Is it just me?....(Saxon vs. Singpore issue)

[mhg]

(ooops I didn't spell Singapore correctly in the thread title.....)

 

It seems that while doing my math program research (trying to decide as we begin K in fall), that among Saxon users there is little supplementation

TO the Saxon. With the Singapore/MiF/RightStart/other programs, there seems to USUALLY be supplementation with other programs/materials more often. Saxon seems more "self-sufficient" as users in their post (and signatures) list it alone more often. What's up with this?

Edited May 20, 2011 by mhg

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

NOT saying that this is the case for all or even most Saxon users - just the ones I know. For the ones I know, their primary concern is test scores. None of them spend time on forums like this or talk about math as much as the people I've met here. None of them have heard of Liping Ma or show much of any interest in contemplating these arguments about methods and conceptual understanding. Saxon is familiar and long tested tried and true (in their experience).

 

That said, the only people I know in real life who use Singapore don't supplement either. No one I know off these forums does so, whatever they use.

[kristinannie]

I use McRuffy Color Math (uses manipulatives) and you definitely don't need to supplement because it covers everything necessary for standards based teaching. It is also a lot of fun (which most agree that Saxon is not). However, I do supplement with Miquon and other manipulatives because I really, really want my son to have a strong foundation in understanding why math works not just memorizing facts. Plus, he has a lot of fun doing it. With Miquon, he actually figures out himself why addition and subtraction work the way they do. It is actually pretty amazing.

[WVNA]

It seems that while doing my math program research (trying to decide as we begin K in fall), that among Saxon users there is little supplementation

TO the Saxon. With the Singapore/MiF/RightStart/other programs, there seems to USUALLY be supplementation with other programs/materials more often. Saxon seems more "self-sufficient" as users in their post (and signatures) list it alone more often. What's up with this?

 

I'm going to give you my comments about this from a very small sample size - my two kids. One of them uses Saxon and the other Singapore Math.

 

My son is currently using Saxon Math 5/4. Although he complains about some of the work, math is really starting to click with him using Saxon Math. We pulled him out of public school a few months ago where he was using Everyday Mathematics(run away from this curriculum) and was starting to hate it. We primarily use what is in the book, but do some supplementation from sites like dadsworksheets.com.

 

My daughter started working with Saxon Math 1 and we quickly realized that Saxon Math for K-3 was just awful. She is now using Singapore Math which we also supplement mainly so that she works on her speed and accuracy when doing basic facts.

 

My wife and I both love math(she has a math degree and I have a physics degree) and we supplement the math work since we both believe it is very important to learn.

Edited May 19, 2011 by WVNA

[Mom0012]

I wonder if it's due in part to the fact that Saxon lessons take so long to do? I hear people saying they take 1 1/2 to 2 hours to complete. For us, that would leave no time for supplementation. I don't know, though, because I haven't used Saxon yet. I do plan to use it with my daughter for high school math.

 

Currently, my dd uses CLE and I let her supplement with TT this last year because she wanted to and because I didn't want her to get too far ahead in CLE. At some point, I plan to have her use RS Geometry because I think she'll enjoy it, and again, I don't want her getting to algebra in 6th grade. I actually think CLE is very complete on it's own and doesn't require supplementation at all.

 

Lisa

Edited May 19, 2011 by LisaTheresa

[texasmama]

We use Singapore as a stand alone program. It has many different components which can be tailored to the child's needs (IP, EP, CWP) so it is truly a stand alone program. That said, my boys like math and for one of mine, it is his stand out strength/gifting so I want to encourage it. We use SM only during the year and LOF during the summers. LOF is a fun, fun program, and my boys both like it.:001_smile:

 

As an aside, when my oldest son finished his SM workbook this week, he said, "Awww, no more math. I like math!" He cheered up when I reminded him that we would be doing LOF this summer.;)

[lovelaughs_times_three]

I use Singapore Math with my youngest 2. I do supplement with a little Abeka. I think Singapore could definitely stand alone. It truly develops the understanding of Math, not just rote memorization of formulas. I supplement only in the areas I think my kids need some more practice with. Singapore masters a subject and doesn't keep repeating it. I also need a curriculum guide to "tell" me when to teach a new math fact, ie. "today teach the 4 multiplication tables" and to remind me to do flashcards and some practice problems on the "board". I could obviously do this without the guide. I just like the "crutch"! ;)

Just to emphasize. I don't really think Singapore needs to be supplemented, I'm just hyper-thorough. (to my poor kids chargrin! :tongue_smilie:)

[Doodle]

I used Saxon K and 1 with Doodle while also using Miquon. This past year we switched and used Singapore while still using Miquon. As Lisa noted, Saxon lessons take forever to do as written, so it left little time to do additional math. I found I was scaling down the lessons so much that I figured it wasn't really worth continuing with the program.

[Heather in VA]

NOT saying that this is the case for all or even most Saxon users - just the ones I know. For the ones I know, their primary concern is test scores. None of them spend time on forums like this or talk about math as much as the people I've met here. None of them have heard of Liping Ma or show much of any interest in contemplating these arguments about methods and conceptual understanding. Saxon is familiar and long tested tried and true (in their experience).

 

That said, the only people I know in real life who use Singapore don't supplement either. No one I know off these forums does so, whatever they use.

 

This has been my experience too. Add to that the fact that Saxon is very time consuming so adding to it isn't a matter of whether or not it needs supplementation, but more a matter of just not having the time to add even more math on top of what Saxon requires.

 

Heather

[Kuovonne]

My only reason for any supplementation (we use SM) is because we like math.

 

:iagree:

 

Kids (and Moms!) who love math and whiz through it are more likely to use Singapore or RightStart versus Saxon, so they are the same people who are more likely to supplement, both because they like math and to slow the kid down.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

IMHO it's because Saxon kills the desire to do additional math. After completing their lesson in Saxon my kids wanted nothing more than to be DONE with math. If I had suggested we do something fun like LoF they would have insisted that math is NOT fun and revolted. My kids say that one should only use Saxon if they want to torture their children, which I think says it all.

[Donna A.]

HAPPY Saxon users here, and it has nothing to do with test scores. (We've only done standardized testing once so far.) We don't supplement because there's no need, and we also don't not supplement because Saxon takes too long. My girls haven't ever spent 2 hours on math, and rarely has the oldest even spent an hour and a half. My girls both "get" math far better than when we were doing Singapore, MUS, Making Math Meaningful, or any other math program we tried before finally "giving in" to Saxon.

 

Our pastor who taught math in the public schools for many years, using both Saxon and other methods which he refers to as "funny math", and is now a computer programmer, is a strong Saxon advocate and won't allow anything else in his house for math. Saxon is all they've ever done and his oldest (age 16) is now doing college math and advanced biology, and plans to go into nursing. His second-born (age 14) wants to be an engineer and says his favorite subjects are math and science.

 

Not everyone who uses and loves Saxon math is doing it just because of good test results, or because they don't love math. ;)

 

All that said, if we do any supplementing at all, it's in the form of games and puzzles and we do it for fun. It's not scheduled, and it's not because anyone feels like we "need" to do it.

 

I regret not switching to Saxon a lot sooner. It just makes sense at our house.

 

YMMV :001_smile:

[twoxcell]

We only use Singapore and it is perfectly fine alone. I think you will find on this board many that choose Singapore are very much into math and that is why they supplement. I would venture to guess many who choose Saxon are very traditional and therefore not interested in mixing things up.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

You make Saxon sound so....inviting. :lol:

:lol::lol::lol: I just tell it like it was in our home. My kids are VERY passionate about it;)

[Jen in PA]

My only reason for any supplementation (we use SM) is because we like math. We like to find interesting materials to play with math. Otherwise, if I just had the "git-r-done" feeling towards math I would not supplement. It is a perfectly fine stand alone program. And despite the other stuff it really is "the" main program we use.

 

:iagree:

[Snowfall]

I think it's because people who use Saxon are less likely to be interested in approaching math from anything but the standard way they were taught math. Obviously, this is not the case for everyone who uses Saxon (so if it's not the case for any of you, please don't jump down my throat, lol), but I've seen so many people say that they like Saxon because it's familiar to them, that it's impossible to ignore that aspect of it. Americans who use Singapore are probably less likely to be seeking out something that feels familiar and more likely to want to teach math from multiple different perspectives, thus the supplementing.

[melmichigan]

Not everyone who uses and loves Saxon math is doing it just because of good test results, or because they don't love math. ;)

 

All that said, if we do any supplementing at all, it's in the form of games and puzzles and we do it for fun. It's not scheduled, and it's not because anyone feels like we "need" to do it.

 

I regret not switching to Saxon a lot sooner. It just makes sense at our house.

 

YMMV :001_smile:

 

My oldest DD loves the variety of problems in Saxon. I wish I had been more open to it sooner. My youngers use SM, I do not like Larson Saxon at all and won't go there. We supplement wherever we feel the need to for many different reasons, from love of math to LD's.

[Ann.without.an.e]

We used Singapore from Kindergarten through 5th grade. I did supplement because I saw so many gaps. I switched to Saxon this year and I am not supplementing because it is so incredibly thorough. I am one that swore I would never use something like Saxon and here I stand...defending it. I have at least two that are strong in math and yet they really like Saxon. Unlike singapore, where the concept is taught for a few lessons and then not touched on until a much later review, you are constantly reviewing with Saxon. My kids feels more confident. My DD just said today, "I think I am going to understand so much more on my end of year test this year. I would have problems that were never covered by Singapore, but I totally understand them now". No, I am not using Saxon to produce better testers, but does it matter? It isn't like you are taking a History class where all you do is study answers to tests, rather than study actual History. I mean, math is math...either you know how to do it or you don't, I don't see how you can "teach to test" with math.

[EKS]

I supplemented Saxon with Singapore, particularily the Challenging Word Problems, as I found Saxon to be weak in problem solving.

 

I would guess that it's more likely that the type of person who chooses Saxon might not be the supplementing type over it being due to Saxon's intrinsic completeness.

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

:)

Edited May 25, 2011 by RecumbentHeart

[In2why]

We used Saxon and it is a complete math program. It spirals, just like First Language Lessons, and if you have a child that needs spiral math it is a well tested and well used proram. But every child is different, and their needs are different. I don't use Saxon now, and switched because I needed the kids to be more independent in some of their subjects, so we went with MUS. But my son needs a spiral program so now we are using Teaching Textbooks. I freely admit to not being Mathy, and not really enjoying math. But I want the kids to enjoy it, and not have any of my fears and phobias about it. But I also don't need to reinvent the wheel. Saxon is a suggested math program in TWTM, and by many private schools, and it has stood the test of time. But I don't think it is superior to Singapore, and I don't think Singapore is superior to Saxon. We have some great choices, and there is a place for both programs depending on your child, your family and your teaching style.

[Melanie]

We are long-time Saxon users despite my having read Liping Ma. ;) I've supplemented with Singapore and AoPS, mostly to satisfy the curiosity stirred up by reading these forums - I just had to see if the kids could handle math outside of a Saxon book. :lol: (They can, in case anyone is wondering.) I do not use supplemental math materials on a regular basis because my children's interests lie elsewhere; they'd rather spend their extra time on languages.

[Critterfixer]

I use Saxon and I do feel it is almost complete--but I would have to agree on the weakness of not having enough word problems in the early years. It's not easy for me to teach, though, because I don't do spiral well, and never have. I hated Saxon as a child.

My children are doing well in it, but I really, really need to see an improvement in their confidence in problem solving. I don't mind assisting, but I don't like having to remind them time and time again to find out what the problem is asking before asking for help! (Grrr.)

Anway, I think we are going to take a Saxon break in favor of Singapore for the summer. I'll decide after that if we are going to stick with Saxon or go with another program.

And it does take forever to teach in the early grades. Our lessons take an average of about one hour, which isn't really a whole lot until I realized that I can cover a narration, copywork, grammar and get in two chapters of a book for reading in that same time space.

The scary thing is I may well have to use two math programs for the same age boys if the one child takes off with Singapore, and given his advanced problem solving nature I suspect he might.:tongue_smilie:

[Barb_]

Singapore just doesn't take long to do in a day. Or a year, for that matter. With my two oldest, we just plugged away and finished the whole set by age 10, and 9 respectively. Then we ran up against a developmental problem. We could get through Pre-algebra and the first 5 chapters or so of Algebra I but they just weren't ready for the developmental leap or the abstract thinking that deeper Algebra I required by the age of 10 or 11. So I've slowed my younger kids down. I allow them to pull ahead a year or so, but I supplement to keep them busy and engaged and working a little more slowly.

 

Barb

[The Governess]

I agree that Singapore is not as time intensive as Saxon, especially if you are doing the entire meeting every day (ugh!). Even with all of its supplements, Singapore just gets done faster. If I were choosing a single program I would definitely choose Singapore.

[Dinsfamily]

:iagree:

 

Kids (and Moms!) who love math and whiz through it are more likely to use Singapore or RightStart versus Saxon, so they are the same people who are more likely to supplement, both because they like math and to slow the kid down.

 

We fall into this camp.

[MissKNG]

:iagree:

 

Kids (and Moms!) who love math and whiz through it are more likely to use Singapore or RightStart versus Saxon, so they are the same people who are more likely to supplement, both because they like math and to slow the kid down.

 

Ditto this!

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

We are long-time Saxon users despite my having read Liping Ma. ;) I've supplemented with Singapore and AoPS, mostly to satisfy the curiosity stirred up by reading these forums - I just had to see if the kids could handle math outside of a Saxon book. :lol: (They can, in case anyone is wondering.) I do not use supplemental math materials on a regular basis because my children's interests lie elsewhere; they'd rather spend their extra time on languages.

 

 

Just to clarify, since I obviously wasn't clear enough. I wasn't suggesting people who have read Liping Ma (or care about math) don't use Saxon. All I said is that the people I know simply choose Saxon because it's tried and true and gets the job done for them. They don't feel any need to read up on the subject or debate it or examine arguments. The proof is in the pudding for them. But then, everyone I know feels that way about the math curriculum they've chosen. I wouldn't have even thought about using more than one curriculum for math per child if it wasn't for the blessed (take how you will) internet.

[Melanie]

Just to clarify, since I obviously wasn't clear enough. I wasn't suggesting people who have read Liping Ma (or care about math) don't use Saxon. All I said is that the people I know simply choose Saxon because it's tried and true and gets the job done for them. They don't feel any need to read up on the subject or debate it or examine arguments. The proof is in the pudding for them. But then, everyone I know feels that way about the math curriculum they've chosen. I wouldn't have even thought about using more than one curriculum for math per child if it wasn't for the blessed (take how you will) internet.

 

Oh, I know. I was only having a little bit of fun - I guess the winking smilie wasn't enough to convey my light-heartedness. (I read much more often than I post.) I'm sorry. :001_smile:

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

Oh, I know. I was only having a little bit of fun - I guess the winking smilie wasn't enough to convey my light-heartedness. (I read much more often than I post.) I'm sorry. :001_smile:

 

 

I never know how to take the winking smiley. :lol: Sorry.

[Donna]

HAPPY Saxon users here, and it has nothing to do with test scores. (We've only done standardized testing once so far.) We don't supplement because there's no need, and we also don't not supplement because Saxon takes too long. My girls haven't ever spent 2 hours on math, and rarely has the oldest even spent an hour and a half. My girls both "get" math far better than when we were doing Singapore, MUS, Making Math Meaningful, or any other math program we tried before finally "giving in" to Saxon.

 

Our pastor who taught math in the public schools for many years, using both Saxon and other methods which he refers to as "funny math", and is now a computer programmer, is a strong Saxon advocate and won't allow anything else in his house for math. Saxon is all they've ever done and his oldest (age 16) is now doing college math and advanced biology, and plans to go into nursing. His second-born (age 14) wants to be an engineer and says his favorite subjects are math and science.

 

Not everyone who uses and loves Saxon math is doing it just because of good test results, or because they don't love math. ;)

 

All that said, if we do any supplementing at all, it's in the form of games and puzzles and we do it for fun. It's not scheduled, and it's not because anyone feels like we "need" to do it.

 

I regret not switching to Saxon a lot sooner. It just makes sense at our house.

 

YMMV :001_smile:

 

:iagree: I fall into this category almost. We are happy Saxon users. My boys used it until going into public school. My dd still uses it. Lessons don't take more than 45 min...usually less.

 

Tried Singapore, Miquon, and the other one with the little blocks that I can't think of the name of at the moment. None of those fit dd for one reason or the other. I do supplement her math with Singapore CWP and she also just started doing Thinkwell's Pre-Alg now and then...she likes working on computer some days.

[mhg]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I've been looking into curricula as we begin hs'ing this fall (K).

 

I grew up (graduated in 94) with Saxon. My school dominated all regional schools in math. Our class' ACT scores (in math) so impressed several local schools that thereafter 2 (that I know of) changed over to Saxon. I personally made a 35 in the math area of the ACT!!!...that's not to brag, but just to say that EVEN I did that well in math and no one would have said I was mathy K-6!). So, no question I know Saxon works. I well recall 7th grade when we began Saxon how it kicked our rears for a while as we had not done it 1st thru 6th. However, we soon got on board.

Math BECAME one of my favorite subjects. I loved Saxon math. It turned out good students. Several of my close friends (then classmates) are now engineers, architects, etc. (in major corporations) --- and that was from a rural Mississippi public school (I graduated with 88 people!). All of my close buds (with whom I'm close enough and still in contact with) have said in past conversations that they feel we had an awesome math background. One of my classmates was the chief architect for the new CIA building (built about 6 years ago), another is a mathematician whose job is to balance the distribution of weight on warships, another is an electrical engineer with Exxon, another is a phD geologist with Chevron, another is a civil engineer, (I was a RN/MSN nurse before SAHMhood)--- all this to say that our high school math program well prepared us to be great problem solvers and to use math. All this to say that I had a definite bias towards Saxon, but seeing how I graduated almost 20 years ago, I felt that I needed to look into the newer options since the 80s and 90s. I haven't read Liping Ma (??spelling??), but I did read Cathy Duffy's review of Saxon K - 3 and how it didn't sound as highly recommended by her (www.cathyduffyreviews.com) as some of the other programs. However, when I looked into these new programs I saw all the increased use of supplements, thus this thread.

 

What I DON'T get is why the concern (however mild) over whether younger pupils get the word problems? I'm assuming that many of the people on this forum embrace some (or all) of the philosophies of classical education where the younger kids are supposed to be memorizing facts/doing drills and learning concepts that they don't necessarily fully "get". (i.e. When my child learns that George Washington was our nation's first president, I doubt he really comprehends the concept of nation/president and the power and authority and significance of such a title). I've heard references to the use of supplements for word problems in elementary! The LOGIC stage (middle school) is really when a child's brain can process (well) the application and logic necessary to solve word problems. These are just my thoughts having not researched this area (or read Ma). If this is the main complaint of Saxon -- that its alot of rigorous, boring drills for kids in the grammar stage, then it sounds like what I'm looking for still. And, if folks are supplementing other programs looking for word problems for elementary student, then --- IF I go with those programs, I won't be supplementing for these skills. (now if my 9th grader isn't able to "apply" math to everyday situations, then I'd be concerned). Bottom line, I won't rule out Saxon due to drills, repetition, it being "boring" or not having enough pictures (I know NONE OF YOU SUGGESTED THIS!!!), it being bland. In elementary, I'm looking for drills, repetition, spiraling, non-flashy, etc.

 

If I personally rule out Saxon, it will because I find a program BETTER than it in K-6 for drills, repetition, spiraling, non-flashy, etc. In fact....it may even appeal to me that it doesn't do too much word problems, etc in those early years. I want my child to learn those basic facts well in those early years, those basic skills of rapidly adding, subtracting, dividing (not calculator dependent), etc. I want my kid to be as good at head math as my 93 year old grandma who can do a 3 figure sum in her head in NO time flat. If I look at a math program and feel its goal is to do les of the "boring" drill and repetition in favor of the word problems, application of concepts in elementary, then it'll not be in my shopping cart.

 

In short (too late, i know)....that's my research....to see which math programs I think fits with the classical model of the pol parent/grammar stage of development.

 

Again.....(even I don't get any takers on this last post), thanks for the input on the supplementation issue.

 

Disclaimer: The above are just my thoughts after I read this thread. I realize that I didn't hear the non-saxon folks saying that they NEEDED to supplement or that their programs were inherently inadequate.

[Snowfall]

Some of us do not believe that concepts should be learned later. Countries that outperform us in math teach the conceptual basis for the algorithms at the same time as or before teaching the algorithms. I can't comment on how conceptual Saxon is, but I disagree with the notion that kids in elementary should be memorizing math facts before conceptual understanding. Math is a skill. It's not like history or science and should not be approached the same way.

[Donna A.]

Some of us do not believe that concepts should be learned later. Countries that outperform us in math teach the conceptual basis for the algorithms at the same time as or before teaching the algorithms. I can't comment on how conceptual Saxon is, but I disagree with the notion that kids in elementary should be memorizing math facts before conceptual understanding. Math is a skill. It's not like history or science and should not be approached the same way.

 

Why wouldn't hands-on math taught either as part of daily life, or through games and activities, suffice for conceptual thinking at this age (pre-4th grade or so) while memorizing the math facts? Isn't that in fact doing the same thing as a conceptual "program" like Singapore or Miquon?

 

Also, I don't think anyone here said that kids in elementary should be memorizing math facts before conceptual understanding. Conceptual understanding can be taught in many ways. We don't need Singapore to do that. :confused: Further, either Saxon the program or somebody along the way has obviously taught an awful lot of kids how to think conceptually enough to become nurses, engineers, architects, computer programmers, math teachers, geologists.... :lol:

[tinkhs]

For us, Saxon has a lot of review, almost too much for some people. Some children need that much review compared to programs like Singapore which moves very fast in comparison. Just my opinion.

[Snowfall]

Why wouldn't hands-on math taught either as part of daily life, or through games and activities, suffice for conceptual thinking at this age (pre-4th grade or so) while memorizing the math facts? Isn't that in fact doing the same thing as a conceptual "program" like Singapore or Miquon?

 

Also, I don't think anyone here said that kids in elementary should be memorizing math facts before conceptual understanding. Conceptual understanding can be taught in many ways. We don't need Singapore to do that. :confused: Further, either Saxon the program or somebody along the way has obviously taught an awful lot of kids how to think conceptually enough to become nurses, engineers, architects, computer programmers, math teachers, geologists.... :lol:

If you read my post, I specifically said that I wasn't saying Saxon wasn't conceptual! Okay actually, I said I don't know how conceptual it is, but that's the same thing, because obviously I can't say it isn't if I don't know. Also, I didn't say anyone needed to use Singapore. I don't use Singapore, other than for a few word problems every week. I was specifically addressing the last post before mine, in which she pretty much did state that kids in elementary should be memorizing math facts before conceptual understanding. In fact, she said she wouldn't even buy a curriculum if it focused on understanding concepts in elementary:

 

If I look at a math program and feel its goal is to do les of the "boring" drill and repetition in favor of the word problems, application of concepts in elementary, then it'll not be in my shopping cart.

If you read her whole post, she compares conceptual understanding of math to understanding the concept of what a nation is, what a president is/does/means, etc. I was addressing those ideas and those ideas only. Nothing I said had anything to do with Saxon. I'm not sure how you interpreted anything I said in that post to be a slam on Saxon or on the ways people teach conceptual understanding. I just said I disagree with the idea that kids don't need it.

 

As to those people having good conceptual understanding of math, I wouldn't say that all of those jobs require it. Nursing doesn't require conceptual understanding, although it helps to be good with a few algorithms. I had a terrible ps math education and made it into a nursing program (and completed the required math classes) just fine. Math teachers in America also tend to be pretty lacking in the conceptual area, as evidenced by several studies on the topic. :) Still, I don't know anything about how conceptual Saxon is, so I didn't comment on Saxon.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Snowfall

[Nestof3]

As a user of Saxon for 11 years (Saxon 2 - Algebra 2/Trig), I haven't needed to supplement because the early grade use manipulatives and because the course is just that thorough.

 

My boys at 4th and 5th don't need manipulatives. I draw picture sometimes, and I encourage them to draw pictures to solve problems, but that's the extent of it. I love that at 4th and 5th grade, half of the problems are thinking/word problems. I love that many are multi-step problems. I love that the program mixes up the problems and has a spiral approach because it's one thing to remember something for a couple of weeks; it's another thing entirely to be able to do all the problems throughout the year. I am also thrilled with the amount of mental math included in the program and the amount of algebra in the fourth grade.

 

I am honestly totally impressed with the program. I also feel confident enough in my math ability that if my boys need explaining beyond what Saxon dictates, I can supply it. I have read other resources and mathy books, but they haven't changed my passion for Saxon.

 

I do add some fun things -- Timez Attack, Times Tales, math games, etc. I add these because they make life more interesting.

 

Do I care if someone else uses it? No. Do I care what someone else uses? No All I know is that it works. Oh, and I am not using Saxon because I am worried about test scores. My boys have always tested in the top 1-5 %. Do I think Saxon gets all the credit? No. I think the one-on-one tutoring, regardless of what one uses, gets the credit.

 

I also think that whatever program you chose to use, you must check each problem and insist that each problem is eventually correct. I think it is equally crucial for both the parent and the child to understand why he/she missed the problem. The parent must know if there are any misunderstandings before they become serious issues.

[JessicaLady]

We've been doing Saxon 1 along with MUS-Alpha this year. I feel that Saxon is a complete program. We're doing the MUS basically to provide extra practice/review. And, let's face it, the blocks are fun. We do no less than 2 Saxon lessons/day and 2 lessons MUS/wk. We never spend more than 30min. a day on math. I skip the meeting portion, I briefly discuss the date, but I don't think that stuff is necessary to teach whatever the actual lesson is.

 

I appreciate the structure of Saxon and complement w/ the mastery of MUS. My son is handling it fine and really 'likes numbers' as he calls it.

 

It's working for us and I plan on doing both for as long as I can. I'm guessing at least through grade 3. I'm hoping to give him a good foundation for math. I don't think anything anyone else (or myself) is doing is wrong, as long as it's working for them.

 

J

[Whereneverever]

When we used Singapore we supplemented. I felt like topics were introduced and then vanished. I felt like there wasn't enough review when my DD didn't instantly grasp things.

 

We switched to Saxon and while I wouldn't describe it as fun, I would say that I am not seeking out extra problems anywhere. I really like the meeting book and how it goes over so many different skills.

 

Just my $0.02

[Critterfixer]

However, when I looked into these new programs I saw all the increased use of supplements, thus this thread.

That is what bothers me too. I don't mind finding extra practice here and there, but determining whether it is needed or not (or predicting where and when it will be needed) is not easy for me.

 

What I DON'T get is why the concern (however mild) over whether younger pupils get the word problems? I'm assuming that many of the people on this forum embrace some (or all) of the philosophies of classical education where the younger kids are supposed to be memorizing facts/doing drills and learning concepts that they don't necessarily fully "get".

Well, in Saxon 1 there is one word problem per worksheet, and nearly every lesson involves adding and subtracting those (insert appropriate ! here) linking cubes!:glare: Hate the things. So, Saxon firmly believes in showing kids how it's done.

I don't think it is classical philosophy to have children learning facts without meaning. I could certainly have my DS7 boys memorize their times tables now, but I don't know what they would get out of it. I would still have to teach multiplication when it arrived.

I've also spent some time looking at very old math texts and they are chock full of mental arithmetic using word problems for the youngest students. For mental arithmetic you must use your facts and you have to know where to use them and when.

 

I believe that SWB compares teaching math facts without having the child understand the concept of how those facts work (manipulatives is mentioned) is equivalent to the child memorizing "gobbledygook." It's on pg 91 of my copy of TWTM under "Math Tables-a Defense." The idea is to use the math tables "reinforces and strengthens the concept that the child understands." It is also to "move the child's mind toward abstract, symbolic thinking."

 

I also remember in TWTM that Saxon is best taught by individuals with strong math backgrounds. " Saxon works only if you (the parent) take the job of teaching it seriously. It is not a self-teaching program. You must(her italics, not mine) explain the concepts thoroughly, or the child will be confused-the text alone won't do the job.

This is one reason I am looking at an alternate program. I am not math phobic, although I struggled with Saxon so much as a child that it almost put me off math for good. I found calculus in college and that renewed my interest. Because I did not have good teaching of Saxon (Mom was indeed math-phobic and Saxon was supposed to be so great and all) I ended up hating it. I think I would have not despised it so if I had been able to understand what I was supposed to be doing half the time.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Critterfixer
Late thoughts

[texasmama]

I like SM's heavy use of word problems because they take the concepts to a practical, real life level. They immediately connect the math concept with the reason why it might be helpful in one's daily life.

 

For instance, you never know when you might want to make 1,000 sticks of satay to sell - 1/3 of which are beef and 2/3 of which are chicken, sell 200 of the beef ones for $1.25 each and need to know how much money you made or how many chicken satays you had left over.;) (Yes, I'm being funny...but the point I made in my first paragraph still stands.)

 

I also realize that I didn't give enough information for anyone to solve my hypothetical satay problem. :)

[Critterfixer]

I wanted to post something I was reading last night because I think it pertains to math across the spectrum, whether it's Saxon, Singapore, MUS, whatever curriculum is used. This is the instructions for teachers from Ray's Arithmetic, and it is so good, I'm liable to post this as a bookmark at every math lesson so that I can re-read it.

 

DIRECTIONS TO TEACHERS.

The following suggestions are respectfully submitted to the consideration of Teachers, believing they will be found especially valuable to those who are inexperienced in teaching young pupils this important branch of study.

Let the Pupil have the book before him until able to solve the questions readily; then thoroughly and repeatedly review without it, the Teacher reading the question distinctly, and the pupil answering it. The learner, in answering, should repeat the problem to be solved.

Teach one thing at a time, and teach it thoroughly. This is an important direction as regards all branches of study, but should be more particularly observ-ed in acquiring a knowledge of the elementary principles of Arithmetic, since every successive step in the pupil's progress, depends, in a great degree, upon what has preceded it.

Under no circumstances permit the pupil to leave a lesson until he has entirely mastered it, and is able, not only to solve all the questions it contains, but to solve them readily and understandingly, so that he shall know he is right, and be able to tell why he knows it.

To awaken and fix the attention of the class, let the problems be assigned promiscuously, not in rotation: al'ow one pupil to read the question, another to answer it, and a third to give the reasons. A strict observance of these directions will break up that dull, listless manner of recitation so frequently seen, and give to the exercise interest, spirit, and variety.

Let no considerations induce the Teacher to advance the pupil to "Ray's Intellectual Arithmetic," (Second Book,) until he has proved by sustaining a final rigid review that he has completely mastered this work.

[Barb_]

I wanted to post something I was reading last night because I think it pertains to math across the spectrum, whether it's Saxon, Singapore, MUS, whatever curriculum is used....

 

Of course, you have to know someone is going to have to strongly disagree :tongue_smilie: I've had great success doing exactly the opposite. I don't believe there is anything to be gained by beating a dead horse when a concept just isn't sticking. Sometimes a few days or weeks of marinating is exactly what an immature brain needs to suddenly pull understanding out of thin air. This is another reason I like to supplement. We can cover lots of topics in a sitting which diminishes boredom and helps to link related topics into a cohesive whole. Then when we circle back with the word problems books or ALEKS, a deeper, richer understanding is achieved. Doing Math the Ray's Arithmetic way would turn Mathematics into torture in this house.

 

Barb

[kalanamak]

I like SM because of how lean it is. Some topics my son just blows through and some he does NOT. Those that he blows through, we just review as needed; those that need more time or a different approach, I have plenty of other resources to use. So, to me, SM is more adaptable to the individual child.

[kalanamak]

I don't believe there is anything to be gained by beating a dead horse when a concept just isn't sticking. Sometimes a few days or weeks of marinating is exactly what an immature brain needs to suddenly pull understanding out of thin air. This is another reason I like to supplement.

 

:iagree: It was with the help of this board I had the confidence to give up and move on, and then just circle back, regardless of what the HIG said.

[Embassy]

I use Singapore and I supplement. I don't think Singapore needs supplementation. It is a wonderful program. I supplement because my boys are non-sequential learners to a degree and I find they do well when we have our main math program at one level and supplemental books/DVDs at a higher level. They tend to learn easier concepts through studying harder concepts. The supplemental books/DVDs provide a taste of concepts they wish to discover while we go step by step through Singapore.

[Spy Car]

 

What I DON'T get is why the concern (however mild) over whether younger pupils get the word problems? I'm assuming that many of the people on this forum embrace some (or all) of the philosophies of classical education where the younger kids are supposed to be memorizing facts/doing drills and learning concepts that they don't necessarily fully "get". (i.e. When my child learns that George Washington was our nation's first president, I doubt he really comprehends the concept of nation/president and the power and authority and significance of such a title). I've heard references to the use of supplements for word problems in elementary! The LOGIC stage (middle school) is really when a child's brain can process (well) the application and logic necessary to solve word problems. These are just my thoughts having not researched this area (or read Ma). If this is the main complaint of Saxon -- that its alot of rigorous, boring drills for kids in the grammar stage, then it sounds like what I'm looking for still. And, if folks are supplementing other programs looking for word problems for elementary student, then --- IF I go with those programs, I won't be supplementing for these skills. (now if my 9th grader isn't able to "apply" math to everyday situations, then I'd be concerned). Bottom line, I won't rule out Saxon due to drills, repetition, it being "boring" or not having enough pictures (I know NONE OF YOU SUGGESTED THIS!!!), it being bland. In elementary, I'm looking for drills, repetition, spiraling, non-flashy, etc.

 

 

I will be perfectly blunt and say I think your idea of what is "classical" in a math education is 100% wrong.

 

A good "classical" approach to mathematics teaches the "grammar" of mathematics. One that teaches math as a language that should be understood as deeply a English (or Latin). It is not classical to teach without developing a progressively deep understanding of the subject. Teaching math as if it consists merely as the memorization of "math facts" could not be a more shallow approach. And there is nothing "classical" about being shallow.

 

You really ought to read Liping Ma. I think it would be an eye opener for you.

 

As to your original question. We supplement Singapore Math because this approach has inspired a love of the subject. It has also developed incredible skills that my child enjoys taking to other challenging materials. The Singapore program is highly efficient of his (and my) time, so adding other things is both enjoyable and possible because it doesn't kill his spirit or waste his time.

 

You could not pay me to subject my child to Saxon math.

 

I could not be happier with Singapore Math, and with how well it has fit in with the other math materials we've used because they are fun. We are digging math here, and that is pretty awesome to me.

 

Bill

[Donna]

I will be perfectly blunt and say I think your idea of what is "classical" in a math education is 100% wrong.

 

A good "classical" approach to mathematics teaches the "grammar" of mathematics. One that teaches math as a language that should be understood as deeply a English (or Latin). It is not classical to teach without developing a progressively deep understanding of the subject. Teaching math as if it consists merely as the memorization of "math facts" could not be a more shallow approach. And there is nothing "classical" about being shallow.

 

 

I use Saxon and don't believe I am "subjecting" my child to some horrible thing. She thought SM was "baby math" when she was little because of the workbooks with pictures and wanted a textbook to learn from which is why we switched. I simply pick and chose problems for her to do each day so we are very efficient and she also practices different types of problems so she never loses a skill from disuse.

 

I do agree with what you said above. Dd learned math concepts very early without any math program by playing games with me using manipulatives in a "word problem format." She learned to add and subtract, figured out the concepts of multiplication and division, and learned to use fractions. She is a whole to parts kind of learner and now going through her math program, she is practicing putting those concepts into written problems and learning her facts...filling in the details so to speak. I don't think the reason why behind the math needs to wait until kids are older. The reasons why you are doing the math makes learning the math much easier.

 

The only reasons I supplement Saxon is because she loves to do math...we've done Hands On Equations, SM Challenging Word Problems (added in this year because she likes word problems), and recently Thinkwell because she likes to do some math "games" on computer.

 

I think everyone needs to use whatever works for their child. Some kids learn in different ways than others. There are kids who never need review and SM might be a perfect fit for them and others who would forget everything if they didn't see a particular kind of problem again or who need more practice and spiralling.

 

I have read these types of threads for years and don't see how Saxon doesn't teach the concept behind the skill...each skill learned is explained, then in later lessons more is added to them, then the skills are done in word problems in the problem sets. Dd can talk her way through her problems as if she was teaching someone to do them and she can explain why she is doing what she is doing...until this year, we didn't supplement so whatever she learned came from the Saxon program...besides the simple concepts she learned before 5yo.

[boscopup]

I like SM because of how lean it is. Some topics my son just blows through and some he does NOT. Those that he blows through, we just review as needed; those that need more time or a different approach, I have plenty of other resources to use. So, to me, SM is more adaptable to the individual child.

 

:iagree: I don't use Singapore, but I do use Math Mammoth, which is laid out in a similar fashion, and we've been accelerating to the point where my son is, which would have been more difficult to do with Saxon. My son did Saxon K and half of 1 in private school, and it was torture for him because of how slow it is (the K-3 is slow - I don't have any opinion on the higher levels since I haven't used those - I have heard that they are much better). The incremental nature was killing his love of math. He only needs one presentation of a topic, and then a little practice and he has it down. He doesn't need to keep going over and over and over the same topic at the most basic level. A good example of the homework sheets that came home (which bored ME just looking at them)... Close to halfway through the year, they'd have a page of math fact drill to complete, yet there would still be a problem like "Color 5 blocks. How many are left?" If the child needs practice with coloring 5 blocks, are they really ready for that math facts drill? :confused: I'm ok with a spiral approach (though my son does better with mastery) like CLE uses, but Saxon (K-3) has such basic topics stay in the worksheets for a very long time, and I think that's a bit overkill.

 

I also notice that my son didn't really start learning his facts until he got out of Saxon and got into MM, which doesn't do any facts "drill", but does have a lot of problems using the facts, such that the child often ends up learning the facts without drill (though some children will need drill still, and Maria Miller mentions various options for fact practice).

 

Anyway, at my son's school, one of the complaints from parents in general (parents who have no clue what Saxon or Singapore or other curricula are) is that the school tends to be lagging in math and science, which is a shame because this area is full of engineers. Now the little engineer kids will probably do fine with Saxon or any other program because of genetics and because they get outside teaching from their parents (not formal teaching, but just talking about math in everyday life, because we engineers love to talk math :lol:). Talking to one of the high school children currently at my son's school (this child being the child of an engineer and being very interested in engineering topics himself) commented that the math at school didn't really teach him "why". He felt like it just taught him what to do. That was a high school student that doesn't know anything about Singapore, conceptual math, Saxon vs. other math debates, etc. That was his impression of how he was being taught at school. Now is it a problem with the teachers not being trained? Quite possibly! It may not be Saxon that's the problem. But I don't think Saxon is going to necessarily produce a bunch of good little engineers, and neither will any other program. ;)

 

Now to the OP's question... I supplement Math Mammoth (again, kind of like Singapore)... I used just MM for a long time, but my son is advanced in math and loves a challenge. I got Singapore IP and CWP as well as Primary Challenge Math (Zaccaro) - all to go deeper in the math topics that we're flying through. PCM is his favorite - we've been working through that together, and he loves that we are doing higher level multiplication, division, and fractions than what he's been "taught" as of yet. The Singapore IPs have some very challenging problems (in the Take the Challenge section). I even had to look up the answer to one in 2A. :tongue_smilie:I don't use the Singapore main text, as I prefer the teaching method of MM, and I like how MM goes step by step without requiring conceptual leaps. We might make the leaps ourselves, and just skip a section or even a whole chapter (skipped the chapter recently on 3-digit addition/subtraction since he made that conceptual leap from doing 2-digit and demonstrated his knowledge in the SM IP book which had 3-digit in an early topic).

 

Many math-loving kids use multiple programs, and there are a lot of math-loving kids here. Or their parents love math and love multiple programs and can't choose between them, so they use them all. :D *I* could not use Saxon, after experiencing K and 1. If I have a child that needs a spiral approach, I'll go CLE, as I've seen much of the same conceptual ideas being taught in that (a friend of mine has been using the 2nd grade level this year with great success).

[Nestof3]

You could not pay me to subject my child to Saxon math.

 

 

Bill

 

Yes, I figured you'd pipe in to once again slam Saxon. I am curious how you would know how your daughter, who is very young at this point, would respond to Saxon 7/6? I have never understood the sort of intense hatred you have for it.

 

It sort of reminds me of many of the religious people I know. They make sure they let me know how shocked and sorry for us they are because we live in a neighborhood with a typical city lot. It has become a religion for them to have land -- the promised land, they call it. They assume it is a sorry lot for us. They cannot fathom that we don't want a huge parcel of land. They assume we are or should all be clones.

 

There are all sorts of people, and clearly, many of them are happy using Saxon. It's okay that it's not the fit for you, but honestly, since you have one child, very young at that, I don't see how you can speak for the entire program.