Saxon + Conceptual = ?

[shanezomom]

Maybe this has been discussed before. Those who use Saxon math sometimes lament on these boards the fact that their dc have learned the mechanics of math but lack the understanding of the why. Can't someone develop a supplement to Saxon to conceptually explain those why's? I am trying once again to implement Singapore but Saxon is so darn simple to use for those of us who need open and go math. Ds is 6th grade.

[Walking-Iris]

We've been doing Saxon 5/4 this year. I don't have the complaint that my ds is learning how over why. Maybe it's because I used Miquon in his younger grades, but I really do see a subtle conceptual thread in Saxon. I think it may be more in how the teacher teaches the math over how it's laid out in a book, kwim?

 

I supplement. I love supplementing math. I have given my ds extra sheets from the yellow and purple books from Miquon as extra practice. I think you could do SM along with Saxon. You would just have to plan it differently. A day or two devoted to SM, or a week on week off, whatever works. You could look into doing some MEP activities. Also add some math logic type programs. Key To books. reading from the Living Math booklists. All are good ways to supplement. I'm sure there are more.

 

Also you could add some different manipulatives. We've started working with Montessori math manipulatives and lessons for extra math time. My ds has done the most of the multiplication lessons from Saxon 5/4 in conjunction with a homemade Mont checkerboard.

 

 

You may also just want to read the Knowing Mathematics book by Liping Ma. I'm not sure if I answered your question. My point is, if you want to do Saxon, but also want to do SM, I see no reason why you can't do both. It's just a matter of scheduling the two. Also I see no reason for anyone to marry themselves to a certain program or math method.

 

If we *only* did Saxon I feel he would be learning math but we might get a tad bored. Supplementing and adding all the extras makes math fun.

[Hunter]

Those who use Saxon math sometimes lament on these boards the fact that their dc have learned the mechanics of math but lack the understanding of the why.

 

 

Those that are doing the majority of the lamenting, are those that are NOT using Saxon. Saxon DOES teach concepts, but not always BEFORE or INSTEAD of practicing. Also Saxon sets a student up to DISCOVER things on their own that it doesn't explicitly teach.

 

It really IS okay to use a cookbook approach by itself or BEFORE teaching a student a lot of stuff they don't always need to know--for math, for cooking, and for almost any subject.

 

Supplement if YOU want, or your STUDENT wants to. Not ALL students need or should supplement Saxon. There is far more conceptual learning taking place and being taught, than lamenters generally acknowledge.

[Arcadia]

Saxon DOES teach concepts, but not always BEFORE or INSTEAD of practicing. Also Saxon sets a student up to DISCOVER things on their own that it doesn't explicitly teach.

 

What you say make sense if that is how Saxon teach. I handed over to my hubby a copy of Saxon math 6/5 homeschool edition and Saxon Algebra that I found at Barnes and Noble. He flip through and said they were too wordy for him. So if my hubby was using Saxon for our kids, he would probably have skip a lot. He thinks AoPS is wordy but tolerable and is my math backup.

[shanezomom]

Hunter, what is a cookbook approach?

[Spy Car]

Hunter, what is a cookbook approach?

 

A cookbook approach is where one is told what ingredients to use, then is instructed incrementally on what procedures to follow to make a dish, with the hope that the aspiring cook will some how figure out how to cook, without understanding "methods" and "techniques."

 

It is a terrible way to learn to cook. And a terrible way to teach math.

 

Bill

[Farrar]

A cookbook approach is where one is told what ingredients to use, then is instructed incrementally on what procedures to follow to make a dish, with the hope that the aspiring cook will some how figure out how to cook, without understanding "methods" and "techniques."

 

It is a terrible way to learn to cook. And a terrible way to teach math.

 

Bill

 

I generally agree with this... And I don't like Saxon - I haven't used it though - it was one of my textbook options when I was a schoolteacher and I didn't end up using it. However, when I taught middle schoolers who were behind in math I found that some kids did need to do the recipe first and get the algorithm down. To extend the metaphor, they needed to follow the recipe and actually make eggs for breakfast every day before you could get them to find any relevance to the information about how the egg whites and yolks will behave differently in recipes or the difference between soft-boiled and hard-boiled. So I think you can teach recipe first and practice cooking first before actually talking about and learning techniques. That piece just has to be included otherwise you know how to make scrambled eggs, but you can't do anything else with the eggs. I don't know Saxon well enough to say if it's in there though.

[nwmama]

A cookbook approach is where one is told what ingredients to use, then is instructed incrementally on what procedures to follow to make a dish, with the hope that the aspiring cook will some how figure out how to cook, without understanding "methods" and "techniques."

 

It is a terrible way to learn to cook. And a terrible way to teach math.

 

Bill

 

 

 

So Saxon is cookbook math?

 

 

[shanezomom]

Farrar "I found that some kids did need to do the recipe first and get the algorithm down."

 

Can I get an mathematical example of this? (I've read Liping Ma but I'm not sure what you mean, Farrar, on this.)

[Spy Car]

 

 

 

So Saxon is cookbook math?

 

 

Yep.

 

Bill

[thowell]

Bill can you give me a list of K-8 mat you feel is not cookbook approach? Dd10 is using CLE and I would like to supplement or possibly switch. However, Singapore was a bust here. One of the main reasons, I never learned math this way.

[Meriwether]

Yep.

 

Bill

:smash: Bam. :smash: Bam. :smash: :smash: :smash: Bam, bam, bam!

It just wouldn't be a Saxon thread without Bill bashing Saxon. OP, Ds6 has only used Saxon math. We did try Miquon as a supplement for a few days, but he hated it. Here are a couple of problems from the last week or so. 37 + 68+ 25 =. I would have said to myself, "7+8 is 15 so adding another five would make it 20." Ds6 said, "I'm going to split the 8 and give 3 to the seven and 5 to the 5. That is 20." Another day he might have said, "I'm going to give 2 from 37 to the 68 so that it is 35 + 70 + 25 = 130. I don't care as long as he does it correctly and quickly. The point is that he understands what he is doing, and he does. He had a subtraction problem written horizontally ( 52-17). He could have rewritten it vertically, but instead he wrote a 42 above the 52 and then a 35 above the 42. He then wrote a 35 on the answer line. I don't care that he did it that way. I wouldn't have minded if he had used the standard algorithm. I know that which math program is used is Very Important to some people. I just don't think it is that big a deal.

[Erin]

I don't have the complaint that my ds is learning how over why.

Honestly, I've never heard this complaint before I started visiting this board...

 

Most Saxon students I've known over the years have had no trouble knowing both the how AND the why. In fact, a few years ago, a friend of mine who taught high school math said she just loved getting kids who came out of schools that had been using Saxon because they had a better base.

[Erin]

A cookbook approach is where one is told what ingredients to use, then is instructed incrementally on what procedures to follow to make a dish, with the hope that the aspiring cook will some how figure out how to cook, without understanding "methods" and "techniques."

 

It is a terrible way to learn to cook. And a terrible way to teach math.

 

Bill

 

I think you are WAY off the mark.

 

Multiplication facts, for example, are introduced and taught in conjunction with area. The student visually sees rows and columns of squares and how they relate both to area as well as multiplication.

Decimals are introduced via money in first (? second?) grade. They're then related to fractions by around 2nd or so.

Interestingly, the introductions are happening well before the student is asked to make those connections.

 

Consequently, most kids are already making those connections well before Saxon ever has to say in a lesson that "ya know those quarters that are written as $.25, and when we add up four of them we get $1.00? Well that works without the dollar sign, too!"

 

 

I'm not seeing what you're thinking of as "incremental instruction" that is somehow devoid of method or technique.

[Ellie]

This reply is from Janet in WA, who was a long-time member here and who graduated four sons, all of whom used Saxon, all of whom did well in SATs and in college:

 

Janet in WA (ts46-03-qdr368.knnwck.wa.charter.com - 68.116.1.112)

Subject: I’ve never found that criticism to be true...

Date: April 14, 2003 at 8:58 am PST

In Reply to: Janet WA...would you mind trying to answer a Saxon (Algebra up) question? posted by Angela FL on April 14, 2003 at 8:17 am:

 

In my experience, Saxon always teaches the “whyâ€. And they always introduce new concepts by relating them to previous ones. In fact, another criticism I’ve heard about the high school level books is that the lessons are too long -- too wordy. That’s because they spend so much time explaining. However, because of Saxon’s incremental design, you won’t always find the full explanation for “why†in any one lesson. Sometimes it takes many lessons, over a protracted period of time, before the student has all the pieces to a concept, and knows why he’s learned it and how it will be applied. For example, he’ll learn and practice a particular method of solving simultaneous equations. He’ll practice it for many days, in fact, with no real certainty why. Then, when he’s gotten proficient at that technique, Saxon will introduce a new kind of word problem for which that method of equation solving is useful. The student THEN sees why he learned that method. In other more traditional texts, with concepts taught in chapter format, this connection would be made more quickly and obviously. As carol nj says, Saxon is a “parts to whole†kind of math. You need to look at the whole picture to appreciate Saxon -- not just each book as a whole, but the whole series.

 

Also, sometimes the “why†of a concept isn’t found in a lesson because the student has seen that concept before in a previous book -- and the “why†was explained at the time the concept was first taught, not when he sees it as review. Now and then we’ll hit a lesson that seems to just tell the student how to do something new, and never much about why, but those always turn out to be things Saxon doesn’t place much importance on, and the student won’t see them or use them much.

 

Now let me say, the fact that Saxon explains the “why†behind concepts doesn’t mean a student will understand that explanation -- or remember it. With Saxon’s incremental format, some students have difficulty mastering concepts, and connecting them. And the tone of Saxon’s high school books is rather “academicâ€, and the length and wordiness of the lessons turns some students off. But the content is there.

 

Let me also say that though I like Saxon for high school, I never recommend that someone start using Saxon for the first time at that level. It is so different from anything else that I think the chances are good that it will be difficult for a student to switch to it at that point. Some students do fine, but I’m not comfortable making that recommendation myself. So please don’t think that you should switch to it because of anything I’ve said. The only point of my posts is to reassure people that Saxon isn’t lacking.

[Hunter]

Saxon INCLUDES cookbook lessons, but is NOT exclusively cookbook lessons. All the "wordy" bits that people complain about are often teaching concepts. How can you talk about concepts without words? There is no way to please everyone.

 

I strongly believe there are times to use a cookbook approach FIRST, and for some topics, I triage and JUST use the cookbook approach for THAT topic.

 

Not ALL students need to be trained to be mathematicians. It is a disservice to children to force that upon ALL of them.

 

I teach cooking to my students, as well as academics. Some I only use a very few cookbook recipes with and teach almost no theory. They are NOT interested. PERIOD. in learning more. Others just love to hear me talk about about fungus growth and fungus farts when we make bread. Others are grossed out and overwhelmed. I meet the needs of my students, the best I can, and sometimes that is by saying LESS.

 

Again, Saxon is not JUST cookbook math. It is that and MUCH more.

[Farrar]

Farrar "I found that some kids did need to do the recipe first and get the algorithm down."

 

Can I get an mathematical example of this? (I've read Liping Ma but I'm not sure what you mean, Farrar, on this.)

 

 

I think on this board - and don't get me wrong, because I generally believe this is true and it's certainly how I'm striving to teach! - we tend to think that kids should learn the whys of what they're doing as the foundation of math. So we talk about kids playing with C-rods and abacuses and so forth and doing deeper thinking with math when they're younger. But I think for some kids, that doesn't really click and it's fine to go the other way - teach the algorithm and then build the concepts.

 

And the kids I was teaching at that time were kids who had just lagged behind - they were sixth graders who didn't know their times tables and couldn't do some really basic things like figure out lapsed time, for example. Some of them were kids with diagnosed learning issues, but not all. And what I saw was that while playing around with manipulatives and problems that really got them thinking could be useful, sometimes I saw kids just get that blank look when we tried to tackle the why of what we were doing. No matter how we did it, it did not sink in. Other people had been teaching them some of this stuff for years and it hadn't sunk in. So, to take one of the things from the Liping Ma book, I couldn't even begin to talk about why you have that "placeholder zero" when doing multi-digit multiplication until they had practiced the algorithm a bunch. And, then, once a kid was doing it and getting right answers, it was easier to help them see, here's what you're really doing... do you see that you're not multiplying by units, it's by tens here...? And to break the problems down in different ways. And then, I would see a light come on sometimes - after having cooked the recipe, kids could learn why the ingredients went together.

 

I think the criticism of Saxon and some other programs is that they don't ever come back around with that conceptual piece. So it really is recipes without any techniques or meaning behind it. Though, as Iris said above, the right teacher may bring those things in. And as Hunter said, a lot of us criticizing Saxon haven't used it. It was one of my text options when I taught school, but after I went through the books, I decided against it and used some oop sixth grade math book instead. I didn't know about all the amazing options in homeschooling back then! And many of them (like MM, didn't exist yet anyway).

[nwmama]

I really appreciate all this. I've been so confused why someone would not like Saxon. I was homeschooled with Saxon from 5/4 all the way through Pre-Cal and did just fine in college so I've always planned on using Saxon. It worked well for my mom, who was not strong in math, and for me, and I'm not strong in math, and for my brother, who is strong in math. But reading people say they don't like Saxon, without the why, had me thinking that maybe I was wrong and maybe something else would be better, especially if one of my kids really enjoys math like their dad.

 

But now that I know the why, I can appreciate the opinion but I'll stick with Saxon. I know I can teach it without getting frustrated and if one of my kids turns out to be a math whiz then I'll deal with that as I need to.

 

Is it sad the Saxon bashing just made me glad I've gone with Saxon? ;P

[ALB]

 

Is it sad the Saxon bashing just made me glad I've gone with Saxon? ;P

 

Ha! We just switched from Saxon to MM and now I'm second guessing :).

 

For me, the reason was mainly because I live overseas and an instant digital download is much easier to get then shipping the big Saxon TMs over here. Really though, I appreciate both methods of instruction and think either way can work fine depending on the teacher and the students.

[Mom0012]

:smash: Bam. :smash: Bam. :smash: :smash: :smash: Bam, bam, bam!

It just wouldn't be a Saxon thread without Bill bashing Saxon. OP, Ds6 has only used Saxon math. We did try Miquon as a supplement for a few days, but he hated it. Here are a couple of problems from the last week or so. 37 + 68+ 25 =. I would have said to myself, "7+8 is 15 so adding another five would make it 20." Ds6 said, "I'm going to split the 8 and give 3 to the seven and 5 to the 5. That is 20." Another day he might have said, "I'm going to give 2 from 37 to the 68 so that it is 35 + 70 + 25 = 130. I don't care as long as he does it correctly and quickly. The point is that he understands what he is doing, and he does. He had a subtraction problem written horizontally ( 52-17). He could have rewritten it vertically, but instead he wrote a 42 above the 52 and then a 35 above the 42. He then wrote a 35 on the answer line. I don't care that he did it that way. I wouldn't have minded if he had used the standard algorithm. I know that which math program is used is Very Important to some people. I just don't think it is that big a deal.

 

Yes, or a CLE thread or a R&S thread, etc., etc. It really is tiring and discouraging to have one person shut down every discussion on math that is not largely conceptually based, especially when this person has only one gifted 2nd grade child who has not even tried any of these programs and who also does another math program in public school. Why should I use the same program for my struggling or even bright student that someone else is using with a gifted student as a supplement to a public school math program? Why can't we be and let be and realize that children are different? It's like math bigotry.

 

I'd like to get and give support to people using these programs, and yet it's just not worth the conflict every time. And I will be using Saxon next year for my bright dd because I think it will be a perfect fit for her.:)

[umsami]

Honestly, if your DS is in 6th grade, I think it's going to be hard to switch. Even those who do bash Saxon usually acknowledge that it's pretty good at the middle school on up level.

 

Do you think your DS needs a different approach or is Saxon working for you?

 

If you want to do a sort of hybrid approach then look at Math in Focus. It's put out by Saxon, but is a Singapore method...so there's a bit of both. You can find the textbooks used (sometimes cheaply) on Amazon, and then just buy a new workbook. They also have an amazing free preview deal...it's like every page of every level for 120 days or so. http://forms.hmhco.com/forms/index.php?form=vs&code=mathinfocus

[EKS]

Yep.

 

Bill

 

Have you actually used Saxon? I am not a fan of Saxon, but I have used it (2-8/7) and know that it *does* teach concepts. Sometimes it even teaches them the way Singapore teaches them.

 

The problem with Saxon is *not* that it does not teach concepts. The problem is that it doesn't reinforce the concepts. Not reinforcing concepts seems to come about in two ways. The first is--all that practice. The gobs of practice tends to erase the original teaching of the concept from the student's mind. The second is the types of problems Saxon chooses, which rarely require the student to think about actual concepts in order to solve them.

[NASDAQ]

Here are a few problems that seem to crop up with Saxon:

 

Seizing up when a problem isn't presented the "Saxon way." My dd grasped the addition algorithm faster than mental math. As a result, there was a time where she could do

 

674

+39

 

with no problem at all, but heaven help you if you asked her 674+39, horizontally, like that. She would be so busy "not knowing" how to do such a problem, it would not occur to her to stack the numbers herself, let alone use a mental math strategy.

 

I think some of this is normal when pupils have not mastered the material completely. If it persists, students like this may need to be prodded out of their comfort zone, and a good supplement might be the Challenging Word Problems books. Start with a book behind the level at which your pupil is comfortable, so that the math isn't distracting him from the reasoning.

 

2. Rather than hammering certain concepts (such a place value), Saxon leaves a certain amount of this to intuition. I think for many (most?) people, this is probably fine. I know very few traditionally-trained adults who don't realise that the 3 in 938 represents thirty, and is not an actual three. That said, a person might fail to cement these concepts and thus develop a shallow or insecure understanding of arithmetic.

 

For that, the single supplement I'd recommend is that you as a teacher get a copy of Baldridge and Parker's Elementary Mathematics for Teachers, and Elementary Geometry for Teachers. They are very short. You will not need the purchase the Singapore Math textbooks, despite what the listing says there. Break them out when you think the conceptual understanding has gone awry. You can also have your pupil (since he's older) teach back the algorithms to you. Read the section in Baldridge first, and prod him along.

[Hunter]

 

 

Is it sad the Saxon bashing just made me glad I've gone with Saxon? ;P

 

Bashed curricula has often been how I have found some GREAT things :D

[Hunter]

I found that my "gifted" child could do math he was never even taught in Saxon. But Saxon gave him the framework to make those discoveries.

 

On the other hand my "normal" child might not have been able to apply and tweak something he learned in Saxon, but he couldn't do that with his PS curriculum either, and worse yet, couldn't even do the algorithm in his PS textbook.

 

The same teaching and the same textbook don't produce identical results in different children. Saxon and other curricula are often bashed for things that have nothing to do with the curriculum. Children/students come with different gifts/disabilities and interests and personalities.

 

Saxon is ONE good option. There are other good options too. If it works, use it. If something else works, use that.

[shanezomom]

NASDAQ, that's the first time I've heard of the Baldridge and Parker books. Thanks for the suggestions.

[kiwik]

I started school in 1974 in New Zealand. C rods were the approved thing in NZ junior classes - I only remember building with them but I suppose we did other stuff. We then went on to text books which I think were quite good. I didn't learn very deep understanding of maths. I have reasonable mental maths, ok basic operations and poor geometry. Good statistics and calculus because I did them when I returned to education. I do not remember even once having a teacher who liked maths and did more than the bare minimum for the first 8 years of their education. At least twice I remember teachers saying they didn't like maths and were useless at it when they were at school.

 

Now the point. I think what programme you use with your children is far less important than your own attitude towards and understanding of maths.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Yes, or a CLE thread or a R&S thread, etc., etc. It really is tiring and discouraging to have one person shut down every discussion on math that is not largely conceptually based, especially when this person has only one gifted 2nd grade child who has not even tried any of these programs and who also does another math program in public school. Why should I use the same program for my struggling or even bright student that someone else is using with a gifted student as a supplement to a public school math program? Why can't we be and let be and realize that children are different? It's like math bigotry.

 

I'd like to get and give support to people using these programs, and yet it's just not worth the conflict every time. And I will be using Saxon next year for my bright dd because I think it will be a perfect fit for her.:)

 

I hardly have the power (or desire) to "shut down every math discussion." The "math wars" over Saxon have long predated my becoming an active poster on this forum, and will no doubt continue after I'm gone.

 

It is not "math bigotry" to dislike the Saxon approach.

 

If one reads with care the excerpt written by Janet in WA that Ellie posted, that is ostensibly supposed to support Saxon, I think it is pretty damning. It shows that the "concepts" in Saxon are of then not part of the lesson, can be disassociated from the lessons (by a good deal), and may not even be in the same book. She also (rightly) states:

 

"Now let me say, the fact that Saxon explains the “why†behind concepts doesn’t mean a student will understand that explanation -- or remember it. With Saxon’s incremental format, some students have difficulty mastering concepts, and connecting them."

 

I see this as a huge problem. From my perspective if a math education doesn't make sure a student fully understands what he or she is doing, and retains the knowledge (and ability to use that conceptual knowledge in practice) then the education and educational approaches are failures.

 

As points of information. I have a Third Grader (raising Fourth Grader) not a 2nd Grader. We have done multiple math programs even before starting school. We do not do these as "suppliments" to the school work, but as depth curriculm working well ahead grade level expectations. We do this as home education, just like any of you might do.

 

You are wrong about my never having used Saxon. I tutored my nephew (whose school used Saxon) for years. I know it is the antithesis of what I want as math program.

 

Hunter says, "Not ALL students need to be trained to be mathematicians." Forgive me, but I have different goals. We we study math I want my child trained like a mathematician. So I make the choices I make on that basis. If people want to call that "bashing," what's left to say? You make your choices, I will make mine.

 

For those with an open mind, read the Liping Ma book. She does an outstanding job doing a "compare and contrast" with math taught using procedural vs depth approaches. There is no doubt in my mind which is the better approach, and she illustrates the differences quite well.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spy Car]

NASDAQ, that's the first time I've heard of the Baldridge and Parker books. Thanks for the suggestions.

 

I'll second Parker and Baldridge as a very strong parent/teacher resource.

 

Bill

 

 

[Spy Car]

Saxon and other curricula are often bashed for things that have nothing to do with the curriculum.

 

Sounds ominous. Saxon isn't being "bashed," it has been long-criticized by many for its scattered incremental instruction and "drill and kill approach."

 

Since you believe it is being "bashed" for other than pedagogical differences, what—prey tell—is the actual reason you believe it comes in for such criticism?

 

Bill

 

 

[nwmama]

I hardly have the power (or desire) to "shut down every math discussion." The "math wars" over Saxon have long predated my becoming an active poster on this forum, and will no doubt continue after I'm gone.

 

It is not "math bigotry" to dislike the Saxon approach.

 

If one reads with care the excerpt written by Janet in WA that Ellie posted, that is ostensibly supposed to support Saxon, I think it is pretty damning. It shows that the "concepts" in Saxon are of then not part of the lesson, can be disassociated from the lessons (by a good deal), and may not even be in the same book. She also (rightly) states:

 

"Now let me say, the fact that Saxon explains the “why†behind concepts doesn’t mean a student will understand that explanation -- or remember it. With Saxon’s incremental format, some students have difficulty mastering concepts, and connecting them."

 

I see this as a huge problem. From my perspective if a math education doesn't make sure a student fully understands what he or she is doing, and retains the knowledge (and ability to use that conceptual knowledge in practice) then the education and educational approaches are failures.

 

As points of information. I have a Third Grader (raising Fourth Grader) not a 2nd Grader. We have done multiple math programs even before starting school. We do not do these as "suppliments" to the school work, but as depth curriculm working well ahead grade level expectations. We do this as home education, just like any of you might do.

 

You are wrong about my never having used Saxon. I tutored my nephew (whose school used Saxon) for years. I know it is the antithesis of what I want as math program.

 

Hunter says, "Not ALL students need to be trained to be mathematicians." Forgive me, but I have different goals. We we study math I want my child trained like a mathematician. So I make the choices I make on that basis. If people want to call that "bashing," what's left to say? You make your choices, I will make mine.

 

For those with an open mind, read the Liping Ma book. She does an outstanding job doing a "compare and contrast" with math taught using procedural vs depth approaches. There is no doubt in my mind which is the better approach, and she illustrates the differences quite well.

 

Bill

 

You are probably right. However, I don't necessarily want my children trained like mathematicians. I'm more concerned with a program that I know that I can teach and that my children finish school proficient in math, Saxon will feel both my requirements. I'm not worried if they aren't mathematicians. That doesn't make Saxon, or me, wrong. If DH or I were mathematicians, I would feel differently, and if one of my children starts to excel at math, then I will re-evaluate our math program accordingly.

[Spy Car]

 

 

You are probably right. However, I don't necessarily want my children trained like mathematicians. I'm more concerned with a program that I know that I can teach and that my children finish school proficient in math, Saxon will feel both my requirements. I'm not worried if they aren't mathematicians. That doesn't make Saxon, or me, wrong. If DH or I were mathematicians, I would feel differently, and if one of my children starts to excel at math, then I will re-evaluate our math program accordingly.

 

I guess it comes down to what one considers "being proficient" in math means. I have higher goals than simple "procedural competency" (although I want that too).

 

I am not a mathematician either. In fact, while I come from a extended family of pretty intelligent and highly accomplished people, those gifts revealed themselves in the arts, in cinema, in writing, in the study of history, in the law, and areas like that. Not a mathematician or scientist in the gene-pool.

 

My idea was, instead of using methods I was pretty sure would never result in the emergence of mathematical genius, to instead use interestin and creative means to teach for depth of understanding from the outset (which for us was just as my son turned 4). This (knock-wood) has been a winning approach here.

 

I, truthfully do not believe I'd have seen an "emergence" of high interest in mathematics, and the very strong creative problem solving skills that I've witnessed if we took the so-called "traditional" approach, and hoped for the best.

 

There is something to be said for "nurture."

 

Bill

[dereksurfs]

You are probably right. However, I don't necessarily want my children trained like mathematicians. I'm more concerned with a program that I know that I can teach and that my children finish school proficient in math, Saxon will feel both my requirements. I'm not worried if they aren't mathematicians. That doesn't make Saxon, or me, wrong. If DH or I were mathematicians, I would feel differently, and if one of my children starts to excel at math, then I will re-evaluate our math program accordingly.

 

 

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that quite a few mathematicians and scientists didn't use Saxon themselves. While I'm not a Saxon fan per se I do know it has been a standard for many years used by many STEM professionals.

 

IMO, this whole 'conceptual math' is so vastly superior mantra on this forum is highly over rated and unnecessary for many dare I say most students. Though its amazing how trendy and loud the mantra is. Consequently many parents, some of whom are new to homeschooling, feel the need to drop their current program which is working fine for them in favor of this wonderfully mystical 'conceptual' holy grail. Yet I don't think this imaginary line between said conceptual programs and the rest of the more lowly procedural programs is as cut and dry as they are made out to be.

 

Look at some of the classic Algebra texts for example such as Foerster which some scorn as 'too procedural.' Then compare them with Dolciani which is praised as wonderfully conceptual math. In reality they are really not *that* different. I own both texts and actually used Dolciani as my Algebra text when I was in school. The majority of these texts are workbooks plain and simple with a lot of problems to solve. Foerster has a bit better word problems. Neither goes to huge depths pouring over concepts in some fantastical way. AoPS which we use is also known as very conceptual. Yet it goes to great lengths showing students 'how' to work problems in both the text and the video lessons. Though it does ask them to attempt to discover how to solve them first on there own. I just don't see the point in over emphasizing this with almost every post on math. While for some its the holy grail for others it is not necessary at all even if going into STEM careers. Like the forum states there is not a one size fits all approach which is best for all. This is especially true when it comes to Math curriculum.

[NASDAQ]

The way I go around selling Baldridge and Parker, those guys ought to send me a commission :lol:

[Spy Car]

The way I go around selling Baldridge and Parker, those guys ought to send me a commission :lol:

 

 

From what I hear, Parker is balking until you restore his top billing :D

 

Bill

[Meriwether]

I hardly have the power (or desire) to "shut down every math discussion." The "math wars" over Saxon have long predated my becoming an active poster on this forum, and will no doubt continue after I'm gone.

 

Shrug. Your Saxon rants are part of the scenery (and as predictable as the sunrise).

 

I see this as a huge problem. From my perspective if a math education doesn't make sure a student fully understands what he or she is doing, and retains the knowledge (and ability to use that conceptual knowledge in practice) then the education and educational approaches are failures.

 

I know you are not going to hear what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyhow. My kids understand math concepts.

 

Forgive me, but I have different goals. We we study math I want my child trained like a mathematician. So I make the choices I make on that basis. If people want to call that "bashing," what's left to say? You make your choices, I will make mine.

 

This sets up a false dichotomy. If you cared about your kid and wanted them to be trained like a mathematician, you'd do what I do. If you choose Saxon, well.... I got some Singapore books for my boys to work on two summers ago. I was underwhelmed. They weren't bad, but they weren't inspiring. I didn't make the boys finish them. I do like CWPs. Ds8 used BA3A last summer and enjoyed it. He is doing 3B-3D this summer along with CWP3. DD10 did a few pages of CWP4 last year and started both HOE and Patty Paper Geometry this year. We didn't get very far in either. Our days got too full. She picked up and finished CWP4 in April and is a bit over halfway through CWP5 now. When she is done, we'll finish HOE and PPG. I'm not opposed to using other programs. My kids have used a variety of resources, mostly in the summer after they are done with their Saxon for the year. What my kids use isn't important to anyone but me and them, but I did peck all that out on the Kindle for a reason. My kids understand math concepts very well. These other resources are fun and generally easy for them. The concepts they learn in Saxon transfer easily to other programs. I did have trouble with Dd10 (9 at the time) and one of her HOE assignments. She missed 5 or so out of 11. I wasn't impressed. I even posted about it here. Turns out she couldn't find the box of manipulatives (I had moved them), so she just "thought really hard". I gave her the manipulatives, and she redid the page, perfectly, in a few minutes. Some of the equations with multiple fractions were too involved for her to do mentally , but even then, she understood the math.

 

I read Liping Ma. I really don't get the hype. I do not consider myself or my children to be especially "mathy", but I felt the Liping Ma book stated the obvious. What I did take away from the book was that I couldn't assume that everyone will instinctively see connections in math.

 

For those with an open mind, read the Liping Ma book. She does an outstanding job doing a "compare and contrast" with math taught using procedural vs depth approaches. There is no doubt in my mind which is the better approach, and she illustrates the differences quite well.

 

Bill

 

[Meriwether]

I wanted to add:

 

I was teasing Bill in my first post, because the constant bam! can be exasperating. It occasionally gets tiresome to have people assume my kids don't understand math concepts, but I don't really care if Bill or anyone else hates Saxon.

[Meriwether]

Here are a few problems that seem to crop up with Saxon:

 

Seizing up when a problem isn't presented the "Saxon way." My dd grasped the addition algorithm faster than mental math. As a result, there was a time where she could do

 

674

+39

 

with no problem at all, but heaven help you if you asked her 674+39, horizontally, like that. She would be so busy "not knowing" how to do such a problem, it would not occur to her to stack the numbers herself, let alone use a mental math strategy.

 

 

My kids have *never* had trouble applying concepts learned in Saxon to other material. Dd had trouble with LOF Fractions the summer she turned 8. I used it to introduce fractions. It was NOT her style.

 

And, Saxon presents *many* problems in horizontal form.

[Meriwether]

And, just because I've been stuck in this chair for the past few hours with a back that doesn't seem to want to be in bed:

 

Last night Dd3 (who has had good number sense for a good while now) spun a 3 on Hi Ho Cherry-o. She had four cherries left on her tree. She put 3 cherries in the bucket. Her hand hovered over the last cherry as she looked at it, looked at the bucket, looked at me. She wanted to "miscount" so badly. She ended up winning on the next spin, which made me happy. She was such a good sport. Every time she emptied the bucket, she cheerfully chanted, "That's the way the game is played."

 

OP, Saxon is fine. Singapore is fine. The important things are to know your kid and be comfortable with the math yourself. If you don't know wether or not you are comfortable with the math, I second the recommendation of Liping Ma. If you get to the end and think, "That was a waste of money," you could probably make any curriculum work for you.

[Mom0012]

 

 

I hardly have the power (or desire) to "shut down every math discussion." The "math wars" over Saxon have long predated my becoming an active poster on this forum, and will no doubt continue after I'm gone.

 

It is not "math bigotry" to dislike the Saxon approach.

 

If one reads with care the excerpt written by Janet in WA that Ellie posted, that is ostensibly supposed to support Saxon, I think it is pretty damning. It shows that the "concepts" in Saxon are of then not part of the lesson, can be disassociated from the lessons (by a good deal), and may not even be in the same book. She also (rightly) states:

 

"Now let me say, the fact that Saxon explains the “why†behind concepts doesn’t mean a student will understand that explanation -- or remember it. With Saxon’s incremental format, some students have difficulty mastering concepts, and connecting them."

 

I see this as a huge problem. From my perspective if a math education doesn't make sure a student fully understands what he or she is doing, and retains the knowledge (and ability to use that conceptual knowledge in practice) then the education and educational approaches are failures.

 

As points of information. I have a Third Grader (raising Fourth Grader) not a 2nd Grader. We have done multiple math programs even before starting school. We do not do these as "suppliments" to the school work, but as depth curriculm working well ahead grade level expectations. We do this as home education, just like any of you might do.

 

You are wrong about my never having used Saxon. I tutored my nephew (whose school used Saxon) for years. I know it is the antithesis of what I want as math program.

 

Hunter says, "Not ALL students need to be trained to be mathematicians." Forgive me, but I have different goals. We we study math I want my child trained like a mathematician. So I make the choices I make on that basis. If people want to call that "bashing," what's left to say? You make your choices, I will make mine.

 

For those with an open mind, read the Liping Ma book. She does an outstanding job doing a "compare and contrast" with math taught using procedural vs depth approaches. There is no doubt in my mind which is the better approach, and she illustrates the differences quite well.

 

Bill

 

 

I stand corrected. Your child is in 3rd grade, not 2nd.:)

[Mom0012]

I wanted to add:

 

I was teasing Bill in my first post, because the constant bam! can be exasperating. It occasionally gets tiresome to have people assume my kids don't understand math concepts, but I don't really care if Bill or anyone else hates Saxon.

 

 

I don't care if he hates it either, but I do find it tiring to find his "anti" post every time he determines a program has a different teaching method from Singapore. I do feel it keeps people from discussing these programs in a productive way and getting the support they may need or want.

[Critterfixer]

OP: What about doing the conceptual program yourself? I find that if I take the MEP lessons and do them myself, I'm much more prepared to teach some why when we are doing the how. When I rely just on the book to do the teaching, and don't prepare for the deeper discussion, I am tempted to just say "Do it this way because it works best." When I'm prepared to explore I can do a much better job of leading the bear hunt, so to speak.

[Walking-Iris]

I don't care if he hates it either, but I do find it tiring to find his "anti" post every time he determines a program has a different teaching method from Singapore. I do feel it keeps people from discussing these programs in a productive way and getting the support they may need or want.

 

:iagree: Where's the beating a dead horse smilie? I honestly am starting to think he is so high up on his "math expert" pedestal that he can't see how offensive his posts read. Basically according to Bill anyone who uses Saxon with their kids have some sort of lower priorities and are risking complete math failure with their children. It seems to horrify him. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but the fact that he is not a homeschooler just makes his comments even more .... not appreciated. For me anyway.

 

It is extremely tiring to try to post and have meaningful discussions without it turning into Bill's personal vendetta math drama.

 

I don't like Singapore math, and I have used it a bit and looked over enough of the materials to know that I don't really like it. Do I search out threads about SM and tell and rant to the world my feelings about it? No---because the homeschoolers who are using it and thriving with it are not my business. Yes, I don't like SM but I do feel it's perfectly possible to teach a child math with it. What a concept. To accept that what I don't like or choose to use could actually be the perfect thing for someone else. Do I secretly feel that my dislike of SM means those who are using it are somehow not doing the best they could be doing teaching math? NO!!!

 

Honestly Bill, until you can sit down in the homes and with the students of every single person who has used Saxon and somehow prove that their math knowledge is somehow a failure because of using Saxon, your sweeping generalizations about it are meaningless. For someone who worships at the altar of math genius, making such poor logical statements seems a bit much.

 

And like Pastel said, makes it difficult to actually answer the OP in any productive way.

[Ellie]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that quite a few mathematicians and scientists didn't use Saxon themselves. While I'm not a Saxon fan per se I do know it has been a standard for many years used by many STEM professionals.

 

IMO, this whole 'conceptual math' is so vastly superior mantra on this forum is highly over rated and unnecessary for many dare I say most students. Though its amazing how trendy and loud the mantra is. Consequently many parents, some of whom are new to homeschooling, feel the need to drop their current program which is working fine for them in favor of this wonderfully mystical 'conceptual' holy grail. Yet I don't think this imaginary line between said conceptual programs and the rest of the more lowly procedural programs is as cut and dried as they are made out to be.

 

Look at some of the classic Algebra texts for example such as Foerster which some scorn as 'too procedural.' Then compare them with Dolciani which is praised as wonderfully conceptual math. In reality they are really not *that* different. I own both texts and actually used Dolciani as my Algebra text when I was in school. The majority of these texts are workbooks plain and simple with a lot of problems to solve. Foerster has a bit better word problems. Neither goes to huge depths pouring over concepts in some fantastical way. AoPS which we use is also known as very conceptual. Yet it goes to great lengths showing students 'how' to work problems in both the text and the video lessons. Though it does ask them to attempt to discover how to solve them first on there own. I just don't see the point in over emphasizing this with almost every post on math. While for some its the holy grail for others it is not necessary at all even if going into STEM careers. Like the forum states there is not a one size fits all approach which is best for all. This is especially true when it comes to Math curriculum.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: especially with the part I bolded. :-)

[Spy Car]

 

 

:iagree: Where's the beating a dead horse smilie? I honestly am starting to think he is so high up on his "math expert" pedestal that he can't see how offensive his posts read. Basically according to Bill anyone who uses Saxon with their kids have some sort of lower priorities and are risking complete math failure with their children. It seems to horrify him. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but the fact that he is not a homeschooler just makes his comments even more .... not appreciated. For me anyway.

 

Talk about beating a dead horse. Some of you take disagreements about math methodology a little too personally, and then launch into ad hominim attacks, and over-blown fabrications in reaction. It is getting really old.

 

It is extremely tiring to try to post and have meaningful discussions without it turning into Bill's personal vendetta math drama.

 

I don't like Singapore math, and I have used it a bit and looked over enough of the materials to know that I don't really like it.

 

You don't like Singapore math. Fine. Do I accuse you of "bashing" it? No.

 

There are reasons I do not like Saxon, and I have articulate those reasons. If you like it, fine. We disagree in our likes and dislikes.

 

Do I search out threads about SM and tell and rant to the world my feelings about it? No---because the homeschoolers who are using it and thriving with it are not my business. Yes, I don't like SM but I do feel it's perfectly possible to teach a child math with it. What a concept. To accept that what I don't like or choose to use could actually be the perfect thing for someone else. Do I secretly feel that my dislike of SM means those who are using it are somehow not doing the best they could be doing teaching math? NO!!!

 

Umm. This is a thread where the OP suggested:

 

"Those who use Saxon math sometimes lament on these boards the fact that their dc have learned the mechanics of math but lack the understanding of the why."

 

That is the case. Many who use Saxon math end up feeling their students learn procedural competence without really understand the underlying mathematics. I think there is good cause for this problem in the way Saxon is designed. You have used Miquon. Surely you see the drastic difference in approaches of these two math programs.

 

When people have problems with a method, disussing the problems of the method is fair-game on an education board devoted to discussing education. Of Saxon is working for you and yours, fine. But recognize many run into the same problem the OP has raised.

 

Honestly Bill, until you can sit down in the homes and with the students of every single person who has used Saxon and somehow prove that their math knowledge is somehow a failure because of using Saxon, your sweeping generalizations about it are meaningless. For someone who worships at the altar of math genius, making such poor logical statements seems a bit much.

 

I, of course, have never argued such. If you wish to defeat "straw-men" have at it. I have never (ever) said or suggested every single person who has used Saxon is a a failure because they used Saxon. That is ridiculous. And talk about being tiresome, and over generalizing.

 

And like Pastel said, makes it difficult to actually answer the OP in any productive way.

 

No it doesn't. If you have ideas for improving a Saxon-centric math education please use you energies positively, rather than behaving like this. I have participated in many threads over the years where parents have struggled with Singapore, or Miquon, or other, and have attempted to offer positive contributions to help. For some people these programs prove to be bad fits.

 

If you have positive ideas for making Saxon a better, share them.

 

Bill

[TracyP]

Saxon sounds a lot like CLE, which I have used and loved for 3+ years, so I hope I can jump in here. They can be great programs for providing practice and review, but they really do emphasize the procedural over the conceptual. (Even the post Hunter quoted from the long time user stated this.) I use MM alongside CLE and the difference is incredibly obvious. The OP asked for help to make Saxon more conceptual. Teaching and learning math concepts are important; I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. :confused1: There are many ways and programs to get you there, but Saxon alone doesn't cut it for some kids. It looks like using manipulatives, reading ahead so *you* teach the concepts, CWP, and HOE have been suggested so far. I hope she is able to glean some ideas from this thread on how to add to Saxon.

 

I was unaware that there were rules or requirements we had to follow before giving our opinion. If you (general) don't like or agree with anybody's opinion, ignore it and move on. Why this turned into a personal attack is mind-boggling to me.

[Critterfixer]

Why this turned into a personal attack is mind-boggling to me.

 

Math tends to exite a lot of passion in this crowd.

 

It's just not easy to find your happy place in a math discussion without wondering if your happy place has bugs.

The thing is, it's still your place, your child, your choice in curriculum. You have to find out if the bugs are worth getting up and moving for or if you should simply find ways to deal with the bugs.

But there's no harm in knowing the kinds of bugs you have. Helps you deal with them.

[Hunter]

 

 

Hunter says, "Not ALL students need to be trained to be mathematicians." Forgive me, but I have different goals. We we study math I want my child trained like a mathematician. So I make the choices I make on that basis. If people want to call that "bashing," what's left to say? You make your choices, I will make mine.

 

My point is that it is YOUR goal to teach YOUR child to be a mathematician, but you don't validate the rights of others to make different choices.

 

A child is more likely to grow up to be a firefighter than a mathematician or a scientist, but how much time do we spend playing mathematician and scientist compared to playing firefighter?

 

How many students skip accounting entirely to take several years of higher maths, despite the fact that most of them will be crippled by their lack of accounting skills, and hardly ever use their higher math skills?

 

I spent lots of time. money and worry doing the fast and wide thing with math, and my son did NOT get much payback for my efforts. And it ate up resources that could have been spent strengthening him and other family members where there would have been more payback.

 

It's just not efficient or logical or fair to train ALL children to be mathematicians.

[dereksurfs]

Saxon sounds a lot like CLE, which I have used and loved for 3+ years, so I hope I can jump in here. They can be great programs for providing practice and review, but they really do emphasize the procedural over the conceptual. (Even the post Hunter quoted from the long time user stated this.) I use MM alongside CLE and the difference is incredibly obvious.

 

Tracy, can you please give a couple examples of this? I would also be curious what you do regarding using MM to supplement CLE with 'concepts.'

 

We use CLE with our two younger ones. We also own MM and CWP. But MM overall left them flat and was not a good fit at all while CLE really got them excited about math again. We also started with MUS which they hated even though it had manipulatives teaching them to 'see the math' first. I think for others the much touted 'conceptual programs' have not been a good fit while other programs work much better for them. The list of these 'other' programs is quite long. And these same children go on into secondary math and do well with programs which may or may not be more 'conceptual' in nature.

[Hunter]

Sounds ominous. Saxon isn't being "bashed," it has been long-criticized by many for its scattered incremental instruction and "drill and kill approach."

 

Since you believe it is being "bashed" for other than pedagogical differences, what—prey tell—is the actual reason you believe it comes in for such criticism?

 

Bill

 

 

Often Saxon is criticized because a student cannot do one thing, while able to do another. The assumption is that if the child cannot do BOTH things equally well, then it is the curriculum's fault. That isn't logical. Sometimes the fact that the child can do the first thing at all is a testament to the strength of the curriculum. Or sometimes it means the student is not developmentally ready to both things yet.

 

What good is an algorithm without application? Sometimes a higher test score and SOME parents want/need that. Sometimes it means a student has made the FIRST step towards LATER application. Sometimes a student can use the algorithm for a specific task, that will allow him to make progress through a science text, or do a certain job.

 

Too often the TEXT is blamed for things that have nothing to do with the TEXT. There is a teacher and a student involved too. The text is only ONE piece of the TRIangle.