I can vouch for the Pearson products being internally consistent, but not necessarily "solid" in a way that sets up higher math learning.

Frankly, 90% of geometry and algebra II out of those textbooks was a colossal waste of time, as it didn't really teach much that was new. It was review of earlier concepts, and issuing postulates and theorems right and left, and-- as Val notes-- exercises including four or five types of problems with 7-10 different ways of iterating them. We didn't bother with those, as they were most inane "follow the steps in example 3" sorts of procedural questions, not thinking questions. We stuck with the "challenge" questions for my DD. She did about 60% of those in most chapters. It would have been nice if there had been more of those to choose from. I often made problems up.


Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.