My district has been using for years. Pros? I have colleagues who would say there are non. Truthfully, it's format sets kids up well for standardized testing (groan- a whole different topic), allows for some differentiation, some teachers like the online components. Every homework/reinforcement assignment has some spiral review if past concepts. Cons- too many teaching points in one lesson. There will be one strategy or type of problem on page one of lesson, turn the page and you're thrown something completely different. Also, students should be able to solve problems using strategies that work best for them. One simply doesn't need 5-6 strategies to multiply. Not all lessons are standards based. Some lessons seem superfluous.

Thanks for the feedback. My school is looking at the series and I'm not impressed. Just wanted to hear what others thought.

I used it at my last school district and I hated it. The kids did like the online component; we used a smart-board and the videos/activities that the program offered at the start of their lesson. I didn't like how many strategies they brought up in a single lesson because not only did it make it confusing but it also limited the amount of practice questions that were actually provided for any given strategy. This year I'm using Math Expressions and, while it has it's own problems, I would recommend it over Go Math.

I don't have personal experience with it but I've only heard it talked about by other teachers negatively. I've never heard from a teacher who seems to like it.

In my opinion, Go Math, My Math, Pearson Envision, etc. are all the same. They feature the same scripted lessons and are heavy on workbooks and worksheets. They may present the information in a different way, and yes have some cute technology components, but they're all the same. It's a pain when I'm subbing and trying to teach My Math, and the kids are just filling in all of the information way before I even get to that page... incorrectly I might add. I'll tell them to go write something and many will say "Oh, I already did.'' I don't like the programs that basically provide everything on the page: it's too overwhelming, distracting, and the students get all cocky and confident and fill in the information for it to be WRONG. Browsing, I see Go Math has the same set up. I don't like it and would much rather start with some manipulatives and a blank page (math notebook) and teach from there.

I used it for one year as a fifth grade teacher and then switched districts so only used it that one year. I was not a fan. A big issue I had was that the homework is mainly computations and two word problems (not counting the spiral review word problems) but the tests are 100% word problems. I found it really hard to prepare kids for a test that was totally based on word problems when most of the in-class and homework problems weren't that type of problem. Also, as mentioned, a lot would be covered in what was meant to be one lesson. I remember all of the properties of addition and multiplication were covered on one page, then it focused in on the distributive property, and just assumed a quick review of the other properties is all that was needed since apparently they were supposed to have total recall of these concepts from having been taught it the previous year. It just in general tried to cram too much into one lesson and it was really tough for my kids.

Too much, too fast, too soon. I've found that nothing is really taught in depth to mastery with these types of programs. I remember being handed Pearson's EnVision my first year and stressed out all the time because I thought I was supposed to follow the plans day 1, 2, 3,etc., but found that my students weren't really learning the material at the break neck speeds. It wasn't until I was venting my frustrations to my next door neighbor (who turned out to help me survive that year,) that I started to realize I could slow it down and focus on my students' needs. Yeah, I couldn't take a month to get through lesson 1, for example, but if I needed an extra day (plus some spiral thrown in) to solidify the material, I could take it. I started to supplement the curriculum with my own materials (e.g. bell ringers and exit tickets) to not only cover the day's material, but to review everything else that the students are supposed to know.

Such programs are often not very useful with students who are performing below grade level in math (most American students) due to the reasons cited by Leaborb. Go Math was definitely not designed from a developmental/pedagogical perspective. My copies of Go Math sat on the shelf unused while I used my own lessons for accelerated math intervention.