Algebra I: Saxon vs. Jacobs?

[profmom]

Can anyone compare and contrast these two options for Algebra I?

 

I'm trying to decide for my ds who had a hard time with Singapore math and did very well with CLE. The incremental, spiral approach seem to help him with understanding and retention. He also didn't do well with "Chicago Math" in an online class at TPS. These things make me think Saxon Algebra I (the new 4th edition that is followed by Saxon Geometry) would be the way to go with him, but there's enough out there about how Saxon doesn't explain enough of the whys, etc. to give me some doubt.

 

How do these two compare?

[sahm99]

Ds did/does take Algebra 1 (using Jacobs) with VPSA, after having used Saxon.

 

While he had successfully used Saxon in the past he was very happy to switch to Jacobs, and get rid of the drag Saxon can sometimes be...

Well, the Jacobs honeymoon did not last long! Ds struggled with the format, and the perceived lack of explanations. I just pulled him from the class, getting back to Saxon (Algebra 1) and working our way through...

My plan is to finish Saxon 1 by the end of summer, slowly re-incorporating Jacobs.

 

I am far from being a math specialist, and you will probably get better advice from other people here, but for me a good math program is one that works (within a certain frame, of course). At this point, I much prefer sticking to Saxon, possibly "spicing things up" with a different approach, than put all my dimes on a program I am not 100% confident with (for my son!).

As far as "depth" is concerned, probably Jacobs pushes a bit further (not even sure about it, though, but it seems to be the consensus), but again, I am really interested in a solid foundation right now, we'll need to see about the depth further down the road...

[Jann in TX]

The 'spiral' or 'incremental' approach is much easier to deal with in elementary/middle school math. Most problems are only 1-2 steps.

 

Once you hit Algebra things change dramatically. Both programs you mentioned are 'unique' and have a sizeable percentage of students that they do not 'work' for.

 

Saxon-- this program works for students who do not need to see the whole picture/concept presented. The lessons give you little pieces (scrambled up topics) and somewhere around lesson 30 the students will NATURALLY have to put pieces together in combinations NOT SHOWN IN LESSONS in order to work their homework's REVIEW problems. It can be extremely frustrating if the student does not think naturally in this manner.

 

Jacobs-- lessons often miss some details. If the student THINKS like Jacobs then these details do not matter-- they can NATURALLY fill in the gaps. Again, if your student does not think this way then those gaps can become huge stumbling blocks. Jacobs third edition Geometry is a discovery based course-- most students need more direction than " draw this and tell me what you think". Many move from Jacobs into Foerster for Algebra 2.... Foerster's Algebra 1 is a much better text in my opinion than Jacobs (reaches a higher percentage of learning styles).

 

I've seen students succeed with both of these programs (I've taught both too). I would not consider either of these to be a 'superior' program-- they are common homeschool programs because they have been available to homeschoolers longer than most other programs.

 

Success in high school math doesn't have as much to do with the program as it does the student's understanding of the materials. I've had students score nearly perfect on the SAT/ACT math tests who used ABeka's high school math (one of the WORST program's I have had to teach from). I've also had students score well after Saxon and Jacobs/Foerster. I've also had students use these programs and the result was a poor understanding of high school math (because the programs did not present the material in a way those students could understand). I'm not talking about watering down a program--it is more about how the lessons are broken down compared to how the individual student thinks/learns.

[profmom]

Ds did/does take Algebra 1 (using Jacobs) with VPSA, after having used Saxon.

 

While he had successfully used Saxon in the past he was very happy to switch to Jacobs, and get rid of the drag Saxon can sometimes be...

Well, the Jacobs honeymoon did not last long! Ds struggled with the format, and the perceived lack of explanations. I just pulled him from the class, getting back to Saxon (Algebra 1) and working our way through...

My plan is to finish Saxon 1 by the end of summer, slowly re-incorporating Jacobs.

 

I am far from being a math specialist, and you will probably get better advice from other people here, but for me a good math program is one that works (within a certain frame, of course). At this point, I much prefer sticking to Saxon, possibly "spicing things up" with a different approach, than put all my dimes on a program I am not 100% confident with (for my son!).

As far as "depth" is concerned, probably Jacobs pushes a bit further (not even sure about it, though, but it seems to be the consensus), but again, I am really interested in a solid foundation right now, we'll need to see about the depth further down the road...

 

 

I could see this same thing happening with my ds -- it basically has happened over the past two years as we've tried to find our way after stopping CLE (which I did because the highest they have currently is Algebra I -- I wanted something consistent for high school). How's your ds doing with the Saxon Algebra? Did you see that Veritas is offering a Saxon track for high school next year?

[profmom]

Thanks for you input, Jann! Is there a way to tell whether a dc would do well with Saxon? My ds has trouble making large leaps in mathematical thinking, and he has trouble retaining math that isn't reviewed often -- not everything, but he needs lots of review over time on new concepts to keep them fresh until they are second nature. I tried to work with him on these issues by using curricula like Singapore in the early years, but I think his brain just doesn't work that way -- his strengths are in other areas. Is there a way to offset the weaknesses you see in Saxon? Any advice would be appreciated! I thought part of the issue for him with the TPS class was that it only met once a week, so I chose one for this year that meets three times a week -- the most I could find! More instruction is better, but this class is missing the review and extra practice before moving on. It's okay, but it's still not the best fit.

[Jann in TX]

A good 'traditional' (chapter based) Algebra program will naturally incorporate review--but the problems will not necessarily say 'review'...

 

Most solid traditional texts have chapters that build on each other. The concepts learned/practiced in chapter 3 are used and built on in chapter 4.. chapter 5 uses chapter 3 and 4... the course builds on the same foundation (basic Algebra skills) the whole year.

 

Middle school and elementary math has concepts that are more isolated-- so 'review' is a necessary part of the program. In Algebra 1 students take those basic concepts and begin to use them in different combinations. In Algebra 2 the same basic concepts are cycled through again-- but the lessons go deeper ('remember these problems from Algebra 1?-- look what we can do with them now'). When students work Algebra 2 they are 1-2 years older than when they attempted Algebra 1. Their logical understanding is much greater (mental maturity)-- so when they see the familiar concepts presented in Algebra 2 they are able to fill in any gaps then move on to the deeper material.

 

I used to teach from Saxon and after my own daughters started struggling (after the elementary/middle school program worked so well) I found the Lial series (thanks to a poster from these boards!). Lial is one of several traditional programs that has an excellent natural progression of topics. For those who need to see the word 'review' there is a cumulative review assignment offered after every test. My Algebra 1 classes are finishing up chapter 7. The problems they are working use obvious concpets from chapters 5 and 6 -- just applied in a different way (in this case as messy fractions). They will continue to use those same concepts in the remaining chapters of the text. Algebra is not a set of dis-joint problems to 'learn' -- it is a fluid progression.

 

Both Saxon and Jacobs will require a student to make 'leaps' as they are not as fluid (Jacobs is more fluid than Saxon though). Programs such as Foerster, Lial and Dolciani (Structure and Method) are more fluid and will build a solid foundation that does not require 'leaps'.

[sheryl]

A good 'traditional' (chapter based) Algebra program will naturally incorporate review--but the problems will not necessarily say 'review'...

 

Most solid traditional texts have chapters that build on each other. The concepts learned/practiced in chapter 3 are used and built on in chapter 4.. chapter 5 uses chapter 3 and 4... the course builds on the same foundation (basic Algebra skills) the whole year.

 

Middle school and elementary math has concepts that are more isolated-- so 'review' is a necessary part of the program. In Algebra 1 students take those basic concepts and begin to use them in different combinations. In Algebra 2 the same basic concepts are cycled through again-- but the lessons go deeper ('remember these problems from Algebra 1?-- look what we can do with them now'). When students work Algebra 2 they are 1-2 years older than when they attempted Algebra 1. Their logical understanding is much greater (mental maturity)-- so when they see the familiar concepts presented in Algebra 2 they are able to fill in any gaps then move on to the deeper material.

 

I used to teach from Saxon and after my own daughters started struggling (after the elementary/middle school program worked so well) I found the Lial series (thanks to a poster from these boards!). Lial is one of several traditional programs that has an excellent natural progression of topics. For those who need to see the word 'review' there is a cumulative review assignment offered after every test. My Algebra 1 classes are finishing up chapter 7. The problems they are working use obvious concpets from chapters 5 and 6 -- just applied in a different way (in this case as messy fractions). They will continue to use those same concepts in the remaining chapters of the text. Algebra is not a set of dis-joint problems to 'learn' -- it is a fluid progression.

 

Both Saxon and Jacobs will require a student to make 'leaps' as they are not as fluid (Jacobs is more fluid than Saxon though). Programs such as Foerster, Lial and Dolciani (Structure and Method) are more fluid and will build a solid foundation that does not require 'leaps'.

 

Hi Jann, I'd like to ask your opinion. The programs: F, L, D (you stated just above), do they teach mastery and review? I'm looking for Alg 1 for my non-mathy rising 9th grade dd (this fall) and she needs as much multi-sensory approach as possible with concepts/formulas "clearly" stated w/examples. She will need a mastery approach with (much or a good, fair amt of) review. Suggestions for A1 and above? Thanks.

[LindaOz]

My dd14 is doing Saxon Algebra 1 and my two older dd's have also used it. I think it works well because it is so incremental - the student never gets a chance to forget how to do something. It has and is working well for both my mathy and non-mathy kids.

 

I highly recommend the book Using Saxon Math by Art Reed, and also his teaching DVD's. They are a great addition to the program.

 

http://www.homeschoolwithsaxon.com/

 

http://www.homeschoolwithsaxon.com/online_lessonAlg1.php

[BlsdMama]

 

 

Both Saxon and Jacobs will require a student to make 'leaps' as they are not as fluid (Jacobs is more fluid than Saxon though). Programs such as Foerster, Lial and Dolciani (Structure and Method) are more fluid and will build a solid foundation that does not require 'leaps'.

 

 

We've just made the decision to try Foerster's with DS.

 

From the Foerster text:

"The final chapter introduces topics to which the student will spiral back in geometry, algebra II, and trigonometry." It appears to be incrementally taught throughout and then: "By Chapter 10 students enter the 'no holds barred' phase. Here, clever short-cuts and trial-and-error techniques are encouraged, as well as the traditional algebraic techniques."

 

It seems as though his intent is to hold their hands, introduce, go deeper, firm understanding, then teach them to do it quicker and easily. It's heavy on word problems as well as "real life" application - all of which appealed to me.

I'll be able to review it a little better in six months - I'm completing this class with him. ;) This book has me intrigued. We're pairing it with the DVD from Math Without Borders so that he can be fully self teaching as he really doesn't like to be taught vs. wrestle with concepts himself.

[Literary Mom]

Used CLE (swimmingly) until pre-algebra when we switched to Saxon and it took us the last two years to complete...with much gnashing of teeth. I currently own the 4th edition of Saxon Algebra, but with my upcoming 9th grader and I both somewhat traumatized by our experience, I am considering either going back to CLE or trying something new like Jacobs (new edition coming out in September) or Foerster or Lial. So I'm resurrecting this thread in hopes of getting some updates and input...

Edited June 22, 2016 by Literary Mom

[3andme]

I have used the new version of CLE Algebra and would highly recommend it if your student did well with CLE previously. After Alg 1, it should be easy to transition to any other Algebra 2 course except maybe the Saxon integrated series. I have not used Saxon or Jacobs but I have used Foerster's and Lial's and CLE Algebra covers the same ground but with the advantages  of the daily lessons in the light units and the mixed review. Personally, I think Lial's would be the best series to transition to after CLE.

[OnMyOwn]

I have used the new version of CLE Algebra and would highly recommend it if your student did well with CLE previously. After Alg 1, it should be easy to transition to any other Algebra 2 course except maybe the Saxon integrated series. I have not used Saxon or Jacobs but I have used Foerster's and Lial's and CLE Algebra covers the same ground but with the advantages  of the daily lessons in the light units and the mixed review. Personally, I think Lial's would be the best series to transition to after CLE.

 

I used CLE with my kids through much of elementary and my son used their algebra program with great success.  It has the benefits of Saxon (review, incremental), but the lessons are better organized, the problem sets are much more manageable and the explanations are great.  I so wish they would have come out with more levels for us to use because it was a perfect fit for my son. He transitioned very smoothly to Lial's for algebra II after that.  I do wonder if CLE will have geometry available soon, at least in beta form.  It has been a long time since they released algebra I.  

[kiana]

I would be more inclined to consider going back to CLE. Jacobs is a solid program, but CLE will have the advantage of strongly reminding him of when math used to go swimmingly and put more emphasis on Saxon having been just a bad fit for him. 

[Literary Mom]

I would be more inclined to consider going back to CLE. Jacobs is a solid program, but CLE will have the advantage of strongly reminding him of when math used to go swimmingly and put more emphasis on Saxon having been just a bad fit for him. 

 

Should have clarified that she's my daughter :)

[Literary Mom]

I think we are going to try Saxon, since we already have it. If we start encountering the same frustrations, then I will likely order CLE. And next year, I may get their 700s for my younger daughter instead of switching to Saxon 7/8 like I did with my oldest. All three of my kids (two daughters, one son) have done really well with CLE. I just had always heard (in these forums) that I should switch to Saxon for pre-algebra, so that's why I did that. Maybe that was before they had made Sunrise Algebra? Would be cool if they revise geometry by another year from now...but it sounds like there are other good options either way...

[OneStepAtATime]

I think we are going to try Saxon, since we already have it. If we start encountering the same frustrations, then I will likely order CLE. And next year, I may get their 700s for my younger daughter instead of switching to Saxon 7/8 like I did with my oldest. All three of my kids (two daughters, one son) have done really well with CLE. I just had always heard (in these forums) that I should switch to Saxon for pre-algebra, so that's why I did that. Maybe that was before they had made Sunrise Algebra? Would be cool if they revise geometry by another year from now...but it sounds like there are other good options either way...

Yes before the revisions there may have been more push to switch to Saxon.  Also, some don't want to do two years of pre-algebra so they switch away from CLE at that point.  Those that stick with it for pre-algebra and Algebra 1 usually seem very happy, but some combine CLE 700/800 into one year instead of taking two (easy to do).  I have all the way through Algebra 1 of CLE (the revised Light Units) and honestly I find it a really good math program.  Is it a great fit for all students?  No.  No math program is.  But for those that do well with spiral, this is excellent.

[Momling]

My daughter did one year of Foerster algebra 1 and now one year of Saxon algebra 1 (while doing Jacobs geometry). Foerster was much better at deeper problems and word problems that stretch a student. Saxon was better at details and processes and forcing a student to remember and review. It turns out my daughter needed both approaches.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Momling

[Literary Mom]

I think I am questioning whether in the long run, the spiral approach has worked well for my daughter. It seemed to when we were using CLE (through the 600s), but not since switching to Saxon and pre-algebra. She tends to do well with the lesson practice, but miss a lot on the mixed review, so that's why I'm wondering if a mastery approach would have been better. I am not sure whether Saxon is the problem or having used a spiral approach all these years is. Or if it's just that pre-algebra covers so much material. I have read that algebra is actually easier, since it's not as much review as pre-algebra. Thoughts? 

[OnMyOwn]

I think I am questioning whether in the long run, the spiral approach has worked well for my daughter. It seemed to when we were using CLE (through the 600s), but not since switching to Saxon and pre-algebra. She tends to do well with the lesson practice, but miss a lot on the mixed review, so that's why I'm wondering if a mastery approach would have been better. I am not sure whether Saxon is the problem or having used a spiral approach all these years is. Or if it's just that pre-algebra covers so much material. I have read that algebra is actually easier, since it's not as much review as pre-algebra. Thoughts? 

 

While CLE and Saxon are both spiral, they are very different programs.  My son used CLE with much success, but I never would have put him in Saxon.  In Saxon, you have to make a lot of connections and leaps on your own.  You have to be able to take all those little pieces and put them together to get the big picture.  And then you have to have the stamina to be able to spend 1 1/2 - 2 hours on math a day once you get into the upper levels. My guess is that a child that was doing well in CLE and then struggled so much that it took two years to do Saxon pre algebra is not going to experience smooth sailing in Saxon's algebra.  But, I am no expert and you know your child best.

 

If you are interested in trying a mastery-based program, Lial's is good and very inexpensive.  That is what I moved my son to.  Lial's has a cumulative review at the end of each chapter, but some chapters took my son 3 weeks to do and that was too long to go without review.  So, I started having him spend 10-15 minutes a day doing working through those cumulative review sets at the end of each chapter and he has done very well.  That gives him enough spiral review that he doesn't forget.

[amsunshine]

OP, is there a particular reason you are only considering the 4th edition of Saxon?  Personally, I wouldn't use Saxon unless I was using the earlier editions.  The earlier editions contain Saxon math as it was originally intended to be taught -- in an integrated manner.  The 4th edition was published by Houghton Mifflin in an effort to create textbooks to sell widely in the public school market -- it mostly cuts and pastes the formerly integrated topics into separate books, and adds a bunch of stuff.   I've not heard great things about the 4th edition from either math reviewers or homeschool parents who try to use the books. 

 

eta:  So, in sum, if you are not interested in using an integrated math program, it's probably best to go with something other than Saxon altogether, rather than to consider the 4th edition.

Edited June 24, 2016 by amsunshinetemp

[Literary Mom]

OP, is there a particular reason you are only considering the 4th edition of Saxon?  Personally, I wouldn't use Saxon unless I was using the earlier editions.  The earlier editions contain Saxon math as it was originally intended to be taught -- in an integrated manner.  The 4th edition was published by Houghton Mifflin in an effort to create textbooks to sell widely in the public school market -- it mostly cuts and pastes the formerly integrated topics into separate books, and adds a bunch of stuff.   I've not heard great things about the 4th edition from either math reviewers or homeschool parents who try to use the books. 

 

eta:  So, in sum, if you are not interested in using an integrated math program, it's probably best to go with something other than Saxon altogether, rather than to consider the 4th edition.

 

I've actually done a lot of research on this and found pros and cons with both editions:

 

What you already know  https://drshormann.com/2012/02/08/differences-in-3rd-and-4th-edition-saxon-algebra-1/

Another perspective http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/375341-saxon-math-algebra-1-3rd-of-4th-edition/

Another perspective http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/313846-any-reviews-on-saxon-algebra-4th-edition/?hl=%22saxon+algebra%22

Thorough review/comparison http://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/math/grades-9-12/saxon-math-54-through-calculus

Same as above but for geometry http://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/math/math-grades-9-12/saxon-geometry

[Vida Winter]

My daughter took Alg 1 using the older version of Saxon with the Virtual Homeschool Group. I prefer the older edition since it has integrated geometry. For her, the timing is better and she will be more prepared for the PSAT and SAT if she does not need to spend an entire school year in geometry but rather learn geometry as part of Alg 1, Alg 2, and the first part of Advanced Math.

[Literary Mom]

I have read that the older edition, which incorporates geometry, is lacking about 30% of what's needed for college admission tests. And some tests have to be taken before the student would take algebra 2, so they won't even have the further geometry needed at that point. I also gathered that the geometry component isn't well integrated - sort of an afterthought tacked on at the end and/or erratically interspersed. Is that a misperception?

[Vida Winter]

I have read that the older edition, which incorporates geometry, is lacking about 30% of what's needed for college admission tests. And some tests have to be taken before the student would take algebra 2, so they won't even have the further geometry needed at that point. I also gathered that the geometry component isn't well integrated - sort of an afterthought tacked on at the end and/or erratically interspersed. Is that a misperception?

 

I'm not sure about the 30% figure - if you read my explanation below it may make more sense since they may have not been including any time spent on Advanced Math.

 

The geometry is practiced throughout Algebra 1 and 2. There is a longer section on proofs is at the end of the Algebra 2 course. I can see why they thought it was tacked on at the end. Other types of more general geometry problems (angles, surface area, volume, etc.) are practiced frequently. The course continues in Advanced Math, which repeats and expands on the last part of the geometry in Algebra 2. I think the criteria is to complete the first 30 lessons in Advanced Math to complete the geometry credit which started in Algebra 1 and continued in Algebra 2.

 

Part of the problem with the proof section being at the end of the Alg. 2 course is that many instructors never reach that part of the course and simply run out of school days and stop. The older version of the book begins with lessons A and B which contain a thorough review of geometry which was covered in Algebra 1. These are followed by 129 lessons on many topics including geometry, culminating with several lessons focused on proofs. It is a tremendous amount of work and takes dedication to keep up.

 

If you are concerned about lacking information for college admission, using the older Saxon editions will actually save you a year and the student can begin Advanced Math sooner than if they had to take a separate year of geometry. That way they could get most of the way through Advanced Math and probably be about even with or ahead of more traditional sequences. I like the idea of geometry a little at a time without having to take a separate year to complete it. During that year of geometry, the student is likely to forget a great deal of algebra.

 

I did not realize how this all worked until I actually owned the books (Alg 1, Alg 2, Advanced Math) and worked through many of them.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Vida Winter

[Janeway]

Jacob's does an excellent job explaining how to do things. It also explains everything very well with the whys basically. It cover a topic and complete the topic to understanding. It also has varying levels of difficulty in the problems so you can tailor the difficulty to fit your student.

 

Saxon kind of jumps all over the place. It is an "incremental" program. It gives a little bit. And then it has the student practice practice practice. It does not have a ton of variety. It relies a lot on memorizing algorithms rather than on manipulating numbers in a variety of ways. Some people do Saxon and then are so intuitive with math that they still do well in the end. Others can complete the entire upper math sequence of Saxon and still need algebra in college. I rarely meet people who did Saxon math in high school and then were able to go straight in to calculus in college. I have met some, just not often. So it works for some, but not many.

 

I recommend Jacobs.