Pro-Saxon folks - your opinion, please?

[razorbackmama]

I would love to hear your take on Maria Miller's opinion on Saxon: http://homeschoolmath.blogspot.com/2008/05/my-opinion-on-saxon-math.html

 

Have you found what she talks about to be true? Do your kids understand the why behind the math, or do they just know how to do it?

 

I'm not really wondering about the difference between mastery vs. spiral as much as I am about how the topics are actually presented, if that makes sense.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I can't think of any concepts that aren't actually "taught" in the lesson. In other words, I don't feel that they just set out an algorithm without explaining and demonstrating the basis for it.

 

It may be true, however, that they do expect pretty quick mastery of the algorithm. An example of this would be division of fractions. I think this was introduced over two lessons. From then on, there would be review questions in the mixed practice that were division of fraction problems. The student was expected to remember how to do this. I think this is an example of how many students end up relying on the how without totally mastering the why behind what they are doing. When my kids get stuck, I go back and show them that they are multiplying both fractions by the same number, that the recipricals cancel and that they are left with multiplying the reciprical and the first fraction.

 

It would be easy to just say "multiply by the reciprical" but I do want them to think about why so that they have a better understanding. I'm not sure that this is a flaw in Saxon so much as it is a flaw in how we often discuss math. I have an objection to non spiral math courses, because I think there is a possibility to segregate math topics into small descrete bits. I saw this in a sixth grade classroom I was observing. The teacher actually told the class that they could take home all their fraction sheets, because they wouldn't be using fractions anymore. :eek: I thought that was an incredible misstep to say that to the class.

 

I also think that it is easy to jetison parts of the Saxon lesson as boring or repetitive or tedious. The meeting in the K-3 levels, for example, often gets left out. But there are building blocks there for things like multiplication, graphs, and skip counting. Learning the +2 facts is much easier if you've been doing the odd and even counting strips.

 

In the middle grade books, there is a lot of mastery built into the fact sheets. My kids didn't like them and would often skip them. I didn't check up on this as often as I should have. And to be honest, their command of some things faltered because they didn't have the immediate fluency with these facts.

 

I think there are kids and families for whom Saxon is a real mismatch. I also think that there are families that don't do Saxon as programmed and then talk about how horrible it is. And I do think that there are many kids who use Saxon to great success. It has worked well for us. I have supplemented with a couple other things, but the basis has been Saxon from K to doing Algebra 1/2 in 7th and 6th grade for my older kids.

[Guest mrsjamiesouth]

I went through 5 different math programs including SM, MM, R&S, CLE, and Saxon with my oldest. He didn't understand division in any of the programs until Saxon. It just explained division in a way he can understand, so I do not feel that it does not explain why. I believe children need all that review for a concept to stick. If you teach it and move on they will forget, this was our experience with SM.

 

I just decided to switch my 6yo over to Saxon as well, starting in January. I like how thoroughly it teaches calendar math and mental math.

[HollyDay]

As we all know, 1 curriculum will not meet the need of every child. Some love Saxon, some cannot stand it. Personally, we like it. We have found that our dc need the constant review.

 

The program is not without its faults however. I personally do not like how they teach fractions/decimals/percents. For us, the jump between 65 and 76 is too fast, or too intense, or too something. Both my dc did wonderfully with Saxon until 76. I've needed to supplement or switch programs for 6th grade. But, we always return to Saxon by pre-Algebra. It just "clicks" for our dc.

[Dmmetler]

As a former math tutor, I can say that of the programs commonly used in schools around here (which doesn't include SM or MM), Saxon schools sent me fewer students. It really seems like Saxon works very, very well for the majority of kids. Mine just wasn't one of them.

[TracyR]

Saxon does work for a vast majority of children. I admit if I had Saxon for math as a child I would of done great with math.

My daughters attend a private school that uses Saxon and three out of my four are doing well with it.

 

My oldest has not only because she is so used to focusing on one topic at a time. I had used programs like BJU, Calvert with her and those made sense to her. She literally cannot wrap her brain around the Saxon math for some reason. Plus it isn't helping that I can't spend as much time with her after school because I have three younger ones that have homework too.

 

Saxon does teach the whys to math. Most people that says that either :have not used the program at all, or have not properly used the program. Or just they themselves do not understand the program either.

 

I don't hold that as truth as this lady has a product to sell. Of course she isn't going to give Saxon a good review. She's never used it , nor properly gone through the math program to know how it works. If you just look at a text and nothing else your not going to see it. You really need to look through the entire program and use it before ever giving it a proper review.

Edited November 23, 2010 by TracyR

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

We have been using Saxon since day 1 and it has lead to the following observations-some of which repeat postings above.

 

1) You do actually need to do the meetings in the early years and the facts tests in the later. The knowledge gained by all aspects of a lesson are critical.

 

2) I disagree with those who skip problems in the lessons. The argument that different topics are presented in each lesson is mitigated by the fact that each lesson teaches small bits of information and that the repetition in the problem sets is what builds mastery. Skipping problems means skipping mastery. The difference in a program like Saxon is that the mastery is achieved through the repetition rather than a continual string of "lectures".

 

3) I find that too often homeschoolers dump a program they think doesn't work for the wrong reasons. There certainly are times that a program or system needs to be changed to suit the student. But to be honest, math, especially as a child ages is difficult and is work. I don't mean that has to be negative but that it is a fact of learning some subjects. I think too often when met with this sudden need to work that kids tend to resist and that leads parents to look for a program change. Also, as programs get more difficult it puts more work on the teacher-this can lead the parent/teacher to look for change. I think that the whole situation needs to be thoroughly reviewed before jumping ship for the next great program. I find this to be one of the complaints I hear most often from parents-the "fun" level of a math program. I'm not sure that fun should be the most important aspect and folks need to know that math can be fun no matter which program you use.

 

4) I think Saxon does teach the whys of math. I just does it in such small bites and without labels that you have no idea it happened if you aren't watching closely. For example, my kids have been learning much geometry and the example of area has come up in several lessons. The problem for mom the teacher is I want formulas that look algebraic and they just aren't giving them yet. My kids know how to do this but can't rattle off a formula. By the time they are given that formula and asked to use it in more creative problem solving they will understand why it works even if the concept wasn't set out as here is the formula, here is why, do it for this week.

[Ellie]

I wish I'd had Saxon when I was growing up. I wish Saxon had been available when I was hsing my dc. So there you go.

 

Someone who thinks Saxon "jumps around" is somehow not paying attention, but we're all entitled to our opinions. :-)

[Pam Wilhelm]

We love Saxon...hated it in K - 3, but love 5/4 and 7/6. We plan on using it for the rest of their schooling careers.

 

We try to do all of it.......... fact tests; classroom practice; read the lesson; do the practice problems; complete all the problems; test regularly.

 

Math is somethign that most people have to work at..........it isn't fun for many people........ it is work and sometimes you just have to suck it up and get it done. My kids like Saxon but don't always like "doing" math......... such is life. Suck it up and do your math, kiddoe!

 

I'm very happy with Saxon. I think it does a great job teaching the how's and why's to my kids. :001_smile:

[8filltheheart]

I would love to hear your take on Maria Miller's opinion on Saxon: http://homeschoolmath.blogspot.com/2008/05/my-opinion-on-saxon-math.html

 

Have you found what she talks about to be true? Do your kids understand the why behind the math, or do they just know how to do it?

 

I'm not really wondering about the difference between mastery vs. spiral as much as I am about how the topics are actually presented, if that makes sense.

 

I'm not pro-Saxon; neither am I anti-Saxon. Saxon is a math program that would never work for my kids b/c they intuitively make mental leaps in math and the incremental approach in Saxon would literally drive them crazy.

 

That said, a lot of the math discussions seem to distort what really takes place in most math programs.

 

I sort of see the arguments something like this:

 

A child is in a room with a tool box full of different tools and a stack of wood, nails, etc.

 

One distorted argument is-----leave the child alone. Let them explore the tools on their own. Let them discover what the different tools do w/o intervening. Leave them alone with the tools and wood.....what can they build??

 

Second argument-----show the children exactly how each tool works in the tool box. Do not leave them alone with the tools. Do not let them touch the stack wood and actually build anything unique. The only thing they do is actually see the tools demonstrated and they only thing they do with the tools is replicate the demonstrations they witnessed and don't create anything.

 

Really?? Isn't it more likely that the REAL difference is that one approach leans more toward the 1st argument and the other leans a little more toward the 2nd BUT a blend absolutely exists??

 

Some math programs are more discovery oriented but they still don't expect a child to construct a cathedral from that stack of wood w/o help in figuring out how some of the tools work and how they should approach that stack of wood.

 

Some math programs provide a book with more instructions on the assembly of the cathedral but the child still needs to be able to use the tools and figure out how to apply the tools to the wood to construct the building.

 

Both groups of kids should end up with a cathedral......but some kids will be happier in the first group and some will be happier in the second. It is all in how they learn and process information. For example, a non-intuitive child might refuse to even engage in the process if they were in the 1st group b/c they are overwhelmed and don't understand what they should be doing and aren't sure enough about what to do that they won't eve pick up any tool. A really intuitive kid might shut down and zone out in the 2nd group b/c they can picture it all in their head w/o someone going on and on about how they should go about it so that by the time they actually get to touch the tools, they have lost all interest in the project.

 

FWIW.....I completely disagree that mastery is superior over spiral......but that is a different conversation entirely.:lol:

[regentrude]

2) I disagree with those who skip problems in the lessons. The argument that different topics are presented in each lesson is mitigated by the fact that each lesson teaches small bits of information and that the repetition in the problem sets is what builds mastery. Skipping problems means skipping mastery. The difference in a program like Saxon is that the mastery is achieved through the repetition rather than a continual string of "lectures".

.

 

Your underlying assumption that every child needs the same amount of practice to achieve mastery is faulty. A mathematically gifted child will be able to achieve mastery (as proven by a comprehensive exam at the end of the year, not by small-increment tests after five lessons) with a small part of the problems.

 

As homeschoolers, we should know that there is no one-size-fits-all.

[forty-two]

That said, a lot of the math discussions seem to distort what really takes place in most math programs.

 

I sort of see the arguments something like this:

 

A child is in a room with a tool box full of different tools and a stack of wood, nails, etc.

 

One distorted argument is-----leave the child alone. Let them explore the tools on their own. Let them discover what the different tools do w/o intervening. Leave them alone with the tools and wood.....what can they build??

 

Second argument-----show the children exactly how each tool works in the tool box. Do not leave them alone with the tools. Do not let them touch the stack wood and actually build anything unique. The only thing they do is actually see the tools demonstrated and they only thing they do with the tools is replicate the demonstrations they witnessed and don't create anything.

 

Really?? Isn't it more likely that the REAL difference is that one approach leans more toward the 1st argument and the other leans a little more toward the 2nd BUT a blend absolutely exists??

That's not how I'd frame the conceptual math vs procedural math debate at all. Discovery != conceptual, and strictly-step-by-step != procedural. They are two completely different spectra - a math program can teach concepts in a very step-by-step way, or be all about promoting discovery of the procedures, with no explanation of *why* they work (the latter describes Everyday Math and its ilk, imo).

 

And yeah, just like discovery/step-by-step is a spectrum, not a binary choice (as is mastery/spiral, for that matter), conceptual/procedural is as well - even though it gets framed as a binary choice as well :glare:. So yeah, I'd agree that the proper question is not, "Is 'x' program conceptual?", but "*How* conceptual is 'x' program?"

 

Basically, what concepts does 'x' program teach, and how does it teach them? How often are concepts presented and explained and applied? What is most emphasized - procedures or concepts? Are concepts there to justify the procedures? Or are the procedures there as useful applications of the concepts?

 

That's what I look for, anyway (I've not seen Saxon, so can't judge where it falls personally - but math people I respect say it falls on the procedural side, so I'm inclined to accept that.)

[Mandy in TN]

Someone who thinks Saxon "jumps around" is somehow not paying attention, but we're all entitled to our opinions. :-)

:iagree:I only have a minute as I am running out of town, but, as a big fan of 54-87, I wanted to address this quickly.

 

Saxon 54 clearly and thoroughly covers the 4 operations with whole numbers and introduces fractions.

 

Saxon 65 clearly clearly and thoroughly covers fractions and introduces decimals.

 

Saxon 76 clearly clearly and thoroughly covers decimals and percents and introduces a ton of geometry.

 

My 87 book is packed up but I remember it as a solid pre-alg program that also covers a lot of geometry.

 

Through all these books order of ops is introduced and then expanded upon.

 

In 65 a child works with fractions both manipulative and pictoral. When division of fractions is introduced it first covers things like How many 1/8 are in 3/4 and this is covered with both pictures and manipulative. This is worked on for 9 lessons before reciprocals are introduced. When they are introduced Saxon spends a whole lesson discussing them as, "The product of any fraction and its reciprocal is 1." The next lesson explains using reciprocals to find how much of a fraction is in another fraction.

 

76 does a fabulous job at building from equivalent fractions to equivalent division problems to division by decimal numbers.

 

Saxon is not random and it does teach concepts.

Mandy

[Spy Car]

I'm not pro-Saxon; neither am I anti-Saxon. Saxon is a math program that would never work for my kids b/c they intuitively make mental leaps in math and the incremental approach in Saxon would literally drive them crazy.

 

That said, a lot of the math discussions seem to distort what really takes place in most math programs.

 

I sort of see the arguments something like this:

 

A child is in a room with a tool box full of different tools and a stack of wood, nails, etc.

 

One distorted argument is-----leave the child alone. Let them explore the tools on their own. Let them discover what the different tools do w/o intervening. Leave them alone with the tools and wood.....what can they build??

 

Second argument-----show the children exactly how each tool works in the tool box. Do not leave them alone with the tools. Do not let them touch the stack wood and actually build anything unique. The only thing they do is actually see the tools demonstrated and they only thing they do with the tools is replicate the demonstrations they witnessed and don't create anything.

 

Really?? Isn't it more likely that the REAL difference is that one approach leans more toward the 1st argument and the other leans a little more toward the 2nd BUT a blend absolutely exists??

 

Some math programs are more discovery oriented but they still don't expect a child to construct a cathedral from that stack of wood w/o help in figuring out how some of the tools work and how they should approach that stack of wood.

 

Some math programs provide a book with more instructions on the assembly of the cathedral but the child still needs to be able to use the tools and figure out how to apply the tools to the wood to construct the building.

 

Both groups of kids should end up with a cathedral......but some kids will be happier in the first group and some will be happier in the second. It is all in how they learn and process information. For example, a non-intuitive child might refuse to even engage in the process if they were in the 1st group b/c they are overwhelmed and don't understand what they should be doing and aren't sure enough about what to do that they won't eve pick up any tool. A really intuitive kid might shut down and zone out in the 2nd group b/c they can picture it all in their head w/o someone going on and on about how they should go about it so that by the time they actually get to touch the tools, they have lost all interest in the project.

 

FWIW.....I completely disagree that mastery is superior over spiral......but that is a different conversation entirely.:lol:

 

This is the most distorted and inaccurate characterization of "discovery" based mathematics I've ever read. Not even close!

 

Bill

[Robin in DFW]

deleted

Edited November 29, 2010 by Robin in DFW

[eloquacious]

Hmm. I have two young sons, who are not yet doing any formal curriculum, but I have the Saxon K book and I have taught from Saxon 8/7 for a year while tutoring my homeschooled brother-in-law. Said brother was hopelessly and utterly lost using Saxon. Each lesson, as discussed by others, introduced a concept that wouldn't be covered again for ages. That really bugged me. I had the feeling that if he had a proper foundation in math, he would have been fine. I might have been fine using it as a student, I don't know...but he was most definitely not fine.

 

I don't mind spiral in the review - in fact, I think that's a great idea. I think my ideal math program would have concepts that are introduced and developed sequentially until true mastery is achieved, but with a secondary portion of the lesson that does precisely what Saxon does, with review questions covering anything and everything previously discussed.

 

Or perhaps this: Portion A of the lesson is the concept being discussed, which as I said would be followed the next day by a lesson tied to that, etc. Then portion B would alternate every day between a spiral review and a cool mind-bending puzzler that involves multiple forms of computation, all of which have been previously discussed. (So, essentially also a form of spiral review.)

 

Does that program exist? If not, I may have to write it. :-P

[TracyR]

That's not how I'd frame the conceptual math vs procedural math debate at all. Discovery != conceptual, and strictly-step-by-step != procedural. They are two completely different spectra - a math program can teach concepts in a very step-by-step way, or be all about promoting discovery of the procedures, with no explanation of *why* they work (the latter describes Everyday Math and its ilk, imo).

 

And yeah, just like discovery/step-by-step is a spectrum, not a binary choice (as is mastery/spiral, for that matter), conceptual/procedural is as well - even though it gets framed as a binary choice as well :glare:. So yeah, I'd agree that the proper question is not, "Is 'x' program conceptual?", but "*How* conceptual is 'x' program?"

 

Basically, what concepts does 'x' program teach, and how does it teach them? How often are concepts presented and explained and applied? What is most emphasized - procedures or concepts? Are concepts there to justify the procedures? Or are the procedures there as useful applications of the concepts?

 

That's what I look for, anyway (I've not seen Saxon, so can't judge where it falls personally - but math people I respect say it falls on the procedural side, so I'm inclined to accept that.)

 

 

I absolutely agree with the boxed quote. Its all about how your child learns best. Some children are ready to tackle on conceptual math. It makes sense to them and that is how their brain works. My oldest thinks this way and make makes sense to her. She thrives off of this and Saxon is just driving her bonkers right now. I'm actually trying to figure out how to match another math program up to her math for her to do at home.

 

Then there is my 11 yr old. Conceptual math drives her literally to tears. She does NOT understand it no matter which way you present it to her. Her brain does not think this way no matter what mastery math program I use with her. For the longest time I tried my darnedest to stay away from spiral math programs. Reading so many posts here and other places about how 'superior' mastery math is. What I did was torture my 11yr old with it and she began to hate math completely. She would break into tears , tell me she didn't understand ( and I would explain things the same way I would to her older sister) and that she was dumb and stupid, and hated math. Not what I wanted at all. Fastforward to now and she is using Saxon 5/4 in her school and she is now improving in math.

 

My third daughter I used K12 math with and this is conceptual math as well. She did well with it for kindergarden but when 1st grade came around math became difficult for her period. Fast forward to now at her school , and she is doing Saxon 1 ( she really needed to repeat as she did not get much from the K12 math) and she is coming home with perfect papers, and she knows her math facts and last quarter had an A.

 

My 4yr old seems to be doing well with the Saxon K that they are using with the PreK. She really likes it though I supplement it at home with PreK Touchmath for more for her to do.

 

With all of that said. Its like reading. Some children grasp phonics early on. I've seen very young children able to do this and become really good readers. I've also seen older children struggle with phonics.

 

This was the case with my girls. My oldest struggled with phonics. It just didn't come to her at all no matter what program I used. It wasn't until I tried the Rod and Staff program which used a mix of phonics and whole words then did she start going with her reading. She needed to get started and it didn't happen until she was the age of 9. Once I got her reading we were able to go back and focus on the phonics part again and now she reads and comprehends at grade level. If you would have asked me when she was younger that we'd get to that point. Absolutely not. But she needed a push so to speak to get her going in the right direction.

 

My younger two have picked up reading really well. My 2nd daughter learned at the age of 4.5 and was reading 1st grade readers by that time. And my third daughter picked up reading at the age of 5 by using phonics just fine. It made sense to them and they went with it.

 

The same with math. Isn't the important thing that we get our children going and then once they mature more then bring on the more mature concepts. I find with this subject that homeschoolers tend to revert to brick and mortar school thinking. If a few children understand it then ALL children should understand it.

I've always tried to think that homeschooling was about what works for our children at each stage of their life. Not what we feel is best for them, or what and how much we can shove into them at younger and younger ages.

[TracyR]

Its all about how your child learns best. Some children are ready to tackle on conceptual math. It makes sense to them and that is how their brain works. My oldest thinks this way and make makes sense to her. She thrives off of this and Saxon is just driving her bonkers right now. I'm actually trying to figure out how to match another math program up to her math for her to do at home.

 

Then there is my 11 yr old. Conceptual math drives her literally to tears. She does NOT understand it no matter which way you present it to her. Her brain does not think this way no matter what mastery math program I use with her. For the longest time I tried my darnedest to stay away from spiral math programs. Reading so many posts here and other places about how 'superior' mastery math is. What I did was torture my 11yr old with it and she began to hate math completely. She would break into tears , tell me she didn't understand ( and I would explain things the same way I would to her older sister) and that she was dumb and stupid, and hated math. Not what I wanted at all. Fastforward to now and she is using Saxon 5/4 in her school and she is now improving in math.

 

My third daughter I used K12 math with and this is conceptual math as well. She did well with it for kindergarden but when 1st grade came around math became difficult for her period. Fast forward to now at her school , and she is doing Saxon 1 ( she really needed to repeat as she did not get much from the K12 math) and she is coming home with perfect papers, and she knows her math facts and last quarter had an A.

 

My 4yr old seems to be doing well with the Saxon K that they are using with the PreK. She really likes it though I supplement it at home with PreK Touchmath for more for her to do.

 

With all of that said. Its like reading. Some children grasp phonics early on. I've seen very young children able to do this and become really good readers. I've also seen older children struggle with phonics.

 

This was the case with my girls. My oldest struggled with phonics. It just didn't come to her at all no matter what program I used. It wasn't until I tried the Rod and Staff program which used a mix of phonics and whole words then did she start going with her reading. She needed to get started and it didn't happen until she was the age of 9. Once I got her reading we were able to go back and focus on the phonics part again and now she reads and comprehends at grade level. If you would have asked me when she was younger that we'd get to that point. Absolutely not. But she needed a push so to speak to get her going in the right direction.

 

My younger two have picked up reading really well. My 2nd daughter learned at the age of 4.5 and was reading 1st grade readers by that time. And my third daughter picked up reading at the age of 5 by using phonics just fine. It made sense to them and they went with it.

 

The same with math. Isn't the important thing that we get our children going and then once they mature more then bring on the more mature concepts. I find with this subject that homeschoolers tend to revert to brick and mortar school thinking. If a few children understand it then ALL children should understand it.

I've always tried to think that homeschooling was about what works for our children at each stage of their life. Not what we feel is best for them, or what and how much we can shove into them at younger and younger ages.

[Robin in DFW]

deleted

Edited November 29, 2010 by Robin in DFW

[eloquacious]

Okay, sorry I just realized I hijacked a "pro" board with my "anti" stance... sorry!

 

For what it's worth, I have friends who are a professional physicist and a woman who could have been (was in the PhD program) and is now at home with her children. Both pretty darn intelligent people... and all five of their children have used Saxon math. She said that they've always preferred it to "creative" ways of doing math.

[forty-two]

Your underlying assumption that every child needs the same amount of practice to achieve mastery is faulty. A mathematically gifted child will be able to achieve mastery (as proven by a comprehensive exam at the end of the year, not by small-increment tests after five lessons) with a small part of the problems.

 

As homeschoolers, we should know that there is no one-size-fits-all.

Yeah, but I do wonder sometimes about the wisdom of completely slicing 'n' dicing a program to shreds to get it to fit instead of just finding a different program that is a better fit off-the-shelf in the first place.

 

I mean, Saxon is clear that it expects students to do every problem because some things are only seen in the problem sets. It's not an optional thing - teaching through the problem sets is part of its foundational strategy. So as soon as you don't require every problem, you are no longer using Saxon as it was intended to be used. You are improvising, using it as a vehicle to accomplish something it never was intended to do, something that it explicitly says will *fail*. You are no longer relying on the knowledge and abilities of the program designer - *you* are now effectively the program designer, and it is all on *you* to make sure you have the knowledge and abilities to make it work. It's like using an appliance to do something in direct violation of its instruction manual. Maybe you really know better and can make it work successfully :thumbup:. Or maybe the designers actually know more than you, and were *right* that it's a very bad idea ;).

 

I just start getting wary when I'm planning to modify programs in ways that fundamentally change that program - do I *really* know what I am doing? Or should I find another program, one that is designed to do what I want in the first place? The homeschooling freedom to *make* that choice is great :thumbup: - but there's a lot of responsibility there, too. And too often it seems like hs'ers forget that maybe program designers actually might know something about their subject, that maybe they did things for a *reason* - and that *maybe* it behooves us to figure out that reason before we conclude it is clearly stupid and unnecessary ;).

[cathmom]

I don't mind spiral in the review - in fact, I think that's a great idea. I think my ideal math program would have concepts that are introduced and developed sequentially until true mastery is achieved, but with a secondary portion of the lesson that does precisely what Saxon does, with review questions covering anything and everything previously discussed.

 

 

 

Math U See does this. It is what I switched my dd to from Saxon 54. She had done Math 1 through 54 and it just wasn't working, and besides that, she hated math too. Now she is doing very well, with true understanding.

[TracyR]

This is the most distorted and inaccurate characterization of "discovery" based mathematics I've ever read. Not even close!

 

Bill

I agree. Not helpful. We already know you don't like Saxon, Bill. I think she wanted comments from those who have actually used the program.

[Spy Car]

I agree. Not helpful. We already know you don't like Saxon, Bill. I think she wanted comments from those who have actually used the program.

 

I didn't say word ONE about Saxon. The characterization of discovery based math programs is completely inaccurate. Such mischaracterizations do harm because they spread misinformation and cause confusion in the home education community here.

 

Bill

[regentrude]

[quote name=forty-two;2205231

I mean' date=' Saxon is clear that it expects students to do every problem because some things are only seen in the problem sets. It's not an optional thing - teaching through the problem sets is part of its foundational strategy. So as soon as you don't require every problem, you are no longer using Saxon as it was intended to be used. You are improvising, using it as a vehicle to accomplish something it never was intended to do, something that it explicitly says will *fail*. You are no longer relying on the knowledge and abilities of the program designer - *you* are now effectively the program designer, and it is all on *you* to make sure you have the knowledge and abilities to make it work. .

 

And the claim that math education "fails" if I don't follow the instructions is utter nonsense! The results of our "incorrect" use of Saxon clearly showed that we did not "fail". (And yes, I do have the knowledge and abilities to teach math - even without a curriculum. I use the curriculum to serve us, not to be its slave.)

That is exactly my criticism - not about Saxon itself, but about it claiming that something can work only if you do every single thing the same way as the designer had in mind.

[regentrude]

I never claimed that Saxon can not work. It does for many.

I object (and hence responded), however, to this kind of generalized assumptions that claims to talk about all students and tell me the way I am (successfully!) using the program is "wrong". There is no one-size-fits-all. Anything that gets a child to master math is RIGHT. Even for a Saxon supporter, making blanket statements that the program only works if done exactly as prescribed is just incorrect.

 

For the rest of us, using a program as it is intended to be used can work out quite nicely for our children.

 

[abbeyej]

I wish I'd had Saxon when I was growing up. I wish Saxon had been available when I was hsing my dc. So there you go.

But it was available then. I'm only a couple of years younger than your dds and my copies of Saxon were inherited from another family.

 

Of course, lol, Saxon was a total disaster for me. I can't express what a relief it was to get to high school and use traditional algebra and geometry texts.

[selh09]

:iagree:

I'm not going to read the link in the OP, because quite frankly, I get sick and tired of all the Saxon naysayers.

 

Saxon works for us and we love it!!!

[Ellie]

But it was available then. I'm only a couple of years younger than your dds and my copies of Saxon were inherited from another family.

 

Of course, lol, Saxon was a total disaster for me. I can't express what a relief it was to get to high school and use traditional algebra and geometry texts.

The first Saxon text to be made available was Math 76. It originally came as photocopies of handwritten pages, having been used as a pilot program in a Los Angeles area school district. My older dd was 9 or 10 at that time, so younger dd would have been 6 or 7. I don't remember when the rest of the books were available, but by the time the hardback texts were all published, older dd was taking classes at the community college, younger dd was past Math 54 and 76. She did some of Math 87, maybe Alg. 1/2 (I forget), but then she was off to community college, as well.

 

So, no, Saxon from Math 54 and up were not available when my dc needed them. :-) And I would not have been interested in the primary levels, which were also not available until the early 90s.

[creekmom]

I've decided that the proof is in the pudding. My children scored amazingly well on the math sections of the Stanford test - and they've used Saxon since the beginning. It obviously doesn't work well for every student's learning style. I asked a very similar question on the high school forum bc my friend ( with a phd in statistics!) told me the same - Saxon is good at teaching the how- not the why. I got some interesting advice if you're interested..

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225957

[Robin in DFW]

deleted

Edited November 29, 2010 by Robin in DFW

[abbeyej]

I meant 76 and above. I used 76, 87 and Algebra 1/2 in used hardback copies. And yes, I knew the primary levels (which are quite different) weren't available until much later.

[Robin in DFW]

deleted

Edited November 29, 2010 by Robin in DFW

[forty-two]

That is exactly my criticism - not about Saxon itself, but about it claiming that something can work only if you do every single thing the same way as the designer had in mind.

It's not so much that it will only work if you do things just as they intend - but that you won't get the results they promise if you don't do exactly as they intended. Sometimes that's true, you know. And sometimes it's not. And maybe you didn't want their results in the first place, so of course you do something else.

[Robin in DFW]

deleted

Edited November 29, 2010 by Robin in DFW

[forty-two]

See...here's where that is faulty reasoning ;)...just because some people think this, it is really true??? It is a blanket statement that means all kids who use Saxon will know how but not why...I don't really think that is logical to say...that would be like saying "All kids who use Singapore know why but not how"...

 

I think those who have success with any program get both the whys and hows from it. Not everyone responds to the same type of presentation or explanation.

Actually, she was alleging that *Saxon* only teaches the hows, not the whys - which is not the same as saying that all kids who use Saxon will only take away the hows and not the whys. Sure, no one is doubting that some kids who use Saxon know the whys when they are through (if *everyone* failed, then there wouldn't be a controversy over it, kwim ;)) - but some just as clearly *don't*. Neither of which, alone, says word one about whether Saxon itself teaches the whys or not. As you pointed out, some kids won't learn the whys even when it is generally accepted that the program they are using presents the whys.

 

The key is how Saxon teaches things - does it present concepts? And how? And which concepts? It would be lovely to have a mathy person walk through a few topics, show how Saxon does it, explain any deficiencies, and show how they feel it ought to be done. While I've several resources showing how various topics ought to be taught, I don't think I've seen those ideal approaches contrasted with the approaches taken by various hs curricula (though Mathematically Correct has done something similar with ps curricula). (And not too many mathy people are interested in buying and reviewing stuff they know from the get-go they don't like.)

 

But *that* is the sort of thing that would give some hard data about the merits of the program itself, as opposed to anecdotes about kids who've gone through the program, some of whom would have succeeded with anything, some of whom might have needed special help with anything - none of which can say anything definitive about the program itself, other than these sorts of kids succeed (for certain definitions of "succeed") and these sorts of kids fail (for certain definitions of "fail"). Useful, but not particularly helpful or applicable in sorting out the current question - whether Saxon itself teaches the whys, and to what extent.

[Hedgehog]

We have only used Saxon. We originally chose to try it because SWB recommends it in TWTM. DD11 is not mathematically minded at all; DD9 finds math so easy she could do it in her sleep; and DS5 is loving all schoolwork right now (Long Live This Phase!) and so is uninhibitedly enthusiastic about Saxon 1.

 

For a long time, we did all of the program. I'm a complete cluck when it comes to math, so I had no idea what to skip (if anything); I made the safe bet and did it all. Then I had a long chat with a friend of mine in Canada who's taken her DC right through high school with Saxon and she recommended doing every other question, as we were finding that Math took us a long time.

 

What I've found is that Saxon just works for us. I'm not sure why this is, given that my DC are so different, but if the pudding is good, why change the recipe? As it happens, both DD11 and DD9 are on 6/5 together, and they often benefit from discussing the lesson with each other before they do the written work. Following my friend's advice, I have them do every other problem (so in any given lesson, they aren't doing the same questions), and they're both getting 90%+ every time. If that changed then I'd obviously be thinking that maybe we needed to do every question again, but so far so good!

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Your underlying assumption that every child needs the same amount of practice to achieve mastery is faulty. A mathematically gifted child will be able to achieve mastery (as proven by a comprehensive exam at the end of the year, not by small-increment tests after five lessons) with a small part of the problems.

 

As homeschoolers, we should know that there is no one-size-fits-all.

 

 

The problem in Saxon with skipping problems is that by putting the repetition into the problem sets they become the reinforcement of the concept and also are where expansion of the concept comes via level of difficulty and application.

 

Saxon wasn't designed to have problems skipped. The problem sets seem designed to be used in a particular way. Deciding to skip some may lead to an eventual disconnect with later problem sets as you aren't developing some skills. I've been know to skip some lessons at the beginning of the books that are the post summer refreshers (as we do school year 'round this isn't necessary) I don't however let them skip problems within an assigned lesson. The problem with claiming mastery on a given topic early on is that, in my experience, the problems increase in difficulty over time and therefore mastery needs to be continually checked.

 

If I were to skip problems in a Saxon lesson due to complete mastery of a topic I would be very careful about researching which questions I chose to drop. I think the variety of question choice is integrated into the program and part of the preparation for future topics.

 

There may not be one size fits all and I am more than aware of this but there are 3 subjects that many homeschoolers teach that they should be very aware of the structure before tinkering too much. Grammar, math and foreign language. Typically the curricula for this programs is set, planned and designed in a manner to teach towards a particular goal. In many cases it is planned over a series of years. If you tear it apart without understanding how it is put together you may find that some skills are lost. Hence my argument about skipping some problems in Saxon lessons-they are designed in that manner for a reason-to provide skill reinforcement. Random skipping of problems, as many advocate, may lead to less mastery of topics. The warning in my original post was meant to be a sort of "enter at your own risk" sign-skipping problems wasn't meant to be part of the program.

 

As an aside-not every child may need the same amount of instruction to achieve mastery but that sort of statement negates the concept of practice and application or skills maintenance. All of these are important. I don't believe that the goal of education is to claim total mastery and then move on; some subjects require practice, review, reinforcement, maintenance, etc. I am of the opinion that math is one of them and that Saxon is structured with these concepts in mind.

 

A truly mathematically gifted child is a totally different ball game. That requires a completely different set of rules because they can be highly gifted in one area of math but struggle with another, master different skills at different rates, progress far beyond their age/grade, etc.

 

Not that any of this has to be as dull or dry as it sounds in discussion. Math can be fun and satisfying. Saxon doesn't negate this.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

And the claim that math education "fails" if I don't follow the instructions is utter nonsense! The results of our "incorrect" use of Saxon clearly showed that we did not "fail". (And yes, I do have the knowledge and abilities to teach math - even without a curriculum. I use the curriculum to serve us, not to be its slave.)

That is exactly my criticism - not about Saxon itself, but about it claiming that something can work only if you do every single thing the same way as the designer had in mind.

 

I never claimed that Saxon can not work. It does for many.

I object (and hence responded), however, to this kind of generalized assumptions that claims to talk about all students and tell me the way I am (successfully!) using the program is "wrong". There is no one-size-fits-all. Anything that gets a child to master math is RIGHT. Even for a Saxon supporter, making blanket statements that the program only works if done exactly as prescribed is just incorrect.

 

Well for goodness sake if you tinkered with the program and it worked for you then fine and dandy.

 

As I said above one should actually understand a program before tearing it apart. The answer I have heard about Saxon hundreds of times is if it is too much or too dull for the dc then skip problems. Before doing this a parent/teacher ought to understand what they are skipping and why.

 

I could list hundreds of things I've done to various programs to make them fit my kids but that would be quite dull. So yes, to answer a general question about a program then one does have to generalize. To understand Saxon math you must actually understand what they have done and how they have constructed the program. (Which was what the op wanted to know right?)

 

The problem is when people claim Saxon has failed and they chose to tinker with the program. In that case the program may not have failed but the tinkering may have failed. However-once you tinker too much it is no longer Saxon math but rather Saxon Math As Family X Has Used It. Those are also two different programs.

 

My original post was my observations of how homeschoolers I know have reacted to math programs in general and Saxon in particular and my experiences with what does or doesn't work with Saxon after teaching it for 5 years.

 

The offense taken is over the top especially as none was intended.

[regentrude]

Deciding to skip some may

lead to an eventual disconnect with later problem sets as you aren't developing some skills. ..... The problem with claiming mastery on a given topic early on is that, in my experience, the problems increase in difficulty over time and therefore mastery needs to be continually checked. ...

If I were to skip problems in a Saxon lesson due to complete mastery of a topic I would be very careful about researching which questions I chose to drop. ...Random skipping of problems, as many advocate, may lead to less mastery of topics.

 

 

I completely agree. The key word is random. If parents do not know what they are doing, skipping may not be a good idea- as with everything, tinkering requires an insight into the material.

OTOH, I wanted to point out that it is possible to deliberately and carefully choose which of the many problems to do and achieve great results, if dealing with a child who does not need the repetition. In fact, for some children this is the only way to make Saxon work. This requires, of course, a parent who knows math well enough to be able to make these choices.

 

As an aside-not every child may need the same amount of instruction to achieve mastery but that sort of statement negates the concept of practice and application or skills maintenance. All of these are important. I don't believe that the goal of education is to claim total mastery and then move on; some subjects require practice, review, reinforcement, maintenance, etc.

 

To me, true mastery means that a student is able to apply a concept or technique years after he has studied it. This said: it is not just the amount of instruction; not every child needs the same amount of practice and maintenance as well. (Please don't get me wrong, I am not against practice!)

Also, if mathematics is studied continuously, topics are revisited naturally. As an example, while doing algebra, a student is continuously encountering previously mastered concepts like arithmetic with fractions, exponents, ratios, equations. I found that it is impossible to compartmentalize math because all skills are constantly referred to and thus reviewed - and any hole will become apparent.

 

A truly mathematically gifted child is a totally different ball game. That requires a completely different set of rules because they can be highly gifted in one area of math but struggle with another, master different skills at different rates, progress far beyond their age/grade, etc.

 

Yes! And for those, I have found Saxon not the best choice, both because of the incremental spiral and the review volume. It required a lot of tweaking to make Saxon work for my children (we used 8/7 for DS in 5th grade, he completed it in five months, and has obviously mastered all pre-algebra skills because he is successfully doing algebra this year.)

 

This does not mean that Saxon will not work for many children- just not for everybody. And for those, "educated" tweaking can be done successfully - which is basically what I wanted to say.

[VinNY]

We have used Saxon from 5/4 to Advanced Math, with Jacob's for Geometry.We sidetracked one year with TT Algebra for child#3. I have 8 kids and am not math savvy.I can do it but not explain it. I went with the program because it was recommended by DYOCC (L. Berquists' book) and the student could work independently.

 

 

Negatives: While homeschooled, my children never said Math was their favorite subject or that they were good at math, even though many of them tested into enrichment with the Stanford Achievement Tests.

 

Results:

Child #1 22 dd - Math studies came together for her when she hit Advanced Math. It all made sense and she enjoyed it (but not until 12th grade:tongue_smilie:) ...but she pursued 4 years of college Math ..all A's and is looking to master in math or latin (something logical) for graduate studies. Now she loves math

 

#2 20ds-- math was a chore ..went to private HS in 10th...teacher thought he was well prepared. He loved Geometry..clueless for Alg 2 and Pre-calc in school(I tried helping him with homework) but still got good grades:confused:..still doesn't like Math.

 

#3 16 dd - struggled with Saxon..felt it didn't explain fully..switched her to TT..same issues:glare:..loved geometry now in Community College taking Alg 2 with an A average..helping older kids with math:confused:

She did comment that whenever she did math for outside projects..for example her co-op group developed a plan for our library to install solar panels..she was the only student able to do all the math without errors. The library coordinator even commented on her acumen and said she must be good at math. She said 'not really':001_huh: (again lack of confidence but has mastered math).

 

#4 13 y advanced with math..very independent.went to private school this year and I was commended for how well prepared she was for math. Above the curve of every other student was what the teacher said.:lol: Meanwhile the poor thing taught herself through SAxon..I was busy with the babies and two special needs students.

 

I won't go on with the rest of them, but all my kids mentioned that once in school, the best thing they liked was having a math teacher. So maybe that is a lesson to learn from my home..but I couldn't do it..and if you can afford a tutor or if you or your spouse, significant other etc can explain math well, maybe you won't have your children make that comment:) I expect to send the rest to upper level school for math purposes. But obviously Saxon math didn't screw them up, I am grateful. I do wish it was a more pleasurable experience for them as the rest of their studies at home were.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

The problem is when people claim Saxon has failed and they chose to tinker with the program. In that case the program may not have failed but the tinkering may have failed. However-once you tinker too much it is no longer Saxon math but rather Saxon Math As Family X Has Used It. Those are also two different programs.

I'm not pro-Saxon but I completely agree! I think that's true of any math program. When MUS isn't used as directed (without the DVD, etc) it's jokingly called Math-U-Almost-Saw:lol: I don't think math programs will never work if they are tweaked but I do think one looses all right to complain about it if they don't use it as directed and it doesn't work. Kind of like those who don't vote don't get the right to complain about who was elected;)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

And the claim that math education "fails" if I don't follow the instructions is utter nonsense! The results of our "incorrect" use of Saxon clearly showed that we did not "fail". (And yes, I do have the knowledge and abilities to teach math - even without a curriculum. I use the curriculum to serve us, not to be its slave.)

That is exactly my criticism - not about Saxon itself, but about it claiming that something can work only if you do every single thing the same way as the designer had in mind.

 

I for one wasn't claiming that Saxon would only work if you did everything exactly as laid out in the book. And there have been times, especially in the earlier books, where I did skip sections that I was confident my sons had already mastered.

 

But, I did want to point out that the meeting portion of the K-3 books and the fact sheets and selection of problems in the review practice aren't random or just tacked on. There are concepts that we struggled with, because we had started to skip the meeting (and missed the intro to skip counting by five that was introduced by counting money using nickels, for example). Or problems that my older sons couldn't answer because they'd been skipping the fact sheets on units and didn't know how many feet were in a mile.

 

My point wasn't that Saxon can or ought only be done in lockstep with the lesson plan. But rather that if you drop portions of the lesson, that you might be missing more than just filling out the calendar. And that lack of success with Saxon can, in some cases, be related to being too quick to discard parts of the program.

 

It sort of reminds me of online recipes where there are reviews that list the alterations people have made. Sometimes the alterations are just what they family needed to make it a favorite. But there are also reviews that list all the substitutions they made because they didn't have something or didn't like an ingredient. Then when it turns out poorly, they conclude that the original recipe was bad; but that wasn't really the recipe that they tried.

 

Or to put it a different way, if you are using a tool in a way that is different from how it was designed to be used, lack of results might not be all the tools fault.

 

If you're getting math success, there's no reason you need to change what is working. For my sons, I learned that I had to be careful and selective about what we skipped.

[8filltheheart]

I didn't say word ONE about Saxon. The characterization of discovery based math programs is completely inaccurate. Such mischaracterizations do harm because they spread misinformation and cause confusion in the home education community here.

 

Bill

 

:lol: I actually agree with you which is why I stated **distorted** in my post. Granted the rest of my analogy is far from perfect. :tongue_smilie: Maybe I should have been a little more explicit that I was attempting to mischaracterize 2 extremes. :D

 

My point was actually that the 2nd example is equally distorted and that that mischaracterization does harm to how certain math programs are viewed. (This is probably going to be another bad analogy......guess I am too tired to care. ;) ) Sometimes programs like Saxon are portrayed as nothing more than turning kids into little computers that can only process via direct input......no understanding, only computing based on formula.

 

While I absolutely do not think all math programs are equal, I do not think one single approach to math is the only appropriate one for all kids and that kids that cannot learn via a specific methodology are somehow incapable of being great math students. Nor do I think that Saxon should be denigrated the way it is. There are math programs that deserve the bad rap they get when they reduce math terms to the vernacular and mislabel their content to make them appear to contain content that they don't.

 

But, many math and engineering students have used Saxon as their foundation and have gone on to successful careers. :D That said.....my kids would poke their eyes out if I made them use Saxon. ;)

Edited November 24, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart
horrible grammar and typos b/c I am very sleep deprived!

[lisamarie]

Have you found what she talks about to be true? Do your kids understand the why behind the math, or do they just know how to do it?

 

 

I used saxon math myself in school from saxon 76-advanced math and got straight As. When I went to college and took the math placement exam, I was placed in REMEDIAL math. I then went on through Calculus 2 and had to work harder than most people to pass because I only knew how to get the right answer but never understood the why of it. I actually have a very mathematically inclined brain.

 

For a very long time I felt that saxon was the issue that my math potential was pretty much ruined. But after reading a lot on these boards, I think that it was probably more my math TEACHER who failed to teach me properly--he would have made every self education proponent proud--"Here is your assignment kids, figure it out yourself. I have to go visit a man about a horse (code for goto the bathroom)" pretty much every class time. He also had us only do the even problems a lot of the time because I think it was the odd problems that the answer was in the back of the text so we could cheat if we wanted to.

 

So was my saxon experience a true indicator of how well saxon worked or is it a better indication of a horrible math teacher? (He was my teacher for 5 years--small private school).

 

I have decided to give it a shot with my own kids and plan to use it as written.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I used saxon math myself in school from saxon 76-advanced math and got straight As. When I went to college and took the math placement exam, I was placed in REMEDIAL math. I then went on through Calculus 2 and had to work harder than most people to pass because I only knew how to get the right answer but never understood the why of it. I actually have a very mathematically inclined brain.

 

For a very long time I felt that saxon was the issue that my math potential was pretty much ruined. But after reading a lot on these boards, I think that it was probably more my math TEACHER who failed to teach me properly--he would have made every self education proponent proud--"Here is your assignment kids, figure it out yourself. I have to go visit a man about a horse (code for goto the bathroom)" pretty much every class time. He also had us only do the even problems a lot of the time because I think it was the odd problems that the answer was in the back of the text so we could cheat if we wanted to.

 

So was my saxon experience a true indicator of how well saxon worked or is it a better indication of a horrible math teacher? (He was my teacher for 5 years--small private school).

 

I have decided to give it a shot with my own kids and plan to use it as written.

 

 

A bad math teacher can ruin much-I've got the t-shirt for that too. Especially when a text is designed to be taught rather than to be used independently as many of the homeschool programs are.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

A bad math teacher can ruin much-I've got the t-shirt for that too. Especially when a text is designed to be taught rather than to be used independently as many of the homeschool programs are.

If Saxon is meant to be taught by an instructor how are parents who don't have a degree in math supposed to teach their students upper level math? It was my impression that instructional DVD's/etc were optional (vs. mandatory for MUS). IMHO if something is marketed to homeschoolers (and says homeschool right on it) it should assume there is no instructor.

[8filltheheart]

If Saxon is meant to be taught by an instructor how are parents who don't have a degree in math supposed to teach their students upper level math? It was my impression that instructional DVD's/etc were optional (vs. mandatory for MUS). IMHO if something is marketed to homeschoolers (and says homeschool right on it) it should assume there is no instructor.

 

I'm curious as to why you would make that assumption. Self-education and home education are not synonyms. :confused:

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I'm curious as to why you would make that assumption. Self-education and home education are not synonyms. :confused:

Because most homeschooling parents don't have advanced degrees in all subjects. What I mean is that something marketed to homeschoolers shouldn't assume there is an instructor with a degree teaching the course. The previous poster was saying that Saxon needed to be taught. While most could assume that role in the lower levels I don't think the same could be said of the advanced levels.

 

ETA that I do think homeschooling is somewhat synonymous with independent learning. I'm not defining independent learning as giving a student the books and telling them to figure it out. What I mean is that there isn't an instructor with a degree teaching every subject. Even when a parent is actively participating in their child's education they are often learning right along with their children (especially in high school), meaning independent learning is happening even if it's not by the student.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Cheryl in SoCal

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

My next several newsletters (Dec and Jan) will address why I believe home school educators either strongly dislike or like John Saxon's math books. I believe the key as to whether one likes or dislikes John's math books is not their use - but in their "misuse."

I do not agree with this statement. While that may be true for some cases I know for a fact that it isn't for all because we used Saxon exactly as instructed.