Reader comments
Singapore Math gains support

If you attach the name "Stephenson" to it, I automatically think it is a bad program and there is some ulterior motive behind it.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Maybe we can take the $3,000,000 + that was earmarked for "software for preschoolers" and use that to fund the math program.

Seriously, software for preschoolers?

I liked Singapore Math when I used it last year. However, the program's two books for first grade could be completed in less than a week with an average second grader who already knows the concepts. Singapore just doesn't have enough meat on its bones and needs a ton of supplemental material for in class practice and homework. I do like how visual it is, but I would always prefer to use Singapore as a supplement (just like Investigations should be used as a supplement) to a math program that is more complete. I want Saxon.

Of course if Stephenson likes to tout another supplemental program instead of a real world math program, who am I to stop the true educational juggernaut?

I strongly support Singapore Math. It works.

That being said the worst thing we could do is mandate this math state wide. If we do this we will be repeating the mistakes of big government before us.

One aspect of human nature is that of 'buy in' for lack of better words. When you have buy in you do your best, you go the extra mile, you pay attention, etc. When you don't, your performance will be pathetic.

It's like giving 50 yard line tickets to a BYU- Utah football game when you happen to be an SEC fan. Kindof fun and all but you could really care less.

If we force schools and teachers state wide to do this we will get very mixed results. Those that like the math program will produce incredible results. Those that don't, waste of money.

Let me also clarify that this article and legislation is only about doing a pilot program. That I mostly support. There has been some talk of changing our math state wide to this.

Won't happen, as well it shouldn't.

I hope this works but let's continue to allow local control in our schools.

Finally the decline in math education is about to be reversed. Singapore Math is a good first step.

The AP track in highschool also needs help. Years ago when I went to school, it was not required that everyone take algebra or geometry, now it is. As a result, these classes are not taught to the excellent standards they used to be, because trying to accomidate all students has made it difficult to keep up the high standards.

If we are going to have excellent scientists and engineers we can not teach substandard math, early math is where our future professionals learn their problem solving skills.

Singapore math should help "raise all boats". All students will be better off for this.

Anybody behind this should take a serious look at the Alpine School District's experience (experiment)with the Investigations Math Program. It too was touted as the latest and greatest Math Program to save our struggling math scores. This sounds eerily like that program which divided parents, students, legislators, and adminstrators in the district until it was finally abandoned after all the backlash. Waste of energy, time, and money.

Before you venture down the same road, you might want to ask for directions from those who have been there.

I am with you-- anything with Stephenson's name on it is auromaitically tainted-- does he have stock in the publisher of the Singapore books?

I would like the story to tell us more about what the program is-- because the description did not make it sound all that earth shattering of a concept, but it sounds interesting.

Sorry for the mispelling -- I meant automatically tainted (maybe I should have "aromatically stinks")

Hmmm. Let's see if you can guess which is fact and which is not fact, or story based on the DN story and some comments here:

1) "Singapore math" has southeast asian students scoring the highest in the world.

2) "Singapore math" is being implemented in a pilot program at an elementry school in West Valley.

3) Legislation is being proposed to provide funding for schools that implement "Singapore math".

3) "Singapore math" is not good for the students here in Utah because of who the sponsor of the proposed legislation is.

Facts can lead to real applicable solutions. Stories can create problems that then need facts to sort them out and solve. Got it?

This sounds like a good idea. We like the idea of trying new things to see if we can find a better approach. Still, like many things, I'm sure the devil is in the details. Until we know more details, about how this is taught and how effective it is, we won't know if it is worthwhile for larger scale implementation. It will be very interesting what the results the pilot program turns up.

What in the world do they teach the teachers for a 100 hours to the tune of $20,000??? While this may be a good program, some of the requirements sound a little suspect.

Anonymous: If you used Singapore math as a supplemental program last year and don't think it has enough "meat" on its bones, you don't get it. It is an extremely robust program and the key (that the article hinted at) is to have teachers and teaching methods trained correctly. considering it supplemental to Saxon or any other method is akin to saying the Utes are supplemental to the Cougs. Evaluating programs and choosing carefully makes sense, but you better get well educated first. Unfortunately, you're not the first who has made this mistake, so I doubt the whole program will have a fair evaluation.

Suspect: In the corporate world, that is what it costs for good training, it's not always like running your household. Monticello Academy had to fly in trainers to properly instruct the teachers in the Singapore method for an entire week before school started. They even invited other public school teachers to join in, some of which were very antagonistic and condescending to anything outside the box of their American math programs. Professional fees and costs, including airfare and lodging, really add up. But with Singapore math, which is very different from the programs here (where American graduates are falling further behind in the world market each year), to properly implement the program, the modalities, the philosophy, and the skills takes resources.

That's why I'm very pleased the state is considering it carefully. Choose it or not, at least we're pragmatically evaluating the decision first, based on its merits. It's nice to see the education leaders seeking out the best solutions from the rest of the world instead of ignoring the empirical data and assuming the sun rises and sets on our political follies for a change.

Joel,

I do get it. School lasts 180 days. The book which has three to five questions per page, had around thirty pages and the second around fifty. If I was going to teach two or three problems I could stretch it out over the course of the year. There just isn't enough meat to the program. What it does is introduce concepts in a very visual way leading to great retention.

Saxon does more.

Ok, a homeschooler weighing in here. I use Singapore with my kids, and have for several years now. It is a GREAT program as far as teaching mathematical reasoning, word problems, and true understanding.

It has very little teacher guidance in the main text or workbook. If you are good at math and explaining things, you can use it with no training - I've had none. Otherwise, especially implementing in a public program, I definitely see the need for intensive training.

The other issue with the series is that there is not enough practice provided in the series. There are supplemental books that are used in Singapore - which also schedules additional practice sessions for kids after main school hours.

Now for Saxon. I have not personally used it because it seemed like a poor fit for my kids and myself. How did I come to that conclusion? Reading many many reviews by fellow homeschooling parents. The general consensus is that Saxon is not as good as Singapore in teaching mathematical reasoning, word problems and flexibility in solving problems. Saxon shines in the practice provided, which continues to review older concepts as new ones are taught.

This program has a lot to offer. The best way to think about the difference between Singapore and �traditional� American math is that American math is �a mile wide and an inch deep�. Students are taught a little bit about a lot� with Singapore math, students are taught a lot about less. Worried? Don�t be. Students are taught to be excellent problem solvers and great thinkers. Most first graders in can�t verbalize story problems and connect them to numerals.

Granted, this is my first year (well, 2 months, really) with Singapore. But I can already see a difference. My students have a solid basis of numbers one to ten. That may not sound like much to an adult, but to an early childhood educator, that�s a lot.

Singapore can be used WITH supplements but CAN NOT BE the supplement.

Saxon may �do more� but they are learning less about that �more�. Take a look at the kinds of things 5th and 6th graders are ABLE to do with a Singapore background. Bet it would take you longer to solve the same problems with a tradition algorithm. I�ve seen it. I�ve tried it. I believe in it.

"this bit sounds suspect"-
The teachers in Singapore have to do 100 hours of professional development-- mostly in math (from what I understand) but it is ALL professional development. Utah teachers do 100 hours to renew their liscence. The reporter was just contrasting the difference (but left that part out-- lack of knowledge???)

If you think Singapore Math doesn't have enough meat - you aren't utilizing the entire program. There are teacher's manuals that outline the process of teaching, the example problems, and the use of manipulatives and games to reinforce the concepts. There are textbooks with examples and problems to be worked out. And the last step is the workbook that helps solidify the concepts through practice. There are also supplemental workbooks with challenging word problems which help teach complex concepts and get children thinking more logically which will help them when they get to algebra and more advanced maths beyond that. It certainly is a meaty enough program. And it will never have kids doing silly little games like the ones my daughter was asked to do with programs like Everyday Math. We need a math program like this. And we need teachers who are trained to teach math. Most teachers are trained to manage a classroom and don't know the intricacies of teaching math so students will understand and retain it.

I am trained to teach Math. I almost had enough of it for a minor. The school no longer teaches Singapore and has switched to Saxon because it was the meatier program.

Saxon had more meat on its bones, but it isn't for everyone as the home-school parent has mentioned. I don't know enough about the difference between the home-school Saxon program and its traditional school one, but do know how concrete it is. By sixth grade students have been doing most pre-algebra concepts and have them mastered. The research of its success is even longer than that of Singapore.

What the State should be doing is recommending BOTH programs. They should provide money for both because each program works differently for varying students.

How is it that, in the Des News, Howard Stephenson's name gets attached to things he has little, if anything to do with? Credit the educators who have been exploring and implementing this approach. Stephenson doesn't know his backside, or Singapore Math from a hole in the ground. Somebody is trying to paint Stephenson up to be something he isn't. (Actually, he isn't anything so something would be a real stretch.)