Saxon Regrets?

[langfam]

Any of you regret using Saxon?

DD used Saxon till Adv. Math 1, but struggles with problem solving now....namely SAT type questions. CD SAT review has helped.

DS continues to use Adv. Math and though good at math is only doing OK with SAT math.

Is it Saxon or just the SAT that's tough?

I'm hoping to avoid this by using a different curriculum for younger DC. Any thoughts?

[Michelle in MO]

used it for one year. I think my oldest was in 6th grade at the time, and I had her doing Saxon 8/7, my middle daughter was in 4th grade, and she was doing Saxon 5/6, and my youngest was in 1st, and she was doing Saxon 2. It worked well with my youngest, but my middle daughter and older daughter didn't like the program. We had used Abeka before, which did work well with them, but I switched to Saxon for the one year because I was concerned about the upper-level math sequence in Abeka. Abeka's Algebra doesn't teach functions, which is necessary for today's algebra. Also, Abeka has only one semester of plane geometry, which isn't enough, in my opinion; I think a full year of geometry is necessary.

 

This may be like comparing apples with oranges, as yours have used Saxon at much higher levels, but I didn't like Saxon for the following reasons:

 

1. My girls needed a mastery approach rather than a "spiral" or incremental approach. I understand that the reasoning behind the incremental approach is to make sure that children retain previously taught mathematical concepts. However, there are plenty of math curricula out there that have a mastery approach yet still incorporate plenty of review into the curriculum.

 

2. Perhaps the most convincing "critique" of Saxon was given to me by a friend who had taken quite a bit of calculus in college. I think she went through Calculus 3. She was homeschooling her two young boys at the time. When I asked her what she thought of Saxon, she said she wasn't that impressed. First of all, Saxon gives the lesson, which is quite thorough and detailed in its explanation. Good. Then, Saxon gives about 6 questions pertaining to that lesson. Not so good. Then, Saxon has about 30 review questions pertaining to other concepts. She said that she felt that Saxon should have about 20 questions or so related to the concept that was just taught, in order to solidify the concept in the child's mind, and then have about 15 or fewer review questions.

 

3. Because of the incremental approach, my girls really struggled. When I had them tested that one year, it was their worst math score ever. Of course, we only used the program one year, so this may be a severe critique of Saxon that's undeserved. Many people use Saxon all the way through, and quite successfully at that. However, I found that the scope and sequence of the book really frustrated me as a mom, as well. When we had a lesson one day on fractions, the following day on proportions, the third day on decimals, the fourth day on polygons, and then the fifth day we went back to fractions again, I felt like someone had taken a box of pick-up sticks that were pre-labeled with the names of each topic, and then dropped them on the ground, randomly picked them up, and wrote the book in that order. My girls just didn't do well with this approach.

 

I hope my comments about Saxon aren't too harsh; please forgive me if they are. I just know that the incremental approach didn't work for our kids; they needed more of a mastery approach.

 

HTH!

[Home'scool]

We have been using Saxon since the very beginning, and now my daughter is in 8th grade doing Saxon 2. We have had zero problems with it and I feel she has learned a lot from it.

 

Then, Saxon gives about 6 questions pertaining to that lesson. Not so good. Then, Saxon has about 30 review questions pertaining to other concepts.

 

I have seen this comment before, but my experienc with Saxon is that it presents a lesson, gives anywhere from 5-10 practice problems pertaining to that lesson, and then about another 5 similiar problems within the 30 question problem set. So you do get more than just what they ask in the practice set. And you will get more from that lesson the next day, and the next, and the next.......

 

We have just started to prep for SAT, so I wanted to address that issue also. After getting 100% correct on almost all her Saxon lessons, my daughter and I approached SAT math like it would be easy.

 

WRONG!! SAT math is a whole 'nuther animal.

 

SAT math covers a very basic level of math, but in order to keep the playing field even, they specifically write the questions so it takes a lot of ingenuity to find what is usually a very simple solution. This way kids who are concentrating on math and science majors don't have an unfair advantage over ones who are concentrating on English and humanities. The purpose of the SAT math is to test how good you are at finding the simple solutions. The test writers pride themselves on changing very simple math concepts into questions that are barely recognizable.

 

Once we figured that out, we realized we had to approach SAT math in a completely different way. First my daugher reads the problem 3-4 times (it always looks like a concept she has never even seen before), then try to identify what TYPE of problem it is. What are they asking for??

 

Once you identify the type (which is the hard part), then you can have a plan for solving it.

 

If you remember that a lot of SAT problems put you in a situation that you have never seen before, and you know the tricks, you will be fine.

 

Even if you have the best traditional math curriculum, don't assume you will find SAT a breeze. It is a different ball game.

[kathleen]

We don't regret using it at all! Both boys loved the incremental (not spiral) approach. Some students do great with it, some need zillions of problems on the new concept. Both of my kids did very well on the math portion of the SAT--younger son scored over 700 (older slightly under).

[Brenda in MA]

my oldest used Saxon from Math 54 through the first half of Advanced Math. He also has had trouble with the SAT-type math problems, but I think that has more to do with the SAT than with Saxon Math in particular.

 

IMHO, the SAT math questions are really more "logic" problems than problems that test one's math knowledge. My son was able to improve his score somewhat by doing lots of practice SAT math problems and by using the Chalkdust SAT math DVDs and the Rocket Review Revolution book. None of these things increased his math knowledge, but they helped give him strategies with which to approach the SAT math problems. He was able to recognize the tricks and traps in the problems better.

 

I liked Saxon and kept using it with him because of the continuous review. This child needs lots and lots of practice, and that was the good thing about Saxon. Both of us became a little disenchanted with the program in Advanced Math because a lot of abstract concepts are covered, and there is no explanation of what these things are used for.

 

Ds is using Chalkdust's PreCalc course this year, and he likes it better in a lot of ways. Each section has a little box at the beginning that describes the applications of the material, and there are quite a few exercises that show practical applications. This is very important to my son; it motivates him to slog through the tough parts.

 

He enjoys the DVD instruction much better than he liked the Dive CDs. He is also really benefiting from the use of the graphing calculator in Chalkdust's course so he can actually "see" the functions. Although, I do think it's easy to become a little too dependent on the graphing calculator.

 

There are a few review problems at the end of each section, and those are helping him remember what he's learned. My biggest issue with CD is the pacing. The author gives a general suggestion of how many problems to do, but exactly what you assign is up to you. I find it frustrating to schedule the course because I don't know in advance which lessons are relatively easy and which would be harder. I expect that a classroom teacher would know this by experience after covering the course the first time.

 

I've read many reports over the years about how some love Saxon and some hate it. It seems to me, that the families that succeed with Saxon and whose dc get great SAT math scores are those whose children are naturally math-inclined or just bright or good with logic problems in general and who do significant SAT prep. My guess is that these kids would have done well on the SAT no matter what math program they used.

 

I guess I'm trying to say that, IMHO, if you use a decent math program diligently (and there are many, many of them, Saxon included), and if you prepare them for the SAT math with lots of practice, they will most likely do above average on the SAT math. At least in my experience, getting a great SAT math score requires innate math ability or very high intelligence, something very few kids are lucky to be born with.

 

One thing you might want to consider is to have your children take the ACT because most colleges accept both tests (check your school of interest to be sure, though). The math portion of the ACT is more in line with the type of math taught in high schools. So far in practice tests, my son has done much, much better on the ACT math than on the SAT math. I'll be curious to see, in a few months, how his actual scores come out.

 

Sorry this got so long, and I hope I addressed your question.

Brenda

[Nan in Mass]

We tried Saxon for one year and had a similar experience. My son couldn't learn it because it chopped it into very small pieces. He needs to see the whole picture to understand something. It also wasn't applied enough for him to understand it.

[Mommyfaithe]

Any of you regret using Saxon?

DD used Saxon till Adv. Math 1, but struggles with problem solving now....namely SAT type questions. CD SAT review has helped.

DS continues to use Adv. Math and though good at math is only doing OK with SAT math.

Is it Saxon or just the SAT that's tough?

I'm hoping to avoid this by using a different curriculum for younger DC. Any thoughts?

 

 

I have BIG Saxon regrets. Both of my dd's used Saxon from 5/4 through advanced math. It did not prepare them for the SAT AT ALL... They both pretty much bombed the math portion...and dd # 2 is very "mathy." I do not think Saxon taught them to think outside the box or how to look at math problems from different angles. It was so frustrating...because I am so math illiterate...I needed the extras that saxon provided...namely solutions manuals and DIVE Cd's.

I think Saxon uses it's own method and vocabulary to teach math and it does not carry over to the SAT's. I have not had anyone do an ACT yet, so i can't comment on that....

However...both of my older dd;s got A's in their Colege Algebra classes and the teachers were very impressed with their ability to learn the information...

My dd's were funny...they were like "OH!!! So that's what that was all about...sheesh..."

 

Anyway, I am still struggling to find a math program for my younger kids that i can stick to...(See my yearly math rant by searching the boards :tongue_smilie: ) I chose Teaching Textbooks for my 3rd child because he is not inclined to work too hard academically...and he needed to do SOMETHING!

I had ds use Teaching Textbooks Algenra 1 & 2 for 7th & 8th grades. i think we will do Jacobs Geometry and then an Algebra 2 program...then off to CC for any more math classes...It is just beyond my reach to do any more than that.

 

Anyway, Good luck...and if you come up with a math plan, please be sure to share it.

 

~~Faithe (who never proofreads her posts, so please disregard any typos.)

[Faithr]

We are using Saxon and my oldest dd did very well on the SAT math portion. She went through about the first 3rd of Adv. Math.

[Chris in VA]

As someone who worked for the Princeton Review and taught SAT prep, let me tell you something--

NO curriculum prepares you for the SAT. The questions are not designed to test your math knowledge.

Don't fret about Saxon--it's fine to teach MATH. Get a good review book to teach the SAT. I recommend the Princeton Review book.

[Janet in WA]

 

2. Perhaps the most convincing "critique" of Saxon was given to me by a friend who had taken quite a bit of calculus in college. I think she went through Calculus 3. She was homeschooling her two young boys at the time. When I asked her what she thought of Saxon, she said she wasn't that impressed. First of all, Saxon gives the lesson, which is quite thorough and detailed in its explanation. Good. Then, Saxon gives about 6 questions pertaining to that lesson. Not so good. Then, Saxon has about 30 review questions pertaining to other concepts. She said that she felt that Saxon should have about 20 questions or so related to the concept that was just taught, in order to solidify the concept in the child's mind, and then have about 15 or fewer review questions.

You know, it's not surprising that your friend was uncomfortable with Saxon's unorthodox approach. She was comparing Saxon's approach to the only experience she'd ever had herself. That doesn't mean the traditional math instruction she'd experienced was superior to Saxon's -- just that Saxon wasn't what she was comfortable with. Saxon's approach doesn't suit every student, but not because it is inferior. It's actually a very ingenious design, and works extremely well for many students.

[Janet in WA]

Any of you regret using Saxon?

DD used Saxon till Adv. Math 1, but struggles with problem solving now....namely SAT type questions. CD SAT review has helped.

DS continues to use Adv. Math and though good at math is only doing OK with SAT math.

Is it Saxon or just the SAT that's tough?

I'm hoping to avoid this by using a different curriculum for younger DC. Any thoughts?

This is amusing to me, because one of the biggest criticisms Saxon has received throughout the years goes like this..."Sure, Saxon is good for preparing students for the SAT, but it's not good for anything else." LOL, Saxon can't win.

 

The truth is, SAT math is not "real life" math -- it's a whole different animal and the only real prep for it is an SAT prep program that focuses in on how to master SAT math problems.

[Janet in WA]

I think Saxon uses it's own method and vocabulary to teach math and it does not carry over to the SAT's. I have not had anyone do an ACT yet, so i can't comment on that....

 

What did your dd's use to prepare for the SAT? As Chris in VA points out, it's not the math curriculum you use that prepares the student for the SAT, it's whatever SAT prep program you use that does that.

 

Anyway, I am still struggling to find a math program for my younger kids

Whatever you choose, be prepared that it won't be what prepares them for the SAT -- it will be the good, thorough SAT prep program you'll choose that does that for them.

[Michelle in MO]

Obviously Saxon works very well for many people; I believe I tried to communicate that in my original post. It just didn't work well for my kids. They were used to a different approach, and I'm finding that that approach works much better with them. For upper-level math, I really like the Lial's series, which has been great for our family.

 

And, perhaps I spoke too soon, since my oldest hasn't taken her SAT's or ACT's yet; I can appreciate the point being made repeatedly that SAT math is not the typical math you study in high school. For that, I can see that a good SAT review book or something like the Chalkdust SAT Math Review DVD's would be very helpful.

 

I think one thing that is helpful for all of us is, when we find a math program we like, we should stick with it! I've been guilty of switching around sometimes, to our detriment. It's a hard call to make sometimes, whether or not to switch programs. I was only a one-year Saxon user. I've found with math curricula and also with other curricula in general that the overall success of the program is not only dependent on how well my children fare with the approach, but how well I, as the teacher, can work with the approach the text makes. When I like the books and my kids like the books, things usually work pretty well! :) Our family didn't have that experience with Saxon; that doesn't mean that every family has that same experience.

[percytruffle]

Exactly! Chalkdust Math has a good SAT math review series. We've used it and liked it very much.

[danielle]

I have general math regrets! We used Saxon from 3rd through 6th grade. It was workmanlike, but dull for my highly verbal kid. She dreaded math except for Fridays, when we did "fun" math with other books like Penrose, Number Devil, Challenge Math, etc. When she began getting so many wrong, I switched her to ALEKS for 7th. She enjoyed ALEKS for the 2/3 she got, but when something was really new, the explanations were terrible for her and for me. When we contacted ALEKS for further explanations, we got back more math-ese.

 

This year we discovered Life of Fred and it's been such an improvement! I'm using Beginning Algebra with her, and Percents with another child I'm tutoring. If I had it to do over, I'd buy a bunch of flashcards, Family Math, the Penrose books, and Hands-on equations and just do those until the child had learned the math facts. Then I'd move into LOF. I'm using LOF percents with a fifth grader, and I think she'll be in the Algebra book by maybe the middle of 6th grade, a year+ earlier than my own dd.

 

It could have been so much more fun.

Danielle

[Mommyfaithe]

:ack2::ack2:

What did your dd's use to prepare for the SAT? As Chris in VA points out, it's not the math curriculum you use that prepares the student for the SAT, it's whatever SAT prep program you use that does that.

 

Whatever you choose, be prepared that it won't be what prepares them for the SAT -- it will be the good, thorough SAT prep program you'll choose that does that for them.

 

 

Here i am kicking myself for being a failure...and all the while it is the SAT which doesn't really measure Math ability...but SAT taking ability...GRRRRR!!!!!!

 

Thank GOD that my girls are not going into math related fields ....

 

My ds is slated to take the SAT in June...and by the way we will look into Chalkdust SAT prep.

 

For my girls, we used Princeton Review, College Board online Class AND test prep book, Question of the day etc. We REALLY spent time preparing...AND for the record, they did fantastic on all the Verbal portions...dd1 pre-essay did a 750 on the verbal...and dd 2 did the essay got a 14 on it and a 700 ish on the reg. verbal portion...so our prep was not worthless...just frustrating in the math area...

AND like I said, they both received A's in their Math classes in college....

 

~~Faithe

[lllll]

Funny you should ask. One of our ds's just happened to have written the below paper about Saxon. He insisted on reading it to all of us and we about died laughing. I thought I would post it to add a little humor. Please take it that way and enjoy.

 

 

 

Dear Saxon Inc.,

 

Although I understand your philanthropic inclination to occupy men with that which delights them, I hardly think the mentally deranged are fit to be writing textbooks. Neither are they qualified, however much collegiate activity they have undergone, to author materials that will so directly influence the thoughts of others. A man ought to be orderly, concise, clear, and, in short, tolerable if he hopes to be perceived as a catalyst of learning rather than an inhibitor and retarder of learning. One should at least restrain or instruct those that have difficulty with the most elementary attempts at mental activity; but it is clear from your textbooks that you gave the lunatics whose masterpiece it is free reign. Indeed, having finished as much as was tolerable (through the paradoxical “Advanced Mathematicsâ€), I have begun to suspect that your textbooks were intended to destroy any ability to utilize mathematics in a lucid or useful manner, and were rather an attempt to see to it that those who paid for the privilege of being desperately confused and frustrated not only were rendered inept at the skill your books so ludicrously professed to teach, but loathed the entire topic altogether and shuddered whenever anyone who was fortunate enough to not have been abused by your attempts at instruction so much as murmured the word math.

 

Take, for instance, the excerpt from Advanced Mathematics, where your lunatics declare the core philosophy behind their teaching: “There is nothing to understand here…â€[1] First of all, even if there weren’t, and your staff had discovered the first truth which cannot be understood or explained, how in the world would they know there’s nothing to understand? It is a metaphysical impossibility that those with properly proportioned cerebral matter would flatly reject. Secondly, why say so if there is nothing to understand? Thirdly, there is something to understand: the rule and its application.

 

The most impressive feat of chaos and digression was the extensive demolition of relevance in successive “lessons.†Each new lesson had less to do with the last as I progressed forward, and none of it seemed to have any relevance to that mysterious sphere that your staff is doing all it can to render its victims least capable of functioning in: reality. A lesson on what would otherwise be known as geometry would then be followed by a lesson on what once resembled polynomial equations. Once in a while, to thoroughly befuddle the struggling pupil and keep him off guard, a successive lesson would have relevance to the last, which would create a temporary illusion of structure and successive order that would be thoroughly eradicated by the next seventy lessons, after which another brief peep at a distant and mysterious world of reason and order would be afforded. Especially torturous were the lessons plotted with exceptional lunacy in which two, and sometimes three, unrelated topics would be thrust into the feeble brain of the imprisoned in quick succession, causing the most painful contortions and excruciating deformations of the brain. Then the brain would be stretched on the rack as it was forced to recall lesson two while doing lesson one hundred and two, for those address the topic of probabilities. The dementators certainly achieved a level of disquiet in their dementees that will never quite leave them, and whatever process of dissolution they used to stamp out order, it resulted in a condition that more closely resembles the final state of entropy than any other scientifically observed phenomenon I know of.

 

One thing I can say in favor of your books. They have further driven me to passionately seek solace and sanctuary in activities that least resemble mathematics, particularly imaginative writing, film-making, and whimsical musicking. So in a way, your program has enabled me to write intricately sarcastic epistles to you nincompoops who don’t have the temerity to dare to be normal, and prefer to hide behind book covers and poke at the eyes of anyone who dares to open your self-proclaimed “incriminating development†in an attempt to analyze your bizarre methods of instruction. (In fact, I’m supposed to be doing math right now.) I am indebted to you on this account, for—who knows?—had I had the minutest inclination toward anything which remotely resembled mathematics, I might have become a sharp physicist, or a rich accountant, or an exploring astronaut, or a successful businessman, or a peaceful astronomer, or an inventor, or an engineer, or a chemist, or a mathematician. But, thanks to you, I need not fear these prospects. No. Instead I will brave the world without the comforting security of math, which would have allowed me to ease through what I will now have to work and agonize for, and so I will appreciate my successes more because they will be dearer to me by virtue of their scarcity, and when the day comes that I am confronted with a dilemma of the mathematical nature, I can proudly declare to my peers that my ineptitude in that area is complete, and that I, unlike them, must procure answers by the sweat of my brow when my brain expands and forces out the excess hydration as I proceed upon a path of my own invention toward a goal of unknown nature with a variable certainty. Yes! Unencumbered with enlightenment, unhindered by formulae or laws, I will careen happily through life full of wonder at the number of phenomena that I cannot explain! Able to think freely in more creative manners via the vast unmet capacity of my brain, I will sit and think upon simple problems for hours, approaching them in ways no one thought possible before the advent of SAXON. Great will be my delight and surprise when, if ever, I enter a mathematical problem and solve it—and emerge unscathed. (But fortunately for me, I will not even be in a position to be exposed to the harmful effects of math.) Tilting my head and leaning about drunkenly, I will attempt to drain those scattered but relevant streams of mathematical teaching that have sunk into the dark recesses of my brain into the same puddle, and, shaking my head with a grimace, I will mix the cerebral sludge and hope that a solution will result that will dissolve my problems.

 

And how thankful I am that you have taught me the value of a constant companion, for such is my calculator, without whom I cannot function in a mathematical scenario. Indeed, in the numerical face of adversity, I can confidently wield my tiny utensil and hope its batteries don’t die as I ruthlessly pick at the granite edifice of stupidity blocking my unadvisedly easy path to success. I will be older and wiser when I get there.

 

So it is, my friends, I am indebted to the lunatics that you conscripted to craft this, their masterwork; and, without even a warning label or an apology, you have strewn these books across America to teach Americans the value of work, patience, and exertion, and continue our preeminence as the nation that so amuses and thereby entertains all other nations. I am, therefore, as millions of others, deeply indebted to you for what you have wrought, and am thinking hard of the most effective manner in which to return your favor.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Alex

 

[1] I looked for hours but couldn’t find the exact page where this quote was. My brother and I remember it very clearly, however, so it exists. Let me know if you find it.

[Kimber]

This is absolutely hilarious. I love it! In fact, I blogged about Saxon the other day and said the exact same thing--although math typically builds on itself, Saxon doesn't.

 

BTW, while my kids are young, I have taught 3 years of highschool Saxon math and some really knew their math but there were some that really thought that a minus sign only meant take away. I think for some types of learners, Saxon can leave some children with gaps. But this isn't everyone. I know an engineer who used Saxon all the way through and does very well in engineering supporting his homeschooling family of 6.

[LinRTX]

We have used Saxon from Saxon 2 through Calculus (actually my oldest did not start Saxon until Algebra 2) for 2 children and are doing Algebra 2 and Saxon 3 for the third time. My oldest will graduate in May with an EE degree and only missed one on the SAT math section. I think Saxon can and does teach math. All my children, even my non-mathy ones are told they do well in math.

[Janet in WA]

You mention the ACT...

 

You should know that it's not unusual for a student who is pretty good at math, but doesn't do well on the SAT to do much better on the ACT. While the SAT is a "reasoning" (i.e. tricky) test, the ACT is a much more straightforward "can you solve this this kind of math problem?" test. Both of our sons did better on the ACT math than on the SAT math. They took both tests, and I recommend this for everyone for just the reason we're discussing -- some students do better on one than the other, and it's handy to have both scores so you can use them to the student's best advantage.

[Gwen in VA]

Just to provide another point-of-view --

 

I have never used Saxon so wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I find the claim that NO math curriculum can prepare a student for the SAT to be questionable.

 

The SAT involves basic math skills used in bizarre applications. Any curriculum that has the student set up problems from not-immediately-clear information will provide a strong background for the SAT. Curricula that have extensive problems at the end of each section that involve strange applications or are extremely theoretical can really help a student to be very comfortable with the problem-solving approach required by the SAT's.

 

 

On the other hand, the more "drill-and-kill" the curriculum, the less it will help the student prepare for the SAT.

[Myrtle]

Just to provide another point-of-view --

 

I have never used Saxon so wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I find the claim that NO math curriculum can prepare a student for the SAT to be questionable.

 

The SAT involves basic math skills used in bizarre applications. Any curriculum that has the student set up problems from not-immediately-clear information will provide a strong background for the SAT. Curricula that have extensive problems at the end of each section that involve strange applications or are extremely theoretical can really help a student to be very comfortable with the problem-solving approach required by the SAT's.

 

 

On the other hand, the more "drill-and-kill" the curriculum, the less it will help the student prepare for the SAT.

 

Gwen, I was wondering about that too. Let's say I am characterizing the argument correctly by summarizing it as,

 

"The SAT is about reasoning and is not about math. Therefore no math program helps prepare a student for the SAT. " (Or maybe the argument is that it uses math to assess reasoning? Maybe it's just a glorified IQ test?)

 

Is the missing premise "No math program helps students to reason"? Can a student be good at math but not good at reasoning? That seems like like a contradiction based on things I've heard mathematicians say.

 

This is confusing.

 

I also find it difficult to come up with a conclusion based on multiple anecdotes of "yes it does work" or "no it didn't work" since the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Janet in WA]

Gwen, I was wondering about that too. Let's say I am characterizing the argument correctly by summarizing it as,

 

"The SAT is about reasoning and is not about math. Therefore no math program helps prepare a student for the SAT. " (Or maybe the argument is that it uses math to assess reasoning? Maybe it's just a glorified IQ test?)

 

Is the missing premise "No math program helps students to reason"? Can a student be good at math but not good at reasoning? That seems like like a contradiction based on things I've heard mathematicians say.

 

This is confusing.

 

I also find it difficult to come up with a conclusion based on multiple anecdotes of "yes it does work" or "no it didn't work" since the plural of anecdote is not data.

Maybe I can clear up your confusion, and maybe not. The SAT isn't just about reasoning, but a particular kind of reasoning. And it's about TIMED reasoning. (The best way to get a feel for this is to look at some real SAT's yourself.) For the SAT, you need to know how to do the math, you need to know how to reason, AND you need to know how to do the SAT's particular kind of reasoning FAST. Of course, a math program can go a long way toward arming a student with the problem solving skills he'll need for the SAT, but I would expect that the real prep for SAT mastery will come from prep specifically for the SAT.

[langfam]

To me there are 2 parts to being "good at math":

 

--processes (steps that get you to the solution)

--applications (here is where reasoning comes in)

 

I think Saxon is excellent at teaching processes, but weak in teaching applications.

 

Kids who are naturals at math will do well with Saxon (or any program for that matter).

 

Other kids who are not math naturals can do well with Saxon if they are good at memorizing (my DD), but run into problems when they have to apply processes outside the Saxon curriculum.

[Janet in WA]

This was not our experience either. Both of our sons were of, at most, average math ability. But they did well on the SAT, the ACT, and in their college math classes.

 

This is another area where Saxon can't win. Some claim it's really only good for weak math students. Others claim it's only good for strong math students. I've heard both arguments for years, but seldom from anyone who has actually used Saxon "all the way".

[Janet in WA]

 

This is absolutely hilarious. I love it! In fact, I blogged about Saxon the other day and said the exact same thing--although math typically builds on itself, Saxon doesn't.

Math doesn't build on itself, but math instruction does. As does Saxon's instruction. I'm puzzled that you would think that it doesn't. How would it get from counting to calculus if its instruction didn't build on itself?

[Myrtle]

Maybe I can clear up your confusion, and maybe not. The SAT isn't just about reasoning, but a particular kind of reasoning. And it's about TIMED reasoning. (The best way to get a feel for this is to look at some real SAT's yourself.) For the SAT, you need to know how to do the math, you need to know how to reason, AND you need to know how to do the SAT's particular kind of reasoning FAST. Of course, a math program can go a long way toward arming a student with the problem solving skills he'll need for the SAT, but I would expect that the real prep for SAT mastery will come from prep specifically for the SAT.

 

I must be a dolt. :crying: I am familiar with the items on the mathematics section of the SAT and for the life of me I don't know what kind of reasoning distinguishes it from what happens in a good math program (or perhaps what ought to be a good math program if there are none). When I see the test items I just see the sort of questions that are found in a rigorous math program...the kind that given 10 minutes per item would be not be difficult to solve, but given 50 seconds per items would lower one's success rate. So speed is definitely a limiting factor here. And then there are questions in which you have to mentally recall and coordinate several concepts at once, which isn't so much a different kind of reasoning but a bigger better mousetrap as far as test items go.

[Tressa]

We tried Saxon for one year and had a similar experience. My son couldn't learn it because it chopped it into very small pieces. He needs to see the whole picture to understand something. It also wasn't applied enough for him to understand it.

 

I am so glad that I read this thread! I have been using Saxon since my son was in 3rd grade. Now, he is near the end of the new 8/7, and it is making him crazy. I added the Key to Algebra series to help cement some of the concepts.

 

This is all making sense now. It confirms my hunch that I need to switch to another program for Algebra for him.

[Kimber]

You wrote, "Math doesn't build on itself, but math instruction does. As does Saxon's instruction. I'm puzzled that you would think that it doesn't. How would it get from counting to calculus if its instruction didn't build on itself?"

 

I think you mistake my work build to mean progress. If so, you're right it does progress forward from one topic to the next. But by build, I mean teaching concepts so that, from Saxon alone, students can understand why a theorem is what is it from the beginning. I believe Saxon teaches that certain formulas are true and are to be memorized, but it doesn't explain why.

 

The last Saxon Algebra 1 class I taught, I supplemented with Gelfand, thanks to Myrtle and Charon, and would work out the theorems to explain why certain formulas were true and needed to be memorized and could also be applied in any future problem.

 

I think the kids thought that some of the formula and equations were plucked out of the air by mathemagicians and didn't realize that those equations came from some reasonable and non-frightening place.

 

My opinions about how children feel about this are based on my own feelings toward learning math. I was always afraid to open my math books in high school and college because I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to understand the material. I think I learned from early on that the math text weren't teaching me, but the teacher was. Which math books I was taught from, I have no idea.

 

When I taught algebra in co-op, I tried to teach from that place of fear, trying to explain why things were, or rather are, what they are in relation to math equations.

[Nan in Mass]

He memorized the algorithms and did very well at answering the Saxon problems correctly, but he was so incredibly bad at applying that math to real life that we were horrified (family of engineers here GRIN). At that point, I switched him to Singapore primary math, backing him way up. He is now working in NEM3. He consistently gets 2/3!!!!!! of the problems wrong, but you know what? He can apply what he knows. His PSAT scores were average (not for our family, but for college bound students), and he placed into pre-calc on the CC placement exams when he was part way through NEM2, getting near perfect scores on the arithmetic and algebra sections. It was very scary sticking with Singapore when he kept getting so many wrong, but it seemed like he was really learning how math works, so I persisted. He has trouble remembering things, he works very slowly, and he makes errors like reversing numbers, but he understands the concepts. Singpore has a way of forcing you to apply the concept that did him good. Good thing I'm not grading, though!

-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

I agree.

[langfam]

I guess I have no one to blame but myself. I kept saying to myself "they're getting A's" so no need to change anything.

 

I taught them every lesson and corrected every test. They hardly came to me with anything that they couldn't solve within the text.

 

I realize now having looked at Foerster, Lial, and Larson texts, these books offer a lot more word problems and opportunities to apply procedures learned in different senarios. The Saxon text presents very similar kinds of problems over and over again in the problem sets and tests. Kids who can memorize can score very well using Saxon, but real understanding is not necessarily there. Too much dependency on memorized processes can turn off the reasoning portion of the brain for some children.

 

Sure there'll be kids who can apply outside the Saxon text (I have 2 DC that can). Some others, I was like this myself, need more exposure to using procedures in different ways. Growing up in Singapore and using their math curriculum, I was force to think in many different ways. And I'm not saying this is the better curriculum. It was very frustrating to use. It was my worse subject and I needed a tutor.

 

I suppose I chose Saxon because it's recommended in all the books (WTM, DYOCC, etc) and while it can work for some children it doesn't serve others well. It can give parents and some children a false sense that they are good at math when all the while they are really just good at Saxon Math.

[Nan in Mass]

Singapore math certainly has its frustrations. I'm not surprised you needed a tutor. I have done a considerable amount of tutoring/explaining in order to get my children through it. Left to my own devices, I, too, might have stuck with the Saxon, which seemed clear enough to me (probably because I already have the big picture) and is easy to teach out of, but my extended family stopped me. They were worried by him whenever they tried to do any sort of project with him and told me over and over again that he was incapable of applying his math. So we switched.

: )

-Nan

[Peela]

Wasn't Saxon designed originally as a kind of remedial program for kids who struggled with maths, and it was presumed they struggled because they couldn't remember stuff they had learned before? i can see why its designed that way. Isn't their motto something like "turns maths haters into maths high flyers ". I always thought it was funny they didnt say it turned them into maths lovers!

The other thing I have often thought about Saxon is, sheerly doing that much Maths each day is going to have to create a large section of the brain dedicated to Saxon maths. Its a LOT of maths.

 

We did Saxon for 6 months, my daughter who had previously liked maths, absolutely hated it, so I changed. She doenst love Maths but she self teaches- spends about 45 minutes a day on it in grade 9. Gets most of it right. Understands it. How much torture does math have to be ?

:001_smile:

[Janet in WA]

That's a myth.

[langfam]

http://www.taliskertutorials.com/math.html

 

I found this today. Some insightful comments here. If you love Saxon please don't read it because it's another critique. I'm not trying to start trouble.

.

I'll have to say after having used Saxon for so many years, it is difficult for me to let it go... out of fear I guess that I'll be making yet another mistake.

 

I do have 3 DC not using Saxon this year. I hope that by next year, I can let it go completely with the other 2.

[Myrtle]

Wasn't Saxon designed originally as a kind of remedial program for kids who struggled with maths, and it was presumed they struggled because they couldn't remember stuff they had learned before? i can see why its designed that way. Isn't their motto something like "turns maths haters into maths high flyers ". I always thought it was funny they didnt say it turned them into maths lovers!

The other thing I have often thought about Saxon is, sheerly doing that much Maths each day is going to have to create a large section of the brain dedicated to Saxon maths. Its a LOT of maths.

 

We did Saxon for 6 months, my daughter who had previously liked maths, absolutely hated it, so I changed. She doenst love Maths but she self teaches- spends about 45 minutes a day on it in grade 9. Gets most of it right. Understands it. How much torture does math have to be ?

:001_smile:

\

 

 

The "Saxon is a remedial program" is a topic that I've seen come up a few times on various places on the internet. Here's my interpretation of how this belief might have gotten started. Saxon markets (or used to at least) itself based on the successful rise in test scores it had in public schools whose students were otherwise just doing awful in other programs. When mathematicians like Wayne Bishop discuss Saxon on forums for math teachers Saxon is discussed in this context of studies showing remediation of kids behind in math such as this one. I think because they were trying to sell themselves on the fact that they successfully "remediated" problems that folks might be concluding that it is a "remedial" program. In this sense the term "remedial" is being conflated. But I don't think that it's remedial in the sense that it's intended for children with learning handicaps.

 

It's also not so much that kids "couldn't" rememeber what they had learned before in the sense that the kids were brain damaged, but in the sense that they only had two days of practice with basic facts because they were in rotten programs...that is my impression from following the math wars in other forums. There are some things that seem quirky about Saxon but it really makes more sense when you bear in mind that this program was intended for use with public schools by teachers who didn't necessarily have the math background to teach a program that left it up to the teacher to fill in the gaps (like Singapore does! And we hear of parents who can't teach out of Singapore more often than we hear of parents who can't teach out of Saxon. They aren't criticizing the content of either so much as accessibility/pedagogy )

 

As a digression, it is interesting that Saxon/Wang have told the truth and nothing but the truth content-wise, but that they haven't told the whole truth, so to speak, because accessibility is something they keep in mind. Before we are too criticial of such a strategy bear in mind that a similar thing happened in the Soviet Union when Kolomogorov took over the reform of K12 math ed during the Sputnik era. He recieved high criticism for not teaching set theory and pure math and his response was that he could only include those topics in the curriculum that the teachers had the educational background to teach. The Russians then selected the better students for what amounted to an after school program and personally taught them this other side of math. Meanwhile, in the United States, American mathematicians idealistically clung to the belief that pure math and set theory could be taught in the regular school curriculum and it was a catastrophe! There is no question that the actual content was superb but it was misinterpreted, misapplied, and mistaught by both publishers and teachers and turned into a giant mess (immortalized by Tom Lehrer). True, the teachers that had degrees in math started churning out future mathematicians at a rate the US has not seen since (maybe ten times more than we see today) but almost no one teaching had a math degree and what about them and their students? They hated it. They were exposed to content of the highest quality and they couldn't stand it. So while math ed came tumbling down in the US, the Russians who had opted for something less idealistic and more mechanical and boring kept on successfully chugging along.