Dear Inquirers,
I received an Email from Susan Bauer and with her permission am adding it at the end of my response.
I hope this helps you make an informed choice regarding Math·U·See. Thank you for
taking the time to read it.
A Response to "The Well
Trained Mind" from Steve Demme
Several
parents have asked me to read and
comment on the review of Math·U·See
in the "Well Trained Mind". After
reading through the book, and the
comments in each of the three stages,
I will confine my remarks to four(4)
areas. My remarks are generally
the same for each stage.
1) "Not
nearly enough drill"
I agree. That's why we created the extra practice sheets which are
available for Introduction, Foundation, Intermediate, Advanced, Basic
Algebra & Geometry, and Algebra 2.
2) "Parents
watch the video before teaching
the child"
I agree again. Ideally this is what I envisioned when I made the
videos. The comments are justified but I have changed because, as
everyone who has used Math·U·See knows, 99% of the
parents watch the videos with their children. Since the videos
were filmed with an audience of parents, teachers, and students (mostly
students) this isn't a problem. It has proven to work really well.
Please remember that the videos are never meant to replace the parents.
3) "Grade
Levels"
I'm a little uncomfortable with the grades attached to the books.
We specifically took them out of the titles so students could move
at their own pace at the appropriate level. We mention them only
as guides for parents coming out of "the system". Because Math·U·See
uses concrete manipulatives (actually plastic) to illustrate abstract
concepts, students so inclined may move through the material more
quickly. Algebra is presented concretely and thus can be presented
to students at an earlier age. If a student wants to complete Algebra
2 or Trigonometry when he/she is 14 or 15 feel free. Then they have
the flexibility to take more advanced math courses.
4) "Preparation
Time"
This issue is the one which I've saved for last because it is the
one issue which I take serious exception too. I am going to list
the exact wording:
- "a large investment of time for the
parent" p. 116"time intensive for the parent" p.
265
- "willing to spend a large amount of
time preparing lessons" p. 504
The
first part of the answer is a simple
word problem, which I will enjoy
doing. Now the main preparation
for teaching is watching the videos.
The Foundation Curriculum covers
36 lessons in 160 minutes. Simple
division makes this 4.44 minutes
per lesson. A lesson usually averages
about one lesson every two(2) weeks,
so that is approximately 2.22 minutes
per week. The 36 lessons cover
the material normally taught in
first through third grades. The
Basic Algebra & Geometry Curriculum
is the longest at 10.5 minutes
per lesson. or 5.25 minutes per
week. The numbers speak eloquently
and no further need of comment
is necessary.
The
second part of the answer has to
do with the Teacher Manual. In
addition to watching the video,
the teacher will consult the written
instructions and practice problems
found here. Once again, this is
only a few minutes every lesson.
I spoke with a mother this week
who has been using another popular
math program with 140 lessons per
year. She spent time before every
lesson (approximately four times
each week) preparing to teach the
new material.
In
conclusion, I am grateful for this
exercise because it made me see
that not only were we not "intensive" we
probably are the most teacher friendly
math program available.
Steve
Demme
PS:
I hope this has been helpful. If
you need more information please
call the authorized representative
for your area at (888) 854-6284(MATH).
(This is another small discrepancy,
since the rep listed in the book,
as the place to call for more information,
is for Virginia only).
Susan Wise Bauer's Response:
Dear Steve,
I hope this message reaches you! I was directed to your response to our review
on the Math·U·See website, (and) I wanted to let you know a couple of things ...
First, I like Math·U·See very much and have recommended it
to SCORES of parents at every convention we do.
Second, when we reviewed the program none of the drill sheets existed -- I'm so glad that this is now a part of the program! I did make a note of this at our Updates site when the new material came out, but unfortunately it hasn't gotten a wide profile, so people still assume that our criticism of "not enough drill" holds -- I wish there were something I could do about this! I am begging Norton for a new edition of our book [a new revised and updated edition has been released - Steve Demme]. I'm hoping that they'll agree to a new edition soon so that we can update your info along with that of several other programs. (Incidentally, you don't know how much I regret the typo on the phone number. Alas. I still don't know how we managed to do that.)
Third, on the whole parent-time investment thing: This original assessment
was based on the directions that came with the version of the program that we reviewed.
As I recall, it was very definite that the parent watch the video FIRST and THEN teach
the lesson, rather than watching the video with the child (which, as you've noted, is
what everyone seems to do anyway), so our assessment of the amount of time the program
would take was based partly on this.
Anyway, I'm a little distressed that there seems to be a perception that
we are in any way anti- Math·U·See. I thought we had made it clear that we liked
the program very much, and I continue to tell people that I have a high regard for it
and that the original time estimates were based on the parent doing a fair amount of pre-lesson
preparation. Just wanted to let you know that we will continue to recommend this, and
that our updates to the original review of the program have been on our website for over
a year.
Hope to see you at a convention some time.
Yours,
Susan Wise Bauer
http://www.welltrainedmind.com
|
