, etc….Good Luck

I think you have it there.

Math phobia is epidemic in North America.
Most other countries have far less; American students attribute any math skill to innate ability and give up because they haven’t got it, while Asian students attribute math skill to hard work and therefore have high hopes for themselves — guess who is doing better in international comparisons?

If most elementary teachers are math phobic, and they are, and most parents especially mothers — women being conditioned to be even more negative about math — are math phobic, then they will be frightened of the math parts of the text and attracted to the ones with the most sugar-coating possible.

It’s been my experience in tutoring that once the negative underlying messages (You’ve been good so no math today) are out of the room, most students are greatly relieved when I drop the sugar-coating and help them get at what they really need to understand in the math. I often use black-and-white photocopies, or else my handwritten notes with simple dot drawings, and the students are extremely grateful to finally find out what is going on. They frequently ask me why their teacher couldn’t explain things *simply*.

*Good* use of colour, to emphasize meaning, is a positive thing, but colour pictures on every page do not always make a good math book.
Unfortunately texts are bought by eye by non-math committees — read the chapter in “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” about a Nobel Prize winners total disaster at trying to help his district choose new math texts during the New Math era.

Drill is also unpopular, as is anything that looks “hard”. Cuteness, bunnies, and leprechauns sell over good pedagogy.

Drill that is *too* easy, or drill that is too hard (so the kid’s guessing or trying to figure htings out, but feeling like the pressure’s on bcause it’s supposed to be fairly quick and automatic) are what gives folks bad memories.

My students almost universally really liked quick, appropriate drill. They could *see* the changes in what they could do as it got easier and easier.

And the real trick was always “making” them stop when they still wanted to do more.

It’s in how you do it, too. Saxon *can* be (and sometimes is) taught to the exclusion of understanding. Kids with LDs, especially, often need to be explicitly taught the connection bewteen those lovely symbols and the real world. THere is an awful lot of research that confirms taht an unfortunate majority of students in U.S. schools treat “life” math situations as completely separate from “math class” math. Students who will get A’s on fraction calculations will not be able to figure out what “one and a half” times something is.

Sue, This is the comment I’ve seen often on Saxon. I could at the margin see this with the books for older kids, but I really don’t see how you could get there with the Saxon K-4 books using the teacher manual. (K-4 have just workbooks no texts for the kids.) The teacher’s manual tells the teacher absolutely everything to say down to the last word and hardly a day doesn’t go past without real life applications being covered, usually pretty thoroughly. And this is in addition to the at least two real life application word problems the kids are expected to do everyday, as well as, on a daily basis, nonword application problems like reading a thermometer, ruler, interpreting graphs, writing checks, etc. These are all on the daily worksheets. Is your comment based on the Saxon books for the higher grades, or does it include these lower grade books as well? If it includes the lower grade books, I’d really be interested in a publisher that does a better job. (I’ve suggested to my son’s school that they junk the Harcourt Brace and take up Saxon. If you’ve seen a better series for lower grades I’d like to check it out. Singapore is out—the school is limited to an approved list of texts and it’s not on it.)

Here are the two main things I hear about Singapore math: ” It does not explain the concepts (they provide an example of what to do on top and the child copies it)-this method may work with some kids but not my son who needs things explained using words. 2) it does not have enough review )” (quote from a homeschool curriculum review site)

I guess this is the opposite of the Saxon complaints! I also just read an interesting article that reinforced something I think Victoria touched on earlier. The math teachers in Singapore are highly qualified. They have to take exams to qualify to enter teacher training. The article said that teachers here would be at a terrible disadvantage teaching something like Singapore as they just do not have the math background needed. It would take intensive training to be really effective. For the child who “gets” math concepts easily, it sounds good. But I will have to say that Saxon 1 is just excellent and I will concur with whoever wrote earlier, there are real life “word problems” on my child’s homework every single day. It does have more repetition which so far has been great for my child.

The last text the public schools here adopted were so filled with big graphics that I could hardly locate the math on a page! I went back to using the old Merrill Math books in resource because they at least had math in them!

Janis

Victoria,

The difficult language in Chciago math is not reading passages—there is no student text. Rather, the directions on worksheets are often linguistically complex—my son would not have been able to follow them on his own. My very verbal and bright (98th %iles verbal and quant on SAT-9) ds mostly can, but occasionally needs my help to figure out what they are asking. Also, Chicago is big on having children explain things in writing using words. For example, for second grade, “Why is the result of adding an even and odd number together an odd number?” I gather you do not have direct experience with Chicago and thought it may be helpful for you to understand why we consider it linguistically demanding, particularly for children with language problems.

As an aside, I think the language intensive nature of Chicago can hit these kids with a double whammy on their fragile little egos. They are struggling in reading and then when it comes to a subject they might shine in like math they get batted down again. It has been argued to me that even if these kids are like little calculators they really aren’t good in math and can’t be because that requires excellent verbal skills. I have been tempted to ask for the research cites supporting this view.

No, it was the higher levels. Landmark College does have an especially multisensory program for their LD grade school kids that might help cement the connections between symbols & concrete (yuk, pardon my pun) even more — but I really don’t have knowledge of the K-4 Saxon to draw on.

I find it interesting that they include in their ranking criteria a “math vs. cute graphics” factor.

Lol, Sue! Honestly, I just felt all the graphics confused the kids. Just as I never did understand why regular teachers spent an hour having kids find patterns in the concrete block hallway walls as opposed to learning basic math.:-) I mean, I’m all for practical, but these kids were not expected to learn basic math facts, ya know? They’d get to eighth grade and were still finger counting. Ugh!

Janis

No, I don’t know the program in person and won’t judge it until I do — but the Martha Stewart rule means programs with no student text are generally bad news (a lot of wasted time for the teacher organizing and copying and handing out those worksheets and collecting them and handing them back, forty minutes a day that could be much better applied to actually teaching)

I believe what I was saying agrees with what you are saying here. Yes, language is necessary, but aim at a happy medium, language that kids at that grade level have mastered fluently, ie less than their instructional reading.

My personal experience seeing people teaching programs that had excessively high language demands is that teachers either skip a lot of the work, leaving a piecemeal program, or do a lot of work for the students writing it on the board so the kids learn to copy great but don’t learn much of the subject matter. Or the kids take it home and the parents do it for them. Everyone wants to help, but if the program demands too much, the help can end up being counterproductive.

using visuals instead of manipulatives to illustrate concepts.

Saxon, in contrast, has been frequently criticized for over-emphasizing computational skills at the expense of concept development, especially in the primary grades.

The “not explaining concepts” actually refers to the fact that Singapore does not have scripted teaching manuals. This is not a major drawback except for people who are very weak in math, or math-phobic, because the coursebooks are self-explanatory in the primary grades.

Singapore provides plenty of built-in review. It just doesn’t engage in the “spiral review” approach of Saxon, which incorporates a *lot* of repetition in every lesson. Singapore instead teaches a concept to mastery before moving on, and builds in a lot of hidden review. Also, there are supplemental materials available for children who need more review and practice than the regular program provides.

Having said all that, Singapore is not perfect. We had to supplement fractions with Marilyn Burns’ new book (which, incidentally, is absolutely *wonderful*!) in order to get the concepts down solidly.

There is no “right” math program for all LD kids. A lot depends on the nature and severity of the LD. Some children need the daily repetition and review of Saxon. Dyslexics, however, are probably often better off with Singapore because it presents the “big picture” concept first, providing a framework of understanding into which to fit the details.

If I were to compare these programs to reading programs, I would classify Singapore together with Phono-Graphix, and Saxon together with Orton-Gillingham. One program is not bad and the other good, but the approaches are substantially different.

Mary

Would you share the title of M. Burn’s new book? Thanks, Cathy

“Lessons for Introducing Fractions (Grades 4-5)”. It’s about $18 on Amazon. It came out around August of last year.

Nothing worked until this book. My daughter even actually *enjoyed* the lessons. Her retention has been excellent.

Mary

on hand, so I didn’t have to scramble for them. It happens that Dinah Zike’s cover paper is exactly the right length (18”) to make the fraction manipulative sets, and we had it on hand. (http://www.rocksolidinc.com has the 18” paper if you need it.) Also, we had attribute blocks on hand, which are used in some of the middle chapters. (http://www.rainrowresource.com is one place to buy attribute blocks, and imho the wooden ones are worth the extra money.)

Mary