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

[Donna A.]

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.

 

 

Hey! We're religious and are quite happy living in the city. :lol: Well, except for the traffic and all those people tying it up while talking on their cell phones and/or texting.... But we adapt. If we lived in the country, we'd have to drive a gazillion extra miles every week to get anywhere. :auto:

 

Okay, back to the Hive's regularly scheduled quarterly argument about Saxon math.... :boxing_smiley:

 

(Btw, Nestof3, thank you for your post. :) )

[Critterfixer]

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.

 

Absolutely. I actually think that this is the point I wanted to make. If a concept doesn't stick, DRILL is exactly the wrong thing to do! That will absolutly lead to frustration for everybody. Which is why he makes the statement that one should not move on until the concept has "taken" if you will. He didn't say you couldn't do other things until it does. But you should not move onto a skill that directly builds on another.

That is one thing I do like about Saxon. There are rest periods where the child gets to actually do something else for a while that is not directly dependent on having mastered a previous lesson. What I don't necessarily like is not exactly knowing whether it has been mastered or not before going on to the next step. That is sometimes hard to determine, especially if the child does have very good memory for the facts. For me that may mean backtracking to re-teach a lesson now and then, especially if the boys have had a weekend for it all to run out their ears. Of course, it is easier the second time around.

[MelAR05]

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.

 

:iagree:

 

I chose Saxon because I believe it is a solid program. I am always researching and studying other curriculum whether it be history, LA, science, spelling, etc. I have even looked at other math programs. Yes, it takes too long. Yes, there are no colorful pictures. Yes, I have never even considered supplementing. And yes, I know people have a love/hate relationship with it. Honestly, I get tired with the lessons and worksheets taking so long. I wanted to switch because of the time it takes for me. But I keep going back to Saxon. For my family, I believe it is going to give my children the solid foundation needed for math.

 

I tried out TT3 samples online with my oldest, who is in 2nd, for about two weeks. She could do the problems and had fun but said she would rather do Saxon because she got to spend more time with me. Since then I have asked her several times if she would like to try out another program because, yes, after a full lesson she gets tired. She is more my language girl than a math girl. But she is the one that said she would rather do Saxon because the lessons are fun.

 

Melissa

[LinRTX]

:iagree: I'm not sure why someone with young kids who has not really used the program would be so hostile toward it.

 

Linda (who has graduated two with Saxon who pursued math heavy careers and aced their college classes)

[JudoMom]

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

 

 

I've subjected my boys to Saxon math for years now. My poor oldest has been doing it for 7 years now. You know what? He loves math. He gets math. He can't wait to start Algebra in the fall. My other boys know and get math as well. While they may not enjoy the time it can take, they also don't want to switch because they know they are learning.

 

Among my homeschooling friends, I have seen programs that I would never use succeed in their homeschools, and I have seen programs that are supposed to be wonderful (including your beloved Singapore math) utterly fail.

 

You need to remember that everyone is doing the best they can for their family. Just because you have found a great combination for your child, and have great theories about how his math education will play out because of all your research, you don't know what the future holds (of course, maybe Apple has an app for that ;)?). I'm happy that you're happy, but you should make an allowance that other people might be happy and their children might be thriving with Despicable Saxon.

[scrappyhappymama]

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.

 

I do not know why other folks choose Saxon, but I know that for me this was true. I had heard that Saxon was a superior program, and heard so many success stories that I used it unquestioningly for my child, and never saw the need to supplement. I was actually quite proud of the fact that I *knew* what math we were going to stick with for the long haul and remained unmoved by all the tantalizing Singapore/Math Mammoth/Right Start math threads.

 

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.

 

The bolded above is the number one reason we switched from Saxon to Math Mammoth. Over time, I grew discontented with the way the math facts were being taught in Saxon. There was some conceptual stuff there, but it was expected to be teased out over time, slowly through much repetition. The straw the broke it all for me was the hackneyed 'doubles plus one' approach to addition. I didn't mind the concept being introduced that way, but I really expected it to be fleshed out more and for addition concepts to be approached from several different angles, to help my child understand WHY 8+9=17.

 

In my experience, Saxon introduced 8+9=17 as 8+8=16 + 1=17. Then once that was reviewed for a week or two, in the same way each day, then they moved on to addition drills, where 8+9=17 was expected to be memorized, along with the rest of the 'doubles plus one' facts. I don't mind the doubles plus one algorithm so much, I just really was taken aback that it was the ONLY one offered to solve 8+9.

 

In contrast, Math Mammoth teaches 8+9 through adding on a number line, with word problems, by making groups of ten from the addends and then adding the remainder, by emphasizing the value of 17 in relation to 20 and 10 and 18 and 16 and 8 and 9, by introducing the fact family of 8+9 9+8 17-8 and 17-9, by showing that 8+8<8+9 and that 8+9<8+10, by demonstrating it with coins and linking cubes and base 10 cubes. In addition, there was a lot of practice with the relationship of numbers to each other on the number line and in charts and so the concept of '17' is very thoroughly taught. And this was all in 1st grade!

 

I do not mean to slam Saxon or the users of Saxon at all. But I share my experience, because reading Liping Ma's book and looking into the idea of teaching math concepts and not just the algorithms completely revolutionized my thinking. I was taught math in the Saxon way in school, and did very well in math both in school and in testing and in college, but now I see how very little I really understood about WHY things were done they way they are. And this lack of true conceptual understanding affected me later in college, where I was unable to understand the more advanced math classes.

 

Yes, I know this thread is about Singapore, but I think MM is very similar in approach and was on my short list to use, but MM ended up fitting my teaching style better. Once we made the switch to a more conceptual style of math, and my son and I were exposed to all the new ways of approaching even something as simple as his addition facts, I began to supplement more. Not because of a deficiency in the curriculum itself, but because I now value a varied approach to math. And so we supplement with base10 blocks and C-rods and Abacus exercises and CWP and MEP and file folder games and lapbooks, and living math books and so on.

 

I still use Saxon K and 1 for my pre-k and kindergartners. And I do not rule out returning to Saxon in middle or high school, because I do acknowledge that it is a rigorous program, but I will be researching it some more as that time approaches. However for elementary age, and for the rich conceptual basis in math that I want to provide my children, Saxon was not the right choice for our family.

[Donna A.]

Yes, I know this thread is about Singapore, but I think MM is very similar in approach and was on my short list to use, but MM ended up fitting my teaching style better.

 

Actually, I think the thread is about Saxon since that's what the OP came back later and told us she plans to use, as well as the reasons for her decision. ;)

 

 

I still use Saxon K and 1 for my pre-k and kindergartners. And I do not rule out returning to Saxon in middle or high school, because I do acknowledge that it is a rigorous program, but I will be researching it some more as that time approaches. However for elementary age, and for the rich conceptual basis in math that I want to provide my children, Saxon was not the right choice for our family.

This is very similar to what MFW recommends... Singapore and other hands-on math through 6th grade, supplementing with drilling the facts, then switch to Saxon at 7th grade. But then again, that idea takes a beating, too, as I've seen many people complain that the hands-on math built into MFW's K and 1st grade programs isn't "enough", so they feel like they need to add a workbook. :glare:

 

I guess you can't please everybody! :tongue_smilie:

[kalanamak]

Actually, I think the thread is about Saxon since that's what the OP came back later and told us she plans to use, as well as the reasons for her decision. ;)

 

 

 

And, to answer her first comment, yes, Saxon is more "self-sufficient". That was not a selling point for me, however. :)

 

I don't think I'm "hostile" to Saxon, but I looked at it over and over at the store, and it made me want to poke my eyes out. Unless nothing else is working, I, as teacher, get to eschew anything that makes me want to poke my eyes out. It is hard to teach well while blind and bleeding.

[melmichigan]

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

 

Bill

 

Those words sounds so familiar....I believe I parroted those very words years ago when I ventured into homeschooling with my oldest DD, and it bit me is the ar$e. :D She now much prefers Saxon for higher math.

 

My youngers still like and are doing well with SM for now, so who knows about them, there is still hope, if not Saxon 3 by Hake is on the shelf. :cheers2:

[JudoMom]

And, to answer her first comment, yes, Saxon is more "self-sufficient". That was not a selling point for me, however. :)

 

I don't think I'm "hostile" to Saxon, but I looked at it over and over at the store, and it made me want to poke my eyes out. Unless nothing else is working, I, as teacher, get to eschew anything that makes me want to poke my eyes out. It is hard to teach well while blind and bleeding.

 

:smilielol5: I don't think I've every heard this put so succinctly. I've invoked this "blind and bleeding" clause a few times over the years.

[texasmama]

I don't think I'm "hostile" to Saxon, but I looked at it over and over at the store, and it made me want to poke my eyes out. Unless nothing else is working, I, as teacher, get to eschew anything that makes me want to poke my eyes out. It is hard to teach well while blind and bleeding.

 

:lol: I have looked at Saxon repeatedly at the used curriculum store just out of curiosity. Each time, my eyes glaze over and I shut it quickly and shove it back in. (This is not really due to Saxon, to be fair, as I have the same response to Latin. I don't seem to "do" new programs well.)

 

I had the same reaction to the SM HIGs, though I am taking a deep breath and ordering them for 5A and 5B. Hope to not find myself blind and bleeding.:tongue_smilie: (Now running to put a bag over my head because I said AGAIN in a thread that I haven't found the HIGs helpful, as well as changing my mind about giving them another try.)

[Critterfixer]

Out of morbid curiosity, who feels that the teachers response to the math curriculum is a major deciding factor? I know that I am far less likely to blame the curriculum for a comprehension problem than I am to blame myself for not teaching it properly. I grew up with lots of drill, and was tortured (uh, taught) with Saxon in my middle grade years. I struggled a lot with the why of Math until Calculus came along and made sense. So I wonder sometimes if I cling to Saxon out of the fear of sinking somehow if I try to teach with something like Singapore. It's sort of a ghastly feeling really, because I might have children who are similar-great at memorizing facts but not great at internalizing the method.

[texasmama]

Out of morbid curiosity, who feels that the teachers response to the math curriculum is a major deciding factor? I know that I am far less likely to blame the curriculum for a comprehension problem than I am to blame myself for not teaching it properly. I grew up with lots of drill, and was tortured (uh, taught) with Saxon in my middle grade years. I struggled a lot with the why of Math until Calculus came along and made sense. So I wonder sometimes if I cling to Saxon out of the fear of sinking somehow if I try to teach with something like Singapore. It's sort of a ghastly feeling really, because I might have children who are similar-great at memorizing facts but not great at internalizing the method.

 

I can only speak for my own experience. I have a mediocre math educational career, even though I took higher maths, chemistry, and statistics in college. Geometry, trig, precalculus...none of it ever really "made sense" to me. Algebra made sense. It just clicked with me. It was symmetrical or something, and my language arts brain could wrap its arms around it.;)

 

Then God gave me these two boys who are natural mental math geniuses, and I had to figure out what to do with them. A friend who has homeschooled for many years recommended Singapore. I used it blindly for a year, then began the slow and arduous process of re-educating myself about conceptual math so I could truly teach it. My 8 and 10 year old sons are my math superiors. They can do math computations that I still must write down. But I am better than I used to be.:001_smile:

 

I had to conquer a fair amount of fear and misunderstanding in order to take on a new way of understanding math. I'm glad I did. It has been a long time since I have done something that required such a stiff learning curve.

 

I have an older dd who used Saxon in a private school. She is finishing the tenth grade and doing well in chemistry and geometry. I am not against Saxon. But my sons came out of my body walking down the Singapore path so I had to adjust my teaching to fit their natural leanings. I think Singapore would work with most kids but not all. My kids think math is fun. I don't think they would think this if we used Saxon because it is not a good fit for them.

 

I don't know if I addressed your question. I am not one who can wax eloquent on math.:lol: But there ya go.;)

[Critterfixer]

I have used Saxon for K and 1st, and I've got nothing truly bad to say about it (except that it takes so long and I hate the linking cubes:001_smile:).

What bothers me about Singapore is the need to make sure there is enough practice material on hand, because I don't want them to not have enough in the way of drill.

I don't know if I've got math geniuses, but I do want them to be able to "see" the math, the way I was able to do with calculus. I was stubborn and didn't give up on math, despite never doing all that well with it. I think that if they can have a few of those blinding epiphany moments when they are young it will help them to keep going when things don't always make sense.

Some days they love math. But they tend to measure their comprehension by how well they do on the fact sheets with Saxon (ie. Did I get anything wrong?). It's a poor measure of actual understanding for them because they can literally memorize anything.

 

For the summer I am planning on ordering Singapore at their placement level to continue their math since we are about ten lessons from the end of Saxon1. I hope that seeing how they adjust to it and how I will do teaching it will be useful in making a decision as to whether to go with Saxon 2.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Critterfixer

[Lady Dove]

We love our Saxon. My son does Saxon 6/5, and dd1 does Saxon k as a supplement to her reg lepanto arithmetic. We use the Saxon because it IS stand alone!!! The less I have to supplement, the better. We use Saxon K as a supplement simply because of the lessons using math manipulatives. Lepanto Arithmetic is quite easy for dd1, but it's a required course for OLVS. My son uses the COMPASS CDs for math instruction with Saxon. We spend approximately 45 minutes a day on math, not the 2 to 2 1/2 hours that I saw posted on here. That's entirely too much time spent on ANY subject!!!

Edited May 20, 2011 by Lady Dove

[Spock]

(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?

 

Time is probably the major factor. Depending on the level being used, a Saxon lesson can take 1-2 hours per day to finish. A Singapore lesson (just textbook and workbook, not including Intensive Practice, etc) usually takes 20-30 minutes to finish.

 

So most students/parents just don't feel up to doing even more math after a Saxon lesson, while math-loving families using Singapore would have more time to add either the supplemental Singapore books or another program, or even both.

 

Also, Saxon seems to appeal to parents who just want a solid math education--and are thus satisfied with a single good program. Singapore seems to appeal to parents who are interested in playing with numbers and finding many different ways to work with them--which would lead to using multiple approaches.

[Spy Car]

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.

 

I'm actually quite familiar with Saxon Dawn. One of my nephews used Saxon from K-6 and I did a good deal of tutoring with him. If you like it fine, but as I said you could not pay me to use Saxon. I don't care for the way this program teaches math in the slightest.

 

My younger nephew's school uses Singapore. The difference in the math aptitude and the affinity for the subject could not be more different. The older brother can solve problems if he has the formula and numbers to plug in. I'm sure he does reasonably well on standardized tests, but there is no deep understanding of the subject. Little-to-no ability to creatively problem solve when the problems become complex multi-part affairs. The contrast with his little brother (who was raised on Singapore) is striking.

 

And I see the results with my own son (not daughter). Night before last he solved a bunch of problems similar to the following:

 

Samantha had $8, but she owed $17 to her grandmother. For Samantha's Birthday, her grandmother gave her $5 and also wrote on a birthday card: In addition to the $5 present I am also taking away $10 of the debt that you owe me. How much money would you say Samantha owes now?

 

He solved this with ease and he's still 6. This sort of thing takes a little mathematical thinking, and not just procedural level thinking.

 

This is but one example of the sort of multi-step problems that develop mathematical reasoning that programs like Singapore promote, and provide the skills necessary to problem solve.

 

Bill

[Spock]

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.

 

 

 

I can understand the intense dislike for Saxon. I (and 3 of my children) cannot learn or understand math the way Saxon teaches. We HAVE to see the big picture of the whole concept in order to understand and use the pieces. When I tried to use Saxon Calculus this year with my second son (who is like me in this respect), we were both VERY frustrated. Saxon teaches one tiny piece at a time, then moves on to a tiny piece of a different skill, and eventually moves to another tiny piece of a skill or concept. I felt like a little kid being teased by a big kid who is holding something I want just out of my reach--showing it to me, then jerking it away before I can get it. Saxon feels like it is doing the same thing with the big picture view I need in order to learn and understand math (or anything else).

 

I had the same problem the year and a half that I used Saxon 65 and 76 with my oldest (who could have learned that way if I could have stood to continue teaching it--in retrospect, I should have used Rod and Staff or something similar with him--it is a good compromise between his learning style and my teaching style). I couldn't stand jumping from a piece of information about fractions to a bit of information about long division to a piece of information about decimals and finally to the next fragment of information about fractions and so on.

 

I know this approach is effective and enjoyable for those who learn by putting together the small pieces to build the big picture. However, it is torture for those who learn by breaking apart the big picture to learn the small pieces. (I suspect it can also be frustrating for those who build up to an idea if they need less review before getting the next piece of information.)

 

For my 3 big picture learners Singapore has been very successful. (It did not work at all for my oldest, who is a big picture learner in other areas, but needs a step by step scaffold for math.)

[mommymilkies]

Time is probably the major factor. Depending on the level being used, a Saxon lesson can take 1-2 hours per day to finish. A Singapore lesson (just textbook and workbook, not including Intensive Practice, etc) usually takes 20-30 minutes to finish.

 

So most students/parents just don't feel up to doing even more math after a Saxon lesson, while math-loving families using Singapore would have more time to add either the supplemental Singapore books or another program, or even both.

 

Also, Saxon seems to appeal to parents who just want a solid math education--and are thus satisfied with a single good program. Singapore seems to appeal to parents who are interested in playing with numbers and finding many different ways to work with them--which would lead to using multiple approaches.

:iagree: I don't "have" to use anything but Singapore. But now we like math and try a whole bunch of different programs for some added fun and ways to play with and understand numbers.

[Spy Car]

I can understand the intense dislike for Saxon. I (and 3 of my children) cannot learn or understand math the way Saxon teaches. We HAVE to see the big picture of the whole concept in order to understand and use the pieces. When I tried to use Saxon Calculus this year with my second son (who is like me in this respect), we were both VERY frustrated. Saxon teaches one tiny piece at a time, then moves on to a tiny piece of a different skill, and eventually moves to another tiny piece of a skill or concept. I felt like a little kid being teased by a big kid who is holding something I want just out of my reach--showing it to me, then jerking it away before I can get it. Saxon feels like it is doing the same thing with the big picture view I need in order to learn and understand math (or anything else).

 

I had the same problem the year and a half that I used Saxon 65 and 76 with my oldest (who could have learned that way if I could have stood to continue teaching it--in retrospect, I should have used Rod and Staff or something similar with him--it is a good compromise between his learning style and my teaching style). I couldn't stand jumping from a piece of information about fractions to a bit of information about long division to a piece of information about decimals and finally to the next fragment of information about fractions and so on.

 

I know this approach is effective and enjoyable for those who learn by putting together the small pieces to build the big picture. However, it is torture for those who learn by breaking apart the big picture to learn the small pieces. (I suspect it can also be frustrating for those who build up to an idea if they need less review before getting the next piece of information.)

 

For my 3 big picture learners Singapore has been very successful. (It did not work at all for my oldest, who is a big picture learner in other areas, but needs a step by step scaffold for math.)

 

You put it well. I almost feel like Saxon math deliberately obfuscates the big picture and the mathematical reasoning underlying lessons in favor of disjointed incremental (and endlessly long and repetitive) practice of procedures. It makes me want to scream with frustration.

 

Bill

[mcconnellboys]

I think this is because Saxon is full of overkill. There's really too much: too many problems, too many topics (in early grades), etc. Singapore didn't use to have a lot of extras available. But now, with the home instructor guides and all the extra practice workbooks that are available, you really don't need to buy a different program for extra practice if you don't want to....

[Guest]

I can understand the intense dislike for Saxon. I (and 3 of my children) cannot learn or understand math the way Saxon teaches. We HAVE to see the big picture of the whole concept in order to understand and use the pieces. When I tried to use Saxon Calculus this year with my second son (who is like me in this respect), we were both VERY frustrated. Saxon teaches one tiny piece at a time, then moves on to a tiny piece of a different skill, and eventually moves to another tiny piece of a skill or concept. I felt like a little kid being teased by a big kid who is holding something I want just out of my reach--showing it to me, then jerking it away before I can get it. Saxon feels like it is doing the same thing with the big picture view I need in order to learn and understand math (or anything else).

 

I had the same problem the year and a half that I used Saxon 65 and 76 with my oldest (who could have learned that way if I could have stood to continue teaching it--in retrospect, I should have used Rod and Staff or something similar with him--it is a good compromise between his learning style and my teaching style). I couldn't stand jumping from a piece of information about fractions to a bit of information about long division to a piece of information about decimals and finally to the next fragment of information about fractions and so on.

 

I know this approach is effective and enjoyable for those who learn by putting together the small pieces to build the big picture. However, it is torture for those who learn by breaking apart the big picture to learn the small pieces. (I suspect it can also be frustrating for those who build up to an idea if they need less review before getting the next piece of information.)

 

For my 3 big picture learners Singapore has been very successful. (It did not work at all for my oldest, who is a big picture learner in other areas, but needs a step by step scaffold for math.)

 

We are the same here. Whole to parts works better for us and we are very mastery oriented. I researched Saxon when we first started homeschooling and I was trying to decide on a program for my son Adrian. Thankfully, I researched it enough to realize that it was not a program that would work for us. I have steered clear since. Just reading some of the experiences makes me realize even more that it would not have been a good fit for our family.

 

I am not saying that I hate Saxon. I have no reason to. There are so many programs out there to fit any individual family's needs. Saxon could not be that for us, even though we will be trying out Houghton Mifflin's science. Then again, that is an entirely different approach there.

[Nestof3]

I think part of the problem is that Saxon K-3 didn't even exist when I started using Saxon. I still use the old 5/4, 6/5, etc. books. I wasn't thrilled with the younger material when I started with Ben and Nathan, but I knew I liked the older material, so I stuck with it. I knew enough to know that it was going to get good.

 

I understand not liking a little bit here and a little bit there as well. I have found that mixing it up helps me know that my children continue to learn and grow outside expected order. What I mean by this, is, some children grow comfortable with fractions and then decimals, but when they don't receive enough fractions thrown in during the decimals, they begin to fade on their ability. I honestly don't know how other math programs handle this.

 

I can tell you that the word problem you gave as an example is the same sort of thing my boys do every day. I hand-pick which problems I want my boys to do because there are some problems they just keep getting right, so I only throw those in the mix every now and then.

 

I think these are nice word problems:

 

David, Ann and Chad were playing marbles. Ann had twice as many marbles as David had, and Chad had 5 more marbles than Ann had. David had 9 marbles. How many marbles did Chad have?

 

Nine tenths of the 30 students remembered their homework. How many students remembered their homework? What percent of the students did not remember their homework?

 

A can of soup serves 3 people. How many cans of soup are needed to serve 14 people?

 

Jamie drove 135 miles in 3 hours. What was her average speed in miles per hour? At the same rate, how far could she drive in 9 hours?

 

My boys haven't learned a single formula yet. It's all been about understanding the problem. I can vouch for that all the way up to Alg 2/Trig. I am not saying Singapore is not a fabulous program -- by all means, keep going with it.

 

I guess I could always buy a Singapore word problem book (do they make them anymore?) to make sure my boys can solve multipart problems. I have no problem throwing things in the mix. ;) I often add extra things like this over the summer (Life of Fred last summer, for example). I don't like to stop math over the summer because I feel like it helps them to stay steady. Do you think it would be best to use 4th and 5th grade if my boys are completing the 4th and 5th?

 

Looking here, I can see the difference of which you speak, but honestly, the skills are the same. The problem is just requiring more within the problem.

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/singaporeword.htm

 

What Saxon does is separate such problems into (a) and (b) rather than one long problem. In the long-run, I just wonder what the difference is when the student is older. We adults solve multi-step problems all the time.

 

 

I'm actually quite familiar with Saxon Dawn. One of my nephews used Saxon from K-6 and I did a good deal of tutoring with him. If you like it fine, but as I said you could not pay me to use Saxon. I don't care for the way this program teaches math in the slightest.

 

My younger nephew's school uses Singapore. The difference in the math aptitude and the affinity for the subject could not be more different. The older brother can solve problems if he has the formula and numbers to plug in. I'm sure he does reasonably well on standardized tests, but there is no deep understanding of the subject. Little-to-no ability to creatively problem solve when the problems become complex multi-part affairs. The contrast with his little brother (who was raised on Singapore) is striking.

 

And I see the results with my own son (not daughter). Night before last he solved a bunch of problems similar to the following:

 

Samantha had $8, but she owed $17 to her grandmother. For Samantha's Birthday, her grandmother gave her $5 and also wrote on a birthday card: In addition to the $5 present I am also taking away $10 of the debt that you owe me. How much money would you say Samantha owes now?

 

He solved this with ease and he's still 6. This sort of thing takes a little mathematical thinking, and not just procedural level thinking.

 

This is but one example of the sort of multi-step problems that develop mathematical reasoning that programs like Singapore promote, and provide the skills necessary to problem solve.

 

Bill

Edited May 20, 2011 by nestof3

[Spy Car]

I guess I could always buy a Singapore word problem book (do they make them anymore?) to make sure my boys can solve multipart problems. I have no problem throwing things in the mix. ;) I often add extra things like this over the summer (Life of Fred last summer, for example). I don't like to stop math over the summer because I feel like it helps them to stay steady. Do you think it would be best to use 4th and 5th grade if my boys are completing the 4th and 5th?

 

Looking here, I can see the difference of which you speak, but honestly, the skills are the same. The problem is just requiring more within the problem.

http://www.redshift.com/~bonajo/singaporeword.htm

 

What Saxon does is separate such problems into (a) and (b) rather than one long problem. In the long-run, I just wonder what the difference is when the student is older. We adults solve multi-step problems all the time.

 

As to the first part, yes Singapore Math does still publish word problem books. The old CWPs went OOP, but there is a new series.

 

A couple samples of Level 4 from the old series.

 

The first typical of the easier "practice" problem:

 

Lisa had 96 stickers. She used 1/3 of them and gave 18 of them to her sister. How many stckers did she have left?

 

One of the "challenging" problems would look like:

 

Ivan had $42.30 more than Desmond. After Ivan spent $27.90 and Desmond spent $6.60, how much more money did Ivan have than Desmond?

 

A "challenging" problem from Level 2:

 

Bucket A had 22 pt of water. Bucket B had 33 pt of water. 9 pt of water from Bucket A were poured into Bucket B. 7 pt of water from Bucket B were then poured into Bucket A. Which bucket had more water in the end? How much more.

 

As to the second part of your question, namely, does it matter? I would offer a resounding: Yes!

 

And it is not just "word problems", but the totality of the approach in Singapore that gets the children to think critically, reason mathematically, be able to re-group and manipulate numbers so they can do math mentally, and develop problem solving skills. This sort of activity flexes their minds, and makes them strong. It also makes math into an intellectually interesting subject rather than one that relies only on rote-memory and procedure.

 

I think it is a very different kind of approach.

 

Bill

Edited May 21, 2011 by Spy Car

[texasmama]

What Saxon does is separate such problems into (a) and (b) rather than one long problem. In the long-run, I just wonder what the difference is when the student is older. We adults solve multi-step problems all the time.

 

Singapore asks the student to reason through whether the problem is a one step or multi-step problem starting early on. Initially, my kids needed a prompt from me to determine this, but (with my help and prompting) they learn to gather the information that is given, look for the information they need to answer the final question and perform the steps in between. This involves more than mathematical skills - it involves critical thinking skills. My boys also ask me to draw a bar diagram when they are stumped. :D

 

(BTW, I can't believe I am engaging in a discussion about math. I'm so out of my league here.:lol:)

[kalanamak]

This involves more than mathematical skills - it involves critical thinking skills. My boys also ask me to draw a bar diagram when they are stumped. :D

 

Yes! It is like diagramming a sentence. But instead of "what is the subject", what is the word "partial" modifying, it is asking him to pick apart the chain of relationships. I never thought of it that way, but oh, I'll have to point that out to him.

[Nestof3]

Singapore asks the student to reason through whether the problem is a one step or multi-step problem starting early on. Initially, my kids needed a prompt from me to determine this, but (with my help and prompting) they learn to gather the information that is given, look for the information they need to answer the final question and perform the steps in between. This involves more than mathematical skills - it involves critical thinking skills. My boys also ask me to draw a bar diagram when they are stumped. :D

 

(BTW, I can't believe I am engaging in a discussion about math. I'm so out of my league here.:lol:)

 

I think I am such a visual learner that I naturally resort to teaching my using drawings. I have seen the Singapore bars before, and I use something very similar when approaching word problems. In fact, I don't even use the Saxon teaching portion to teach. :lol: I look at the topic and just teach it the way I see fit -- how I think would best demonstrate the concept. I tend to teach the same topic in different ways to show the various ways you can approach a problem.

 

I really appreciate the way Saxon explains WHAT multiplying and dividing fractions means before teaching HOW to do it mathematically.

 

It takes me about 3-5 minutes to teach a math concept and Nathan about 20 minutes to complete about 75% of Saxon's problems. I saw a huge jump in his math-ability from last year to this year. Ben takes longer, but he takes longer on everything. He has serious attention issues.

[Nestof3]

Okay, one more comment. Saxon is far from being a math program that teaches rote memorization. I agree that their word problems require more steps, but Saxon does have many multipart word problems.

 

I'll get the 4th and 5th grade word problem books for summer practice and let you know how they do. Clearly, if Saxon is only teaching rote memorization, they will fail. Right? ;)

 

As to the first part, yes Singapore Math does still publish word problem books. The old CWPs went OOP, but there is a new series.

 

A couple samples of Level 4 from the old series.

 

The first typical of the easier "practice" problem:

 

Lisa had 96 stickers. She used 1/3 of them and gave 18 of them to her sister. How many stckers did she have left?

 

One of the "challenging" problems would look like:

 

Ivan had $42.30 more than Desmond. After Ivan spent $27.90 and Desmond spent $6.60, how much more money did Ivan have than Desmond?

 

A "challenging" problem from Level 2:

 

Bucket A had 22 pt of water. Bucket B had 33 pt of water. 9 pt of water from Bucket A were poured into Bucket B. 7 pt of water from Bucket B were then poured into Bucket A. Which bucket had more water in the end? How much more.

 

As to the second part of your question, namely, does it matter? I would offer a resounding: Yes!

 

And it is not just "word problems", but the totality of the approach in Singapore that gets the children to think critically, reason mathematically, be able to re-group and manipulate numbers so they can do math mentally, and develop problem solving skills. This sort of activity flexes their minds, and makes them strong. It also makes math into an intellectually interesting subject rather than one that relies only on rote-memory and procedure.

 

I think it is a very different kind of approach.

 

Bill

[zaichiki]

There are kids who never need review and SM might be a perfect fit for them

 

Singapore Primary Math includes review. In fact, if one uses the whole program (textbook, workbook, practice book,iIntensive practice book, and Challenging Word Problems book) the review can be overkill IMO. Primary Math doesn't spiral the way Saxon does, but concepts learned in previous lessons are constantly built upon as you go.

 

My kids haven't really looked at any other curricula. They don't *love* math. It isn't their strength: they're not "mathy." They're not "speedy" with their facts. But I'll tell you one thing -- Singapore Math has really given them an understanding of how numbers work together like nothing I've ever seen traditional American math curricula do.

[FO4UR]

As teacher, *I* need the "big picture" whole-to-parts before jumping in to the lessons. I hate scripted lessons! I'd rather have bullet points and a diagram, and I can teach it.

 

I use a variety of resources for math. I'm comfy with mixing it up and enjoying math while they are little. And....yes, we get those facts memorized one way or another.

 

For a toss up between Saxon and Singapore, look at MEP.

[zaichiki]

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.

 

When you used Singapore's Primary Math, were you using the whole program? If you use the text, workbook, practice books, and the word problem book, there's LOTS of review. I think the Teacher's/Homeschooler Guides also have prompts and ideas for review.

[Spy Car]

Okay, one more comment. Saxon is far from being a math program that teaches rote memorization. I agree that their word problems require more steps, but Saxon does have many multipart word problems.

 

I'll get the 4th and 5th grade word problem books for summer practice and let you know how they do. Clearly, if Saxon is only teaching rote memorization, they will fail. Right? ;)

 

I would be highly interested to hear about your childrens' (and your) experiences with the Singapore Complex Word Problem books over the summer. It would make for an interesting thread.

 

I would certainly hope they would not "fail", and would hope they feel stretched a bit. I will be all :bigear:

 

Bill (who would love to see you try the US Edition Intensive Practice Books too if there is time in the summer practice schedule).

[lauracolumbus]

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.

 

Thank you for posting this! I needed to hear it. I've been questioning my decision to stick w/Saxon (another Lipping Ma reader). I've been AoPS curious for a while...

 

We do supplement over the summer w/LOF. I like the two completely different approaches between these two programs. I do use MM w/my youngest along w/Saxon. I tried Singapore, but didn't like it. And it's probably heresy, but I am grateful that Saxon leads to great test scores for my kids. I'm mean heck, if you hang out on the high school board, you're bound to bump into a discussion about improving standardized test scores.

[Spy Car]

Singapore Primary Math includes review. In fact, if one uses the whole program (textbook, workbook, practice book,iIntensive practice book, and Challenging Word Problems book) the review can be overkill IMO. Primary Math doesn't spiral the way Saxon does, but concepts learned in previous lessons are constantly built upon as you go.

 

My kids haven't really looked at any other curricula. They don't *love* math. It isn't their strength: they're not "mathy." They're not "speedy" with their facts. But I'll tell you one thing -- Singapore Math has really given them an understanding of how numbers work together like nothing I've ever seen traditional American math curricula do.

 

When you used Singapore's Primary Math, were you using the whole program? If you use the text, workbook, practice books, and the word problem book, there's LOTS of review. I think the Teacher's/Homeschooler Guides also have prompts and ideas for review.

 

:iagree:

 

Between the Standards Edition (which had more review than the US Edition, and the US Edition IPs, and the CWPs and the HIG activities) there is plenty of review and a graded increase in challenge from initial ease to quite challenging.

 

Bill

[lauracolumbus]

And you can use Challenge Math word problems as a supplement to Saxon (or any other program) if you want more word problems.

 

Laura

[lauracolumbus]

I'm actually quite familiar with Saxon Dawn. One of my nephews used Saxon from K-6 and I did a good deal of tutoring with him. If you like it fine, but as I said you could not pay me to use Saxon. I don't care for the way this program teaches math in the slightest.

 

My younger nephew's school uses Singapore. The difference in the math aptitude and the affinity for the subject could not be more different. The older brother can solve problems if he has the formula and numbers to plug in. I'm sure he does reasonably well on standardized tests, but there is no deep understanding of the subject. Little-to-no ability to creatively problem solve when the problems become complex multi-part affairs. The contrast with his little brother (who was raised on Singapore) is striking.

 

And I see the results with my own son (not daughter). Night before last he solved a bunch of problems similar to the following:

 

Samantha had $8, but she owed $17 to her grandmother. For Samantha's Birthday, her grandmother gave her $5 and also wrote on a birthday card: In addition to the $5 present I am also taking away $10 of the debt that you owe me. How much money would you say Samantha owes now?

 

He solved this with ease and he's still 6. This sort of thing takes a little mathematical thinking, and not just procedural level thinking.

 

This is but one example of the sort of multi-step problems that develop mathematical reasoning that programs like Singapore promote, and provide the skills necessary to problem solve.

 

Bill

 

Sometimes, it's just the kid though Bill, not necessarily the program. My dd7 is flying through Saxon 5/4 (and MM 4). She just gets this stuff, be it Saxon or MM (she was doing long division as kindergartner). We'll probably do LOF fractions over the summer. I tried Singapore w/her b/c frankly that seems to be the way she thinks. Personally, I don't like Singapore, but really like MM.

 

Laura

[zaichiki]

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:

 

My little ds is using Singapore Primary Math 1A right now -- addition and subtraction. I *love* that PM teaches so many different ways to add (and so many different ways to subtract). It's not just about counting objects.

 

Adding:

PM1A teaches

1. counting (of course) the items

2. counting on

3. comparing two groups by drawing lines between the corresponding objects and then couting the amount "left over" in the larger group

4. number bonds (I LOVE number bonds!)

5. use of a number line

6. memorizing/repetition of the various number combinations that make 8 (for example)

 

I don't have the book in front of me, so I may be missing a few of the ways simple addition is taught. This all happens in the first 10 (or so) lessons. There has been enough review that my little guy can use all of these methods successfully. I think his current favorite is the number line 'cause I draw it on the driveway with chalk and he gets to "count on" by jumping.

 

ETA: My favorite way that PM teaches addition is "make ten." The kids see that 9 can be easily made into a ten by adding one more (or 8 becoming a 10 with 2 more)... and it's all a cakewalk from there. Base-10 stuff. Place value stuff. Love it!

Edited May 21, 2011 by zaichiki

[mystika1]

I have never used Saxon and I like Singapore Math but.....

 

What do you do when the child you are teaching NEEDS a spiral approach to math? I have seen lots of posts in this thread saying that "I or we hate saxon math because it moves way too slowly and bored us to tears" but tell me please...SM lovers....What would you use if your child needed spiral learning for things to stick? My dd hates and I do mean hates to stick with one math topic for days and days then come back to it later only to have forgotten everything. I stay on a lesson until she gets it and all I hear..."Oh God..not this again. We have been doing the same thing for days." I add in the extra practice books a few lessons behind to help with review but it is pretty darn boring. It is strange as it reminds me of MUS with the same thing over and over again. The only thing keeping my dd sane is the cute pictures in the texts.

 

Then...I look at other math choices and see how they cover time, money and so much more topics in a spiral way that I KNOW would capture my dd's attention and get her excited for math and I wonder if I should just switch.

 

I am seriously asking this....because I want to know. Everyone who says that their child is super math gifted....what would you use if your child needed a spiral approach? And yes...I have the higs and extra practice books and word problems.

 

Thanks,

 

Penny

[boscopup]

What do you do when the child you are teaching NEEDS a spiral approach to math?

 

CLE and MEP are both spiral and good choices, IMO.

[mystika1]

CLE and MEP are both spiral and good choices, IMO.

I have looked at CLE and think so too:001_smile: but....on all.... and I do mean ALL SM threads...CLE gets crushed to bits. Kind of like saxon. I am made to feel as though my dd will be doomed if I dare choose anything but SM. I keep moving on with SM and my dd is miserable.

 

Thanks,

Penny

[kalanamak]

I have looked at CLE and think so too:001_smile: but....on all.... and I do mean ALL SM threads...CLE gets crushed to bits. Kind of like saxon. I am made to feel as though my dd will be doomed if I dare choose anything but SM. I keep moving on with SM and my dd is miserable.

 

 

I think part of "all the SM threads" is that for many of us who didn't like math when growing up, finding SM was like stumbling onto an oasis in the desert.

 

I remember when I got my first HP reverse Polish notation calculator. I only got one because my brother worked for them and I could get a cheap seconds (scratched, etc). Suddenly it all felt so smooth. I have a reverse Polish mind.

 

I have a SM mind. It was great to find something that fit my thinking so well, because I think it really helps me teach it (and I do a 100% sit-with-kid math class).

[nmoira]

I have looked at CLE and think so too:001_smile: but....on all.... and I do mean ALL SM threads...CLE gets crushed to bits. Kind of like saxon. I am made to feel as though my dd will be doomed if I dare choose anything but SM. I keep moving on with SM and my dd is miserable.

I've never looked at CLE, but we're huge MEP fans here.

[Snowfall]

I have looked at CLE and think so too:001_smile: but....on all.... and I do mean ALL SM threads...CLE gets crushed to bits. Kind of like saxon. I am made to feel as though my dd will be doomed if I dare choose anything but SM. I keep moving on with SM and my dd is miserable.

 

I've found that my daughter needs some sort of spiral, too, and I'm still deciding exactly what we'll do next year. The spiral in Rightstart isn't a good one for her. Things are dropped for weeks before they're picked up again, and she can't remember them by then. What I'm considering is using Singapore, but instead of using the the IP and/or EP books, just using the HIG, text, CWP, and workbooks, then supplementing with something that IS spiral, like Horizons. I wouldn't use the whole Horizons program - just the workbooks, which are relatively inexpensive. The worksheets have a few different things on each page, which keeps my dd interested and keeps it all fresh in her mind. I wouldn't use Horizons to introduce topics (I don't like it for that) but as worksheets for that spiral effect, it's perfect!

[Mom0012]

I have looked at CLE and think so too:001_smile: but....on all.... and I do mean ALL SM threads...CLE gets crushed to bits. Kind of like saxon. I am made to feel as though my dd will be doomed if I dare choose anything but SM. I keep moving on with SM and my dd is miserable.

 

Thanks,

Penny

 

Yes, it may get crushed to bits, but mainly just by Bill. :001_smile: Bill is very disparaging towards any program that a takes an approach other than his beloved Singapore. I think it's great he loves Singapore and has found a good fit for his child. I find it rude and annoying that he cannot fathom that some children need a different approach than what Singapore offers. It is simply out of his realm of belief that a child could not thrive with Singapore.

 

I've used Singapore as a lighter supplement over the summer after using R&S as our main program throughout the year. My child has had no problem doing the Singapore problems as review after completing (the dreaded, rote, traditional) R&S so I'm not seeing the magic.

 

I think we all need to focus on what works for our children and put on our blinders as best we can to people who are overzealous about a particular program.

 

My daughter uses CLE and is absolutely thriving with it. We started out with Rightstart, which she did fine with, but wow, she really knows her stuff with CLE and applies it to daily life all the time. There is no question that she has a very good understanding of math.

 

My son, who has used R&S from 1st grade and now is in the 6th grade book, blows his friends out of the water with his mental math when playing board games with them. These are kids who have used a highly conceptual program. They get the "whys" very well, but so does my son yet he also has had the practice to develop automaticity, which his friends clearly have not.

 

Lisa

Edited May 21, 2011 by LisaTheresa

[Donna]

I would be highly interested to hear about your childrens' (and your) experiences with the Singapore Complex Word Problem books over the summer. It would make for an interesting thread.

 

I would certainly hope they would not "fail", and would hope they feel stretched a bit. I will be all :bigear:

 

Bill (who would love to see you try the US Edition Intensive Practice Books too if there is time in the summer practice schedule).

 

 

I bought a Singapore Complex Word Problem book for dd to work through this year a grade level lower than her Saxon...doing Saxon 76 so I bought 5th grade Singapore because I had heard Singapore seems a little ahead for each grade. She does the problems on her own easily once we've covered the practice problems in each section.

[texasmama]

I think part of "all the SM threads" is that for many of us who didn't like math when growing up, finding SM was like stumbling onto an oasis in the desert.

 

<snip>

 

I have a SM mind. It was great to find something that fit my thinking so well, because I think it really helps me teach it (and I do a 100% sit-with-kid math class).

 

Absolutely! Doing Singapore with my boys has made a light go on for me. Math always vexed me. Other subjects came easily. Math made me feel stupid. It was the bully ruining my school days.

 

The way that SM presents concepts, I finally understand how to do mental math, the tricks of managing those numbers in my head in groups of 10, etc. My boys are STILL better than I am at mental subtraction which includes regrouping, but I can add like nobody's business for the first time in my life. This has been a revolutionary experience for a 44 year old who couldn't balance her checkbook.

 

Forget the kids! I needed math presented this way!:tongue_smilie: It isn't difficult,and it doesn't take a long time. It just makes sense to me...finally. I have evidently needed SM for a very long time.

 

(Again, not dogpiling on Saxon or any other program because I have not taught them as a homeschooler - just singing the praises of Singapore.)

Edited May 21, 2011 by texasmama

[gimli]

The standard negative positions against Saxon I read fall into two camps: it takes too long, it doesn't teach the algorithms, and it doesn't teach the 'why' (or little picture first)?

 

Put simply: there is no shortcut to learning math. If you really want to learn math it will take time. A number of people have stated that Singapore only takes 20-30 minutes and a K-3 Saxon lesson may take 1-2 hours. We have used Saxon exclusively and I can confirm that 2 hour number with my eldest who is now in 5/4 Math. Some of the lessons are indeed involved and require a great amount of time doing data gathering, graphing and interpretation. I am thinking about the states hi/lo temperature chart lesson in particular. But let me be clear: if your math lessons only last 20 minutes, your dc is not learning math. The reason saxon takes long is that the curriculum follows a standard progression that emphasizes comprehension. The K-3 lessons start with a physical manipulative to demonstrate a concept and then the abstractions are slowly made so that the child can manipulate the abstract symbols all the while being reminded of the physical manipulations they represent. If you don't see this, then you are shortening lessons, skipping material, and cheating dc out of an excellent math program.

 

Many people also complain about the mindless repetition of subject matter. If you look carefully, the problems on homework sheets are always presented in a different manner so that the dc must approach the topic from a new angle and solve the problem with skills learned. I think many people skip problems and lessons and then complain that Saxon doesn't teach them to use the subject matter in different contexts. Further, repetition is the only way to really learn and internalize math. Remember all math is just a mental abstraction for some physical manipulation. The more practice you have in the abstraction world playing with the ideas, bouncing them against each other, and putting the together in different ways the better you will get.

 

I have noted other people having to supplement Singapore with flash cards, word problems, etc. This is not necessary with Saxon because it so thorough. If you skip material then of course you will either have to go back and repeat or supplement. A number of our friends don't do the meeting book or skip over problems that they (the parent) find obvious. Remember you are not doing homeschooling for yourself but dc and just because you find it trivial doesn't mean dc will see it that way. Saxon is a total program, if you do it right, you will not need to supplement.

 

If you have complaints or doubts about Saxon the first question you should ask is whether or not you are implementing it correctly. It works, it teaches subject matter thoroughly and then demands the student demonstrate the learned skill in multiple contexts.

 

I have a PhD in physics and have taught professionally in both math and physics departments at the collegiate level. I think Saxon is an excellent program. Is it hard? You bet. Does it take a lot of time? Yes. Will DC complain all the way through K-3? Our first DS certainly did. But now in 5/4 he knows his basic math. Doing math gives him confidence because he really knows it.

[gimli]

One more thing,

Sorry Spy Car, I disagree with you on this one.

[Jen500]

(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?

 

I think programs like Singapore are easier to custom-fit to your child. Some kids need more (or less) practice and review of certain topics.

 

Your child is still young. You may find that your choice of Saxon math works wonderfully, or you may find that another program ends up working much better. One of the benefits of homeschooling (or afterschooling ;))

[*Lulu*]

Put simply: there is no shortcut to learning math. If you really want to learn math it will take time. A number of people have stated that Singapore only takes 20-30 minutes and a K-3 Saxon lesson may take 1-2 hours. We have used Saxon exclusively and I can confirm that 2 hour number with my eldest who is now in 5/4 Math. Some of the lessons are indeed involved and require a great amount of time doing data gathering, graphing and interpretation. I am thinking about the states hi/lo temperature chart lesson in particular. But let me be clear: if your math lessons only last 20 minutes, your dc is not learning math. The reason saxon takes long is that the curriculum follows a standard progression that emphasizes comprehension. The K-3 lessons start with a physical manipulative to demonstrate a concept and then the abstractions are slowly made so that the child can manipulate the abstract symbols all the while being reminded of the physical manipulations they represent. If you don't see this, then you are shortening lessons, skipping material, and cheating dc out of an excellent math program.

 

 

We use Saxon 3 and work between 30-45 min/day. I have a son who gets overwhelmed very easily, so we work the power-up and new lesson on day one, and the written practice on day two. Since we school 6 days/week we're covering only one less lesson every week than when I was having DS complete an entire lesson in one day.

 

We also supplement Saxon with Flashmaster.