Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Everyday Math or Singapore Math

Happy to help.

We used Painless Geometry by Lynette Long. I just checked the book out of the library, so we didn't use a workbook, if there even is one attached to the book (???)... There are a few challenge problems, which is what I used to check his understanding, and I made up my own if he seemed to need more practice. (I maybe did that twice in 2 or 3 months.)

It is "real" geometry, not that dumbed down "this is a square" stuff that passes for elementary school geometry. It used all the real terms and required logical and conceptual thinking. It was lighter on proofs than a normal high school geometry class, but was otherwise pretty much what I remember from geometry class.

My highly visual, puzzle-oriented DS(then)6 loved it! It was much more appropriate for him given where he was in math than trying to memorize times tables, which was the next step that any standard math curriculum would require. That just wasn't working. He had a 6yo's speed and memory capacity, but he also had a desperate need for higher level thinking. Geometry provided a lovely detour!

If you decide to go the geometry route, I also strongly recommend working with pattern blocks, a bucket full of plastic or wooden shapes. Something like this: http://www.shopourchildren.com/browseproducts/Geometric-Pattern-Blocks.HTML

(Caveat emptor: I've never shopped this company and am not recommending them in particular--this is just the first good picture that popped up in my search!)

I got our set on sale, and it's one of the best purchases I ever made! They're great for geometry, fractions, squares/square routes, and multiplication/division work, but the kids also used them as toys, making their own Transformers and Bakugon characters out of them. For a solid year, they were out on my floor every single day for most of the day! They still play with them from time to time. A bargain at twice the price!

If I can help further, just let me know.

I'm envious, Dottie! It does sound like your school has it on the ball in that area.

I've not seen the AMC books, so I have no idea how hard those are. But if they stump you, I'm betting they'd leave me cross-eyed!

Bless your heart, Kriston, that looks perfect! (I knew I could count on you!!) The times tables really annoy Harpo--we've gone some other directions (math history, computational linguistics and other kinds of puzzles, Don Cohen's little calculus books)--but every time I try to circle back to multiplication, it gets ugly. Geometry sounds like an excellent solution--thanks so much for the idea, and for the recommendations.

peace
minnie

Aw! Thanks for the blessing! I need all the help I can get!

I had the same sort of trouble last year. DS(then)6 tried to learn the times tables, but it just wouldn't stick. He was growing to hate math because it was neither challenging nor fun...but boring and unpleasant. That seemed dumb to me, so I decided to try going off-road. Scary, but necessary!

Enter geometry, and it filled the gap beautifully. Happily, this year the times tables are coming easily. I really think there's a sort of sweet spot for that kind of memorization, and DS wasn't in it last year, but is this year. Hurrah!

So there's hope for your DS, too!

Do parents of gt kids complain that SM doesn't have enough reviews built in or are those parents of ND kids? I personally find it to have way too many exercises and reviews and we skip lots of them. The only thing we do rigorously are all challenging problems in CWP. We skip most of the other ones. We use only regular workbooks and CWP. I have two instructor guides but I didn't use them. I do own textbooks because the notation is somewhat different from what I was taught as a child.

As Kriston said some of the concepts do repeat and gt kid probably doesn't see any difference between counting up to 10,000 and counting up to 100, 000 but you simply ignore such chapters. At one point DS6 was working on chapters from both 4A and 5A at the same time since it made sense to go one step farther and cover it at the same time. We also do chapters out of order if possible whenever we feel in mood for something else than what's next in the workbook.

LMom,

I have heard a lot of parents of non-mathy kids (I don't ask for IQ scores- ha ha) say that Singapore's Primary Math doesn't have enough review. They are usually not using anything but the textbook/workbook combo.

This is what we do (two gifted kids -- one is "mathy") --
textbook, workbook, intensive practice

I find the Challenging Word Problems aren't more challenging than the word problems in the Intensive Practice books. The CWP books are too much review. I do have them, but I only pick and choose among the problems and only when added review is necessary for that kid on that particular topic.

I don't use the instructor's/home educator's guides because, quite frankly, the method is so obvious to me from the textbook. I do have most of the home ed guides and I have looked through them. I even tried to use them a few times. Mostly, though, I had already gleaned what I needed from the text and saw it simply put into words in the guides.

We sometimes only use the textbook. Sometimes a kid just seems to already know the topic and even the Sinagpore method for that topic (probably because the kids have used SM all the way through and they just picked up on the pattern). Sometimes I even just "throw" the book at the kid and let them do an exercise on their own (usually when they ask for that).

Sometimes we add manipulatives or a little extra review to a topic... drill or whatever... depending on what that kid needs for that topic.

Obviously I'm not going to criticize the way anyone uses Singapore's Primary Math curriculum, as we use it all those ways, too. Of course, if someone complains about SM not working and then admits that they don't try to use all of what is available to them for that particular topic (guides and additional Singapore books include more practice, ideas for games and using base-10 blocks, drill etc.), well then I have no sympathy. Ha.

I have a friend whose PG kid does Singapore curriculum on his own (textbook only) and sure seems to get the method from my point of view. Gifted kids don't always fit the rule, so flexibility is the key.

I prefered the instructor's guide but almost never used the textbook. It seemed to me to be colored pictures but little actual teaching.

I completely agree that it's good to have more options so we can meet the needs of the particular kids in question.

Vive la difference!

(No idea how to put the accent mark in there...Perhaps I shouldn't use foreign phrases that I can't type properly! )

WTM used to recommend Math U See, which I think suits visual spatial types very well. But the criticism I have heard over and over again is that MUS users score lower on standardized math tests. They learn things in a different order and (just my opinion, we used it for geometry years ago) they are not so thorough. I find it curious that WTM users are leveling negative comments at Singapore.

There really isn't one best program for every sort of kid. I think the most useful information is about content, structure, expense, etc. and not so much "this is good" or "this is bad".

I don't see a ton of negative comments about SM, but when I do, it seems it's more due to poor implementation. I think you (the proverbial you) needs to know the student. If they need more practice, add in EP or IP, play more games, add in manipulatives etc. I see the exact same comments about RS...again, it's not all laid out like Saxon math, you need to know your student. Some won't need anything, just through the books at them at let them go...others will need tons of review and seeing it several different ways....and all the others in between those 2 extremes.

Our school has offered my DS6 everyday math on CD for the computer for the summer. Apparently he complained that no math for a whole summer was too long. Maybe you can order the disc's through the co-op?