Why are schools abandoning Saxon Math?

[ckmommyof3]

My oldest daughter is enrolled in a charter school for 8th grade. The teacher's are frustrated because the children are not retaining the Saxon Math concepts and are behind the other area schools. They tested the class at 6th grade concepts and they still couldn't understand the material. I have a friend whose children attend a school that used Saxon Math and they stopped using it for the same reasons. Should I be concerned? We use Saxon Math for our 5th grader and will be using it with our kinder. Should I be looking for a new math program?

[Aurelia]

I think it depends on whether your children are retaining the information in Saxon. Perhaps you could test and see. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's not the best program for your specific situation.

[carlychan]

I would assume the problem may be that the school can't accomodate the time it takes to finish the lesson/review/worksheets/etc. each day. Some kids may be fine with only doing the lesson and 1/2 the problems. Some kids may need more. Just my guess:)

[Sara R]

I don't know about this particular school, but my daughter's charter school uses Saxon. Dd hasn't done well in it. I pulled her out part days last year to catch her up.

 

I assumed the problem was 3-fold: (1) dd has dyslexic symptoms, and she copies the problems down wrong, or reverses numbers when borrowing, or misreads the problem, (2) she also has ADD symptoms, so maybe she was spacing out during the crucial part of the lesson, and (3) maybe the spiral curriculum wasn't the best thing for her. We used a mastery based program (Singapore/Rod and Staff) to catch her up. She re-entered the school this year, one grade level behind (so repeating Saxon 65), but confident in her math skills and facts. I am before-schooling Rod and Staff Math 4, 10 minutes a day (about 1/3 lesson/day), so she remembers the concepts she learned there until Saxon teaches them later in the year.

 

This year, all 3 kids are in school in the mornings, so I have time to volunteer in dd's math class. I notice a couple of interesting things: (1) my daughter is one of the more confident students in the class. Even though she routinely misses 5-6 problems out of 30 in her homework. Hmm; I would have figured that with all of dd's issues, there would have been more students doing better than her. (2) The teacher doesn't seem to engage the whole class in the lesson. She calls students up to the board to work problems, but not everyone is paying attention. (3) I don't think they do the lesson practice, just the mixed review. I know I would have had a hard time in math if I only did one of the new problems. You need to do it 10 or so times to get the hang of it. (4) The teacher has made a couple of math mistakes while teaching. I don't know if she is using the scripting correctly.

 

Also, a lot of kids are really struggling in there. I don't know if they are placed at the right level. Dd says she took a placement test, but maybe that was just her since she wasn't in the school's math program for half of last year. The kids that have been at the school might just get passed along, even if they didn't get it the first time. It might be assumed that they will get it during the next pass through the spiral. Does that actually work with kids? My kids just get discouraged if they didn't learn it the first time.

 

So my sense is that it is not so much the program that is weak, but the school's implementation.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Sara R

[usetoschool]

and to back up that it might just be the teacher or the implementation or the 'not a good fit' there is this about Saxon in public schools in general

 

Students were pretested in the fall and post-tested in the spring of first grade on a standardized assessment of mathematics. Two of the curricula were clear winners. The spring math achievement scores of Math Expressions and Saxon Math students were 0.30 standard deviations higher than for students experiencing Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, and 0.24 standard deviations higher than for students experiencing Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. This means that a student’s percentile rank would be 9 to 12 points higher at the end of a school year if the school used Math Expressions or Saxon, instead of the less effective curricula.

 

from an article by the Brookings Institution about why curriculum matters more than teacher or type of school. Here is a link to the full article. (Nice fodder for all the curriculum junkies looking for the perfect curriculum :D)

[Carol in Cal.]

DD takes the STAR test every year, which sets a higher standard of requirements for proficiency than those in most other states. We used the standard public school text for two or three years, and Dd was actually going backwards in test scores on STAR.

 

Two years ago I bit the bullet and switched her to Saxon, believing it to be an inferior program but one that would at least teach her something. The placement test put her into Saxon 65, which killed me as she was through 5th grade in Harcourt CA, and Saxon is about 1-1 1/2 years behind Harcourt as best as I could tell. Anyway, as she was starting 6th grade at the time, I told her that we needed to push through 3 Saxon books in two years to get her to the point where she could take Algebra 1 in 8th grade.

 

So, starting from basically a remedial level with the standard text, DD tested proficient in math for the first time at the end of that school year, even though she had not finished the regular 6th grade book (76) yet. And this year, not having finished 87 by the time she took the 7th grade test, she still tested proficient and was actually a little higher in percentile than last year.

 

The bottom line: Saxon has literally saved my DD from math failure, and brought her efficiently up to the proficient level in our tough CA tests even though she was not using the Saxon grade level book. I'm sold.

[Sara R]

and to back up that it might just be the teacher or the implementation or the 'not a good fit' there is this about Saxon in public schools in general

 

Students were pretested in the fall and post-tested in the spring of first grade on a standardized assessment of mathematics. Two of the curricula were clear winners. The spring math achievement scores of Math Expressions and Saxon Math students were 0.30 standard deviations higher than for students experiencing Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, and 0.24 standard deviations higher than for students experiencing Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. This means that a student’s percentile rank would be 9 to 12 points higher at the end of a school year if the school used Math Expressions or Saxon, instead of the less effective curricula.

 

from an article by the Brookings Institution about why curriculum matters more than teacher or type of school. Here is a link to the full article. (Nice fodder for all the curriculum junkies looking for the perfect curriculum :D)

 

Thanks for the link. The public schools around here used to use TERC Investigations, despite massive outcry from the educated parents around here (college town). After some years, they finally gave in and are now allowing the teachers to choose curriculum. So what are they using? Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley (supplemented with TERC Investigations). :banghead: At least that curriculum does teach the traditional algorithms eventually, but that's about the only good thing I can say about it. They keep doing a lot of work on patterns. They haven't learned long multiplication or long division yet, but they are teaching pre-algebra concepts like properties and order of operations. Ds can handle it because he's ahead in math because he's learning it at home, but the other kids look pretty lost. The expectations in Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley are unclear. And the pages are so busy it's difficult to tell what they are trying to teach.

 

I'm sure Saxon is better than either of those curricula, but that's not really saying a lot. :)

[Reya]

Because Saxon does a VERY poor job of teaching conceptually, and the procedural speed it produces hides a general lack of any but the shallowest understanding.

 

This is a VERY well known problem with Saxon. I do not recommend it, even though some children love the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

This is another confusion of sheer repetition with rigor.

[Jane]

Because Saxon does a VERY poor job of teaching conceptually, and the procedural speed it produces hides a general lack of any but the shallowest understanding.

 

This is a VERY well known problem with Saxon. I do not recommend it, even though some children love the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

This is another confusion of sheer repetition with rigor.

 

My guess is that you are speaking about the younger levels? I've not heard this about the Pre-algebra and beyond books.

[Jane]

The bottom line: Saxon has literally saved my DD from math failure, and brought her efficiently up to the proficient level in our tough CA tests even though she was not using the Saxon grade level book. I'm sold.

 

Congrats to your daughter, Carol!

[EKS]

Because Saxon does a VERY poor job of teaching conceptually, and the procedural speed it produces hides a general lack of any but the shallowest understanding.

 

This is a VERY well known problem with Saxon. I do not recommend it, even though some children love the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

This is another confusion of sheer repetition with rigor.

 

:iagree:

 

And what's interesting is that Saxon (Hake) Grammar produces the same results: a kid who gets 90%+ on tests and has essentially no real understanding.

[Nestof3]

I don't understand the concept of not retaining when it comes to Saxon. A new concept is taught daily, and only 1-3 problems from that new lesson are included in the lesson. Most of the work is from previous lessons, so there's so much review that a retention problem seems like a lacking diagnosis.

 

My guess is, the students are not really grasping the lesson the first time and that they are not getting the extra help they would get if a parent or teacher were to go over any problems missed. It is crucial in math to determine when an answer whether it is a computational error (7+8+16) or whether it is an understanding problem. It is possible that the student does think 7+8-16, but that kind of error is easy to identify.

 

The lack of understanding problems need to be addressed in a timely fashion. As soon as an understanding problem is identified, the parent or teacher needs to reteach/discuss that lesson, and the student should do some extra problems. Saxon includes these in the text at the back.

 

I cannot stress how important it is to not just mark math problems wrong and hand them back to the student with a grade and nothing more required of them.

 

Retention problems show up in Saxon because the student is required to do all the concepts introduced since day one through the entire school year as opposed to some programs that teach chapters of concepts which may not be revisited that year.

 

Teaching math in a homeschool setting is very different than in a school setting. It is impossible to know the individual struggles and weaknesses of each student and have the time to address each one. This is a parent's job in a homeschool environment.

 

I remember being in public school. I sat in class, did the work, got the grade, moved on. A math concept was not retaught unless the majority of the class had difficulty with it. It was completely up to me to go to the teacher or parent with any problems I had.

Edited October 24, 2009 by nestof3

[Nestof3]

Because Saxon does a VERY poor job of teaching conceptually, and the procedural speed it produces hides a general lack of any but the shallowest understanding.

 

This is a VERY well known problem with Saxon. I do not recommend it, even though some children love the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

This is another confusion of sheer repetition with rigor.

 

I really disagree with you. I have used it for eleven years, and my children do not have a shallow understanding, and they are made to think. Out of curiosity, how long did you use the program?

 

I think you will find flaws with all programs, and that is why I do not think that a textbook does the teaching. I do the teaching, and it is up to me to make sure my children are understanding. If they need another way of thinking about math problems, I come up with them.

 

I also think most programs can benefit from a little supplementing. I add history documentaries to history, and I add games and math resources that help my children think about math in different ways. When they're young, we use books by Anno, Greg Tang, Loreen Leedy, and various math puzzle/word problem books.

 

Edited to add:

 

I don't think Saxon is the perfect fit for everyone. I think it's great to find what works for you and your children. But, I really get concerned when homeschooling parents want a program to do the work, begrudge having to spend 15 minutes per child per subject, and wonder why their children are not doing great. Homeschooling is work, and parents need to be teaching their children.

Edited October 24, 2009 by nestof3

[Nestof3]

:iagree:

 

And what's interesting is that Saxon (Hake) Grammar produces the same results: a kid who gets 90%+ on tests and has essentially no real understanding.

 

May I ask how you identified that your student had no real understanding of grammar? I never really considered that my children have a "real understanding of grammar" until they see the big picture, which in my opinion, happens over the course of homeschooling.

[MIch elle]

Because Saxon does a VERY poor job of teaching conceptually, and the procedural speed it produces hides a general lack of any but the shallowest understanding.

 

This is a VERY well known problem with Saxon. I do not recommend it, even though some children love the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

This is another confusion of sheer repetition with rigor.

 

And so many homeschoolers clearly have had success using Saxon? Why does Classical Conversations use Saxon math? :confused:

 

Listen to Art Reed talk about Saxon math: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/1SmartMama/2009/04/08/Leigh-for-Lunch-with-Art-Reed

 

:auto:

[LinRTX]

You seem to have a bad opinion of Saxon. You also hav a young child and, yes, I know he is advanced. I also believe you are a writer.

 

I also had a child advanced in math, one that was understanding basic algera concepts at 5 or 6. One that understood the concepts of functions and graphing them at a young age.

 

He did Saxon -- Algebra 2 through Calculus--and aced the math part of the SAT. I know that you will say that is because Saxon teaches for that.

 

He also now has a degree in EE (lots of math needed there) and graduated through the honors college with a 3.9 GPA. Somehow Saxon must have explained the concepts to him.

 

I also have another currently in college who did Saxon throughout her homeschooling years. She has never had a problem understanding any of the math she has taken up through her Business Calculus and her junior level Statistics class.

 

My husband and I both think Saxon does a good job of explaining math to the children and not all of mine are math whizzes. He has an undergrad degree in EE and computer science and is currently working on his doctorate in computer science. My degree is in math and computer science.

 

I'm not saying that Saxon is for everyone, but that it does work and work well if your child will work hard at doing all the problems. I think this is where some people have problems. You need to teach the concepts that the children cannot understand and know when to slow down and give them more work.

 

Linda

[fractalgal]

...the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

 

 

I really grow tired of comments like this.

 

Most people use drills to help learn the math facts, and you do have to think before you write the answer. It trains you to think quickly so the math facts are automatic.

 

We have used K-3 Saxon and it has not hurt my children in the least. They know their facts automatically which will help them when they get to the upper levels.

 

I am curious how long you have used Saxon to make these comments that you make?

[Sara R]

My guess is, the students are not really grasping the lesson the first time and that they are not getting the extra help they would get if a parent or teacher were to go over any problems missed.

 

Bingo. I don't think they are getting it the first time, because they are never mastering the new concept in the first place. Especially in my dd's school, where (as far as I can tell) they don't even do the lesson practice problems. My kids do better concentrating on a single concept for a couple of weeks and really learning it, instead of learning all of the parts of a concept in dribs and drabs over months. Then my kids also need review. Rod and Staff works great with my dd, because R&S fits this pattern (mastery learning of a concept plus plenty of review).

 

Saxon seems to be working okay with DD, if she already knows what's being taught. The review is good for her. But I'm not letting her get behind like that again. I'll keep pre-teaching before she goes to school. She doesn't seem like she's getting the prealgebra elements in Saxon 65, so I wish they would save that for later.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't understand the concept of not retaining when it comes to Saxon. A new concept is taught daily, and only 1-3 problems from that new lesson are included in the lesson. Most of the work is from previous lessons, so there's so much review that a retention problem seems like a lacking diagnosis.

 

 

 

I do understand the concept of not retaining the material, because I believe that that is what would have happened to me if I had used Saxon as a child. When I have used other spiral programs in my own learning, I have tended to 'get' the material just well enough to get through the lesson, and then forgotten it. It seems like for me it goes into short term memory and doesn't necessarily get deposited beyond that. Then when it comes up again, I tend to remember it only vaguely.

 

So for me, it's crucial to learn enough to develop an overall map of the material and then fit the details into that map. Whole to parts is really how I learn best. Parts to whole leaves me flailing around trying to fit everything together frantically and not really learning anything. My real learning in a spiral program would have occurred when I studied for a big test and consolidated all the material for the first time. But Saxon doesn't have big tests; it only has weekly tests.

 

For my DD, though, the spiral technique gave her the review that she needed, while enabling her to refresh her little learning increments very effectively. Until 87 this worked great. At 87, though, when she was really learning how to do 4 function work with positive AND negative numbers and variables, the method started to fail for her. This was because she would learn one little segment, like how to multiply two negative numbers, and then the next day she would learn how to multiply a negative and a positive number, and she would forget which rule went with which. To get her through 87 I had to watch very carefully to see when the volume of little increments overwhelmed her, and then stop her and either have her retake certain lessons and/or present her with all the rules gleaned from the previous 10-20 lessons or so, consolidated onto one or two pages, so that she could learn them as a group (whole to parts) and fit them into an overall picture that was accurate.

 

I am not sure whether this is going to be an issue in Algebra 1 or not, as she is still in the review part of that book, but I think that because Algebra is a little more focussed she will revert to Saxon being a good fit. I also purchase Lial and studied it carefully, and I think that for her Saxon will be better, but made that decision with fear and trembling because of her experience with 87.

 

I wish that Saxon had more comprehensive tests started at about book 76, to get the kids accustomed to studying back through everything. And what I really wish is that they had summary lessons every so often that included ALL the material up to that point. 87 is too broad not to have that, IMO.

[Carol in Cal.]

Bingo. I don't think they are getting it the first time, because they are never mastering the new concept in the first place. Especially in my dd's school, where (as far as I can tell) they don't even do the lesson practice problems.

 

 

If they are not doing the lesson practice problems, they are being taught completely wrong. Period.

 

The lesson practice is where the kids practice what they just learned, using their own personal brains instead of just following along as a teacher works an example. If they don't have that practice, they probably won't learn the material. I strongly encourage you to have her do the lesson practice yourself before she does her other homework, each day.

[mom31257]

My only experience with Saxon is in middle and high school. I taught Math 76, Algebra 2, and Advanced Math in a co-op setting. I had been considering switching to it at home, but after actually using it, I would never have my kids do the program. I have a math degree and love math, but IMHO Saxon would have made me hate it.

 

I did see some of the purpose in the methods he used; however, when I taught the class, this is what would happen. I would present the Saxon material. After many questions, blank stares, etc., I would teach the same thing the way I was taught and the light bulbs would go on. Nine times out of ten, the kids always understood another way better. The class even had some students who had used Saxon their whole lives. Now, there weren't any kids who just loved math or were going into engineering, but they were smart kids.

 

I felt the high school books didn't have enough practice of the material taught each day. While Math 76 would have maybe 8-10 problems in the actual practice section, Algebra 2 would only have 2-3. Advanced math had none. They all had a few in the rest of the problems, but for most kids, I don't think that is enough.

 

I know my experience is limited, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

[Ellie]

And yet, when I went with a friend who represented Saxon at ACSI conventions, there was a steady stream of teachers all.day.long who gushed eloquently about how successful their students were--in class and on standardized tests--how many more were taking advanced maths and doing well, how many more of them were going on to college and earning advance degrees in maths and sciences because of the Saxon experience. Wonder how that happened if Saxon is such a bad product?

[homeschoolally]

Because Saxon does a VERY poor job of teaching conceptually, and the procedural speed it produces hides a general lack of any but the shallowest understanding.

 

This is a VERY well known problem with Saxon. I do not recommend it, even though some children love the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

This is another confusion of sheer repetition with rigor.

 

My 5th grade Saxon user tested 12th grade 9th month and 10th grade 5th month on the Woodcock Johnson math section last year. I can't imagine he could score 7 years above grade level on the 'applied problems' section if he was 'never made to think' or had 'the shallowest understanding.'

 

I would guess a problem in schools would be the amount of time required to properly teach a lesson and complete the problem set.

[inactive]

schools would be dropping it...:confused: as my aunt, who is a gifted and talented teacher in a PS, uses Saxon. She LOVES it, the students get it and have done very well in competitions both locally and nationally.

[Nestof3]

I do understand the concept of not retaining the material, because I believe that that is what would have happened to me if I had used Saxon as a child. When I have used other spiral programs in my own learning, I have tended to 'get' the material just well enough to get through the lesson, and then forgotten it. It seems like for me it goes into short term memory and doesn't necessarily get deposited beyond that. Then when it comes up again, I tend to remember it only vaguely.

 

 

 

But, it comes up again the next day, and the next day, and the next, and so on, and the lesson number is right next to the problem, so everyone knows what lesson the problem comes from.

[Mesa]

You will never find a math program you are 100% happy with. They all have their pluses and minuses.

I use 2 programs. A spiral and a mastery approach. My boys are confident in math. They dont like it, but they understand it.

 

 

I dont think my kids like any subjects besides science. LOL

[katilac]

My oldest daughter is enrolled in a charter school for 8th grade. The teacher's are frustrated because the children are not retaining the Saxon Math concepts and are behind the other area schools. They tested the class at 6th grade concepts and they still couldn't understand the material. I have a friend whose children attend a school that used Saxon Math and they stopped using it for the same reasons. Should I be concerned? We use Saxon Math for our 5th grader and will be using it with our kinder. Should I be looking for a new math program?

 

I wouldn't say that hearing about two schools switching from Saxon to another program translates into "schools are abandoning Saxon math." Some schools are, certainly, while other schools are switching to it. Schools switch programs all the time, far too often probably, and this alone would not make me panic. Honestly, the first thing I look at when an entire class is having trouble with concepts is the teacher. If something in the book isn't clear, or isn't getting across to the class, an 8th grade math teacher ought to be able to teach the concept on her own, at the whiteboard.

[katilac]

:iagree:

 

And what's interesting is that Saxon (Hake) Grammar produces the same results: a kid who gets 90%+ on tests and has essentially no real understanding.

 

Can you expand on this a bit? If one is using grammar correctly, what deeper understanding is there?

[ckmommyof3]

Oh dear.... I am so sorry for the debate I caused :001_unsure:.

I just want to make sure I am making solid choices for my girls. I thank everyone who responded. You have given me a lot to think about!

[EKS]

Can you expand on this a bit? If one is using grammar correctly, what deeper understanding is there?

 

There is an overarching simplicity to grammar that is difficult to access when it is taught incrementally, and I would say that the same is true for math.

[katilac]

Because Saxon does a VERY poor job of teaching conceptually, and the procedural speed it produces hides a general lack of any but the shallowest understanding.

 

This is a VERY well known problem with Saxon. I do not recommend it, even though some children love the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

This is another confusion of sheer repetition with rigor.

 

Have you used Saxon? I'm not sure what you mean by "pages of drill." There's one page of facts practice each day, and a lesson with five to ten practice problems on that lesson and thirty regular problems. The number of problems per day doesn't seem out of line with most other programs, and most programs utilize drill of some sort, including Singapore.

 

We have six years in with both Saxon and Singapore at my house, and I"ve looked at enough other programs to know that every one has its weaknesses and strengths. I wanted to be sure, though, so I coerced my poor b-i-l into looking at half-a-dozen high school programs. He's a working physicist, so I figured he would recognize 'real' math vs surface learning. He picked Saxon, said that it might be dry but it was thorough and taught all the math needed to move on to higher math and science.

 

There are lots of professionals in math and science fields who advocate Saxon. Dr. Robinson of the Robinson Curriculum comes to mind; he is a university chemistry professor and all of his kids are hs'd with Saxon (see note at end of post). I know some Saxon users on this board have worked in math/science fields, and plenty of others have posted about their kids using Saxon and going on to study in math/science majors.

 

So, I don't at all feel that there is any semblance of a consensus among math-oriented people that Saxon doesn't teach a deep enough understanding. People can say all day long that Saxon users do well on the SAT b/c "that's what Saxon teaches to," but the fact is that high scores on the SAT do correlate to high performance in university, and the same for low scores (across a group, of course not for every one). So if a student manages to score well on the SAT with no deep understanding of math, they apparently manage to pick up that understanding once in university. That high performance in university is correlated to succeeding in the work world (again, across groups; we all know exceptions to every rule).

 

For those interested, below is a summary on the Robinson kids, all of whom self-taught Saxon from a very early age:

 

Matthew finished calculus at the age of 14. He is now 16 and working his way quite succesfully through our physics program. (This physics is at the level of Caltech freshman physics.) Matthew is entirely self-taught using the rules in our curriculum.

 

Zachary has a doctorate in veterinary medicine.

 

Arynne has a BS in chemistry.

 

Noah has a doctorate in chemistry from Caltech.

 

Bethany is studying for a BS in chemistry.

 

Joshua is studying for a BS in mathematics.

[EKS]

May I ask how you identified that your student had no real understanding of grammar? I never really considered that my children have a "real understanding of grammar" until they see the big picture, which in my opinion, happens over the course of homeschooling.

 

When they have no understanding, it's pretty obvious.

 

He completed Hake 8 a year ago (after doing Hake for two years) and now, a year later, after using Daily Grams for reinforcement, he knows essentially nothing about grammar. A person who has learned with understanding should be able to retain concepts (if not specific terminology) over the course of a year.

 

Frankly, a "real understanding of grammar" and "seeing the big picture" shouldn't take 12 years of homeschooling to achieve. It's not that complicated.

Edited October 25, 2009 by EKS

[johnandtinagilbert]

I'd guess a few things bring about the "failure" in those schools:

 

1. not teaching how the program was fully intended to be implemented (no time in the classroom)

 

2. rarely finishing the entire text in one school year

 

3. kinda boring, particularly in a classroom setting

 

In any case, I know many, many home schoolers who are quite successful and graduated college with math degrees who used Saxon forever. It only works for one of my dc, but I can't knock it :)

[tinkgumby]

Last year I started feeling like my kids (using Saxon) were behind in math, and I decided to do some research. I found this:

http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/k6books.pdf

which is an assessment of 3 K-6 math programs commonly used.

 

Based on what I read there, I switched to SRA Real Math (the new version of what used to be SRA Explorations and Applications), and haven't looked back! We LOVE it, and I feel the kids are retaining better and are more at grade level.

[GESTEP]

My brother and sister both teach in PS and have seen decreases in the scores of the schools as a whole (one teaches 3rd grade and the other HS history/geography). Much of this is attributed to several factors-there is a huge increase in "administrative work" which is equal to busywork for the teachers instead of teaching time/lesson planning and creating burnout. My sister has 8 special needs children in her class of less than 30 3rd graders and my brother's classes have many ADD, etc issues too. It is terribly difficult to teach because the HS kids that don't care make it so the others cannot focus. His time has to be spent getting them to pass (if they fail it is HIS fault, not the student's), so time cannot be spent on the ones who do care.

As for the 3rd graders, try to teach when you have 8 children bouncing on bouncy balls, falling out of chairs, getting out of their seats, etc, etc. I seriously doubt that it is the fault of Saxon that scores are falling but the blame must be put somewhere.

Another problem comes from the "No child left behind" campaign that has mainstreamed these children into the regular classes. I am not trying to offend but it is very time consuming for teachers dealing with special needs while trying to teach a regular class and it is distracting to the class. The special needs children are dragging the others down, not elevating themselves (in terms of scores).

As someone else mentioned if you are working with your dc you will know if they understand it and can teach any concept they do not understand. The failure in schools is the environment IMHO. If Saxon has been working for you then stick with it, scores are dropping in alot of areas in the schools regardless of curr.

[Heather in WI]

Last year I started feeling like my kids (using Saxon) were behind in math, and I decided to do some research. I found this:

http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/k6books.pdf

which is an assessment of 3 K-6 math programs commonly used.

 

Based on what I read there, I switched to SRA Real Math (the new version of what used to be SRA Explorations and Applications), and haven't looked back! We LOVE it, and I feel the kids are retaining better and are more at grade level.

 

Umm ... from what I just read, SRA is the weakest program in their opinion ...

 

 

 

the SRA program has many weaknesses and we do not recommend it

 

...

 

SRA does not explicitly satisfy NS 2.1.

 

...

 

SRA does not satisfy this standard.

 

...

 

SRA --The treatment in the grade 5 book for this standard is weak

 

...

 

SRA-- This standard is not met.

 

...

 

SRA satisfies the standard but requires the use of "Enrichment" and "Reteaching" materials to accomplish this.

 

...

 

The SRA text marginally meets these standards overall

 

 

[daybreaking]

Last year I started feeling like my kids (using Saxon) were behind in math, and I decided to do some research. I found this:

http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/k6books.pdf

which is an assessment of 3 K-6 math programs commonly used.

 

Based on what I read there, I switched to SRA Real Math (the new version of what used to be SRA Explorations and Applications), and haven't looked back! We LOVE it, and I feel the kids are retaining better and are more at grade level.

 

The report you linked to made this statement:

 

"Our findings contradict an earlier evaluation conducted by members of "Mathematically Correct" posted at: http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/books.htm. That evaluation gave high marks to SRA McGraw-Hill: Explorations and Applications. Those high marks are not supported by our findings." There was also a report in the link that rated each program, and in 13 out of 14 areas, Saxon was ranked higher than SRA. I was wondering, then, how the report led you to chose SRA. (I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious and was wondering if I missed something.)

[Carol in Cal.]

But, it comes up again the next day, and the next day, and the next, and so on, and the lesson number is right next to the problem, so everyone knows what lesson the problem comes from.

 

And please remember, I'm one of the happy users of Saxon.

 

But still, at least at the 87 level, it presents a lot of similar but distinct material and doesn't do the right kind of comprehensive summarization of it together to give a coherent overview. I just taught this book, and it was great, except that the breadth of it was extreme compared to the prior ones, and it was really difficult for DD to get her arms around the material. I had to keep going back and having her redo some lessons, and take time out to pull together the material from a bunch of different lessons. It was not as simple as 'go back to these 4 lessons'. It was more like 'these 4 lessons are related but their material is not related together anywhere in this book, even though it has to all be related together in your head. So here, let me help you pull it all together.'

 

Saxon is a great program for my DD and I am grateful that it exists, but like any other program it has strengths and weaknesses, and those would have impacted me if I had had to learn from it as a child. DD and I have very different learning styles when it comes to math.

[pbajgrow]

Because Saxon does a VERY poor job of teaching conceptually, and the procedural speed it produces hides a general lack of any but the shallowest understanding.

 

This is a VERY well known problem with Saxon. I do not recommend it, even though some children love the pages of drill because they're not made to think.

 

This is another confusion of sheer repetition with rigor.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

You nailed it! We went with Saxon this year and just yesterday went back to Abeka. My daughter, who is generally really good at math, was not retaining anything. I know some kids get things after seeing it for the first time, but some need that extra "something" that Saxon is not giving.

[fractalgal]

The report you linked to made this statement:

 

"Our findings contradict an earlier evaluation conducted by members of "Mathematically Correct" posted at: http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/books.htm. That evaluation gave high marks to SRA McGraw-Hill: Explorations and Applications. Those high marks are not supported by our findings." There was also a report in the link that rated each program, and in 13 out of 14 areas, Saxon was ranked higher than SRA. I was wondering, then, how the report led you to chose SRA. (I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious and was wondering if I missed something.)

 

From http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/k6books.pdf,

 

I remember reading this awhile back. The findings for grade 2 were:

Ranking: Sadlier 1st place, Saxon 2nd place, SRA 3d place

 

Keep in mind, though, that most people who use Saxon use it one grade level ahead which would lead one to conclude that Saxon would come in first place surpassing the other two when Saxon 3 is what is normally used in 2nd grade.

 

Also note that for fifth grade the results were:

 

Ranking: Saxon 1st place, Sadlier 2nd place, SRA 3d place.

 

"For fifth grade, in spite of our caveats, the chart below is consistent with our subjective

evaluations of these programs. The Saxon math program is the strongest of the three,

overall, and the strongest in terms of mathematical reasoning. The Sadlier program

provides a solid foundation in grade-level content and we recommend it as well. By

contrast, the SRA program has many weaknesses and we do not recommend it for

classroom use."

 

[Joanne]

*shrug*

 

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that different people both learn and teach differently.

 

The combination of teacher ability, curriculum resources, natural ability with regard to math concepts = the need for a variety of math approaches.

 

"Schools" are leaving Saxon (and some undoubetedly are turning to it) for the same reasons:

 

1) Never ending need to prove schools in testing

2) Textbook and curriculum sellers for institutional schools are like drug representatives @ a Dr's office. They keep coming back with slightly different drugs in new packages.

3) Textbooks are changed frequently and marketed heavily in order to make PROFIT; educating the masses is simply the vehicle to that profit.

[tinkgumby]

This is what I get for posting on the fly - I googled for that link, and it wasn't the one that originally led me to SRA Real Math! I wouldn't have gone with it, either, based on that review!

 

Oddly enough, the one I *did* read is from the same site:

http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/books2y.htm

 

The assessment linked above rated SRA the highest, and Saxon, along with 4 others, as "Moderately effective," with still two others at the bottom that "fell far short."

 

The review gave SRA Math an "A" for second-grade content and "A-" for fifth-grade content. It was the only math program in those two grades to get above a B+ (http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/booksy.htm)

 

The first link that I erroneously provided mentions extensive calculator use as part of the disparaging review. I can only assume it's a review of the math program before revision or something, because I certainly haven't run across that, or many of the other complaints it had (such as being asked to identify but not compare fractions - we were comparing right off the bat in my son's third-grade math!).

 

Anyway, I know it was confusing to talk up SRA and then post a link that indicated otherwise. Hopefully this clears things up a bit. :D

 

Here is a post where I give more details and suggestions on where to buy: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=877657&postcount=49

Edited October 25, 2009 by tinkgumby

[msjones]

Thanks for the link. The public schools around here used to use TERC Investigations, despite massive outcry from the educated parents around here (college town). After some years, they finally gave in and are now allowing the teachers to choose curriculum. So what are they using? Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley (supplemented with TERC Investigations). :banghead: At least that curriculum does teach the traditional algorithms eventually, but that's about the only good thing I can say about it. They keep doing a lot of work on patterns. They haven't learned long multiplication or long division yet, but they are teaching pre-algebra concepts like properties and order of operations. Ds can handle it because he's ahead in math because he's learning it at home, but the other kids look pretty lost. The expectations in Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley are unclear. And the pages are so busy it's difficult to tell what they are trying to teach.

 

I'm sure Saxon is better than either of those curricula, but that's not really saying a lot. :)

 

I haven't taught Saxon, but have taught both TERC Investigations and Addison-Wesley in public school. So, I just have to jump in here!

 

When we used Addison-Wesley, our test scores were about 45th percentile -- about what our district usually scored. And the Addison-Wesley did not align with the new state tests at all.

 

One year, fed up with Addison-Wesley, my grade-level colleagues (at my school) and I switched to TERC. We got the materials on our own, 'trained' ourselves, and just did it. That year, our ITBS math scores -- in all 5 of the 2nd grade classes -- went up to around 70th percentile. Wow.

 

We also supplemented with facts practice and some Addison-Wesley pages (but not many). I understand the many concerns about 'reform math' like TERC and Everyday Math, but wanted to share my experience.

 

The "educated parents" of the kids in those 5 classes were very pleased with TERC that year.

[msjones]

My only experience with Saxon is in middle and high school. I taught Math 76, Algebra 2, and Advanced Math in a co-op setting. I had been considering switching to it at home, but after actually using it, I would never have my kids do the program. I have a math degree and love math, but IMHO Saxon would have made me hate it.

 

I did see some of the purpose in the methods he used; however, when I taught the class, this is what would happen. I would present the Saxon material. After many questions, blank stares, etc., I would teach the same thing the way I was taught and the light bulbs would go on. Nine times out of ten, the kids always understood another way better. The class even had some students who had used Saxon their whole lives. Now, there weren't any kids who just loved math or were going into engineering, but they were smart kids.

 

I felt the high school books didn't have enough practice of the material taught each day. While Math 76 would have maybe 8-10 problems in the actual practice section, Algebra 2 would only have 2-3. Advanced math had none. They all had a few in the rest of the problems, but for most kids, I don't think that is enough.

 

I know my experience is limited, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

 

Interesting.

I don't care for Saxon's style myself, but have never taught it to a group. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Has anyone here taught Saxon to a group and had a different experience?

[EKS]

I haven't taught Saxon, but have taught both TERC Investigations and Addison-Wesley in public school. So, I just have to jump in here!

 

When we used Addison-Wesley, our test scores were about 45th percentile -- about what our district usually scored. And the Addison-Wesley did not align with the new state tests at all.

 

One year, fed up with Addison-Wesley, my grade-level colleagues (at my school) and I switched to TERC. We got the materials on our own, 'trained' ourselves, and just did it. That year, our ITBS math scores -- in all 5 of the 2nd grade classes -- went up to around 70th percentile. Wow.

 

We also supplemented with facts practice and some Addison-Wesley pages (but not many). I understand the many concerns about 'reform math' like TERC and Everyday Math, but wanted to share my experience.

 

The "educated parents" of the kids in those 5 classes were very pleased with TERC that year.

 

 

I'd be interested to know how these students fared later on.

 

The thing about using standardized test scores as an indicator of educational quality is that it can't be done.

 

It is possible that TERC gave the children a better math education than the other program, but it is also possible that the standardized test was aligned with the TERC materials better. There are any number of possibilities.

 

The more telling thing is whether children educated with TERC through elementary school and CMP (its counterpart) through middle school are prepared for higher level math in high school and college.

 

I think math programs like TERC can be successful in the hands of a capable teacher. We have a teacher who teaches CMP math in our district who is fabulous. What is unique about him is that he also teaches algebra 1, geometry, and algebra 2. I am convinced that his experience teaching upper level math is a big part of what makes him so successful teaching CMP. I know that my experience teaching algebra 1 and geometry to my older son is having an effect on how I'm teaching my younger one. Unfortunately, the majority of teachers never have this experience.

[msjones]

I'd be interested to know how these students fared later on.

 

The thing about using standardized test scores as an indicator of educational quality is that it can't be done.

 

It is possible that TERC gave the children a better math education than the other program, but it is also possible that the standardized test was aligned with the TERC materials better. There are any number of possibilities.

 

The more telling thing is whether children educated with TERC through elementary school and CMP (its counterpart) through middle school are prepared for higher level math in high school and college.

 

I think math programs like TERC can be successful in the hands of a capable teacher. We have a teacher who teaches CMP math in our district who is fabulous. What is unique about him is that he also teaches algebra 1, geometry, and algebra 2. I am convinced that his experience teaching upper level math is a big part of what makes him so successful teaching CMP. I know that my experience teaching algebra 1 and geometry to my older son is having an effect on how I'm teaching my younger one. Unfortunately, the majority of teachers never have this experience.

 

I'd be interested in how they did later on, too. The next year my first son was born, so I haven't been back to work full-time. Besides, the district adopted the all-time WTM message board favorite -- Everyday Math -- the very next year, so they didn't continue with TERC.

 

You bring up important points about the testing, and about capable teachers teaching reform math. All five of us were very enthusiastic, enjoyed teaching TERC, and were careful to supplement. We spent a lot of time teaching math, and even came in on many Saturdays to plan our lessons together for the week.

 

The kids were very enthusiastic about TERC that year. They could probably sense our enthusiasm and determination. My guess about the huge improvement on the ITBS (not geared toward reform math at all - in my opinion) is that they had so much more confidence when approaching various types of problems. We could observe that every day in class, and saw that new confidence during the test, too.

 

That was such a fun year of teaching math, and it gave me a new perspective on all the 'math wars.' My husband is in on them now at the high school level.

[Tammyla]

:iagree:

 

*shrug*

 

It does not take a rocket scientist to know that different people both learn and teach differently.

 

The combination of teacher ability, curriculum resources, natural ability with regard to math concepts = the need for a variety of math approaches.

 

"Schools" are leaving Saxon (and some undoubetedly are turning to it) for the same reasons:

 

1) Never ending need to prove schools in testing

2) Textbook and curriculum sellers for institutional schools are like drug representatives @ a Dr's office. They keep coming back with slightly different drugs in new packages.

3) Textbooks are changed frequently and marketed heavily in order to make PROFIT; educating the masses is simply the vehicle to that profit.

[moki4]

I highly recommend Saxon Algebra 1/2. I have found this to be extremely challenging (fun!) for my Dd.

She has since completed Algebra 1 with Lials, and is currently doing geometry (key press).

 

Saxon is not the cause of all the PS math problems.

 

On the contrary, the problems are the institution.

[kamom]

I agree with the last poster, that the problem is not Saxon.

 

I have a bil teacher who used it in a group setting and had huge success with it and recommended it to me as the best math cirr that he has taught.

Because I highly respect his opinion, we are using it now.

[EKS]

I highly recommend Saxon Algebra 1/2. I have found this to be extremely challenging (fun!) for my Dd.

She has since completed Algebra 1 with Lials, and is currently doing geometry (key press).

 

Saxon is not the cause of all the PS math problems.

 

On the contrary, the problems are the institution.

 

After using Saxon levels 2-8/7, I agree that Saxon is not conceptually lacking as far as the instruction aspect goes.

 

However, I moved away from Saxon for both of my children because, while the initial instruction on a topic might provide a good conceptual foundation, I found that both of my children would not necessarily retain that initial instruction, but they were able to learn to do the problems by rote in the practice portion which was then reinforced every day in the review problems. This made them able to score well (90%) on assessments. Then after a concept was finally dropped from the review problems, they would quickly forget how to do the problems related to it. The most glaring example of this is when I gave the MUS placement test to my son who was halfway through 7/6 at the time. He placed into Beta (2nd grade level) because he subtracted backwards instead of borrowing for every problem requiring borrowing. He would also constantly forget to "add" zeroes when doing multidigit multiplication. Both of these issues are classic examples of problems kids have when they don't really understand place value. The problem with Saxon is that a kid can slide by with great assessment scores, making you unaware there is a problem until very late in the game.

 

So, in a nutshell (maybe I should have put this at the beginning), Saxon *does* present concepts and the presentation is usually solid (and many times remarkably similar to the presentation of programs like Singapore), however the way the program is organized it is possible for a kid to seem to be doing well when in fact they are not understanding as well as they should.