Saxon + Conceptual = ?

[Mom0012]

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

 

I don't feel the need to improve Saxon math at this point. I am just beginning to use it with my dd though, and if I have trouble with something, I'd love to be able to come onto the board and get feedback and ideas for solutions without some comment by you that it's not conceptual enough, so it's crap. When you do that, it does reduce the feedback that people receive on these programs. And we are not just talking about Saxon here, but every other math program that doesn't meet your approval. Everyone understands your feelings on the subject. I accept that those are your feelings and think you have a right to them, but it's discouraging to have every thread on other math programs derailed by your statements. I have been on this board a long time and have offered assistance and encouragement to people using R&S or CLE many times over the years. I do not, however, make it a habit of jumping into every Singapore thread and stating that it was lousy program for at least one of my children, so beware. And, yes, I have used Singapore with each of my children at one point or another and did not find it to be a good fit. I really think you are the one who needs to examine your behavior here.

[Hunter]

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

 

 

It worries me how passionate some people are about math, compared to their whole CURRICULUM and their whole LIFE. It's out of balance, sometimes

 

Math IS important, but not as important as some people are making it out to be.

 

Fresh vegetables are better than frozen, and frozen are better than canned. But I don't advocate that ALL families serve fresh vegetable at ALL meals. Pushing that agenda would be harmful to some families. The attempt to get those fresh veggies on the table 3 times a day would throw the whole home off balance, with negative results that wouldn't be at all worth it. For other families it's a joy and effortless.

[TracyP]

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.'

Sure. I have used MM/CLE in a variety of ways. I used CLE as my core in grades 1-3. Starting in grade 2, I added some MM. The first place I found CLE conceptually lacking was column subtraction. I added that section of MM and also started adding the word problems from MM because they were much deeper. I did the same in 3rd grade: adding in specific areas that dd was not getting from CLE (fractions) or where I thought MM's teaching was simply better (multi digit multiplication), and also adding in the word problems. In 4th grade I started to find almost all of MM's teaching superior, and have used all of MM 4 and MM 5 while still doing CLE for review. I cut out extra problems so the CLE lessons only take about 20 min including drill. Going into next year, I plan to do the same with MM 6 / CLE 6.

 

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.

 

CLE was a GREAT find for my daughter after Singapore was a complete bust. I do agree that the love for Conceptual Programs can be a bit overblown, BUT I don't think that the importance of teaching concepts should be diminished. There is more than one way to skin a cat, so I hear. ;)

[NASDAQ]

 

 

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.

 

Okay? I gave an example of a difficulty that may arise in traditional math programs -- a rigidity that develops from doing a problem over and over one way. This has been my experience tutoring. It doesn't apply to every child. It sometimes comes up. The example I gave was of a place that my child showed rigidity in her thinking because she was uncomfortable with the topic. She uses Singapore, not Saxon, anyway.

 

As I said in my earlier post, I do think that most kids trained on traditional math understand the math just fine. Some kids get rigid, and some let the concepts slide. Conceptual math attempts to address that. It does so imperfectly and introduces other problems. But I was trying to suggest two issues the op could look out for and address through narrowly tailored supplementation.

[G5052]

Late in the game, but I have a high schooler is starting Advanced Math in a few weeks. We used Rightstart, then CLE, and then Saxon beginning with Algebra 1/2.

 

Not that standardized testing is everything, but he missed only one problem on the math portion of the Stanford standardized test for 10th grade. I've always been anti-Saxon, but Saxon works for this kid. I'm very on top of what he's learning and periodically bring in other problems and approaches from my college math texts. And I've never stumped him yet.

 

Every kid is different, and I don't believe in having teens entirely teach themselves, but Saxon works here.

[dereksurfs]

Sure. I have used MM/CLE in a variety of ways. I used CLE as my core in grades 1-3. Starting in grade 2, I added some MM. The first place I found CLE conceptually lacking was column subtraction. I added that section of MM and also started adding the word problems from MM because they were much deeper. I did the same in 3rd grade: adding in specific areas that dd was not getting from CLE (fractions) or where I thought MM's teaching was simply better (multi digit multiplication), and also adding in the word problems. In 4th grade I started to find almost all of MM's teaching superior, and have used all of MM 4 and MM 5 while still doing CLE for review. I cut out extra problems so the CLE lessons only take about 20 min including drill. Going into next year, I plan to do the same with MM 6 / CLE 6.

 

 

CLE was a GREAT find for my daughter after Singapore was a complete bust. I do agree that the love for Conceptual Programs can be a bit overblown, BUT I don't think that the importance of teaching concepts should be diminished. There is more than one way to skin a cat, so I hear. ;)

 

Tracy, thanks for that explanation. I've never heard about integrating the two in this way. I'll have to look at MM again in these particular areas as I do like to supplement to keep things interesting. We purchased grades 4-6 in a bundle a while back when on sale. It sounds like you slowly worked away from CLE to more MM. However its interesting that you are still using it at all since it sounds like you prefer it more in upper elementary. How do your kids respond to MM vs. CLE? Do you do more or less of the instruction with one vs. the other? Just curious.

 

While I'm not as huge a fan of the 'conceptual math movement' per se I'm not opposed to it either, especially if that program helps a child better learn math. That's the real goal for all parents here, isn't it? If the child is learning and thriving that's all we can ask for. I like to use a variety of resources whether conceptually oriented or not. To me that a smaller matter when considering the overall child's development.

[Critterfixer]

It worries me how passionate some people are about math, compared to their whole CURRICULUM and their whole LIFE. It's out of balance, sometimes

 

Math IS important, but not as important as some people are making it out to be.

 

Sure. I myself don't feel it's worth getting all tied up in knots over. But it is a major portion of a core curriculum, and as such should require some thought and study. You should see me boil and seethe over writing curriculum. Or spelling. Spelling can incite me to violence. :laugh:

 

I don't feel that it is worth changing a math program simply because it doesn't focus as much on deep conceptual understanding as much as it focuses on procedural mastery. I DO think it is worth looking at ways to integrate that conceptual understanding THROUGH what is the best program you can find.

That's why I suggested the OP work through a conceptual program herself. Then, she can integrate what she learns into the Saxon lessons, without causing confusion or forcing her to find some way to do two programs at once, or try to fit in supplements. I can usually find the time for me to sit down with a lesson in the evenings and get through it. I can't find a way to teach two math programs at once. Tried it last year and that didn't work.

[Meriwether]

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

 

Seizing up when a problem isn't presented the "Saxon way."

 

 

This made it sound as if you were refering to a specific issue with Saxon. I was pointing out that Saxon does in fact present problems in different formats, so that someone doesn't read your example and say to themselves, "Man, kids that use Saxon can't even solve a problem that is written horizontally."

[NASDAQ]

 

 

 

 

This made it sound as if you were refering to a specific issue with Saxon. I was pointing out that Saxon does in fact present problems in different formats, so that someone doesn't read your example and say to themselves, "Man, kids that use Saxon can't even solve a problem that is written horizontally."

 

Saxon, more than some other programs, enables that rigidity to take root long term. Which does not mean that your children and many other Saxon users are not completely able pupils who mastered addition at a glance through innate and highly developed number sense.ully admit that R has an above-average ability to get the wrong end of the stick.

[TracyP]

Tracy, thanks for that explanation. I've never heard about integrating the two in this way. I'll have to look at MM again in these particular areas as I do like to supplement to keep things interesting. We purchased grades 4-6 in a bundle a while back when on sale. It sounds like you slowly worked away from CLE to more MM. However its interesting that you are still using it at all since it sounds like you prefer it more in upper elementary. How do your kids respond to MM vs. CLE? Do you do more or less of the instruction with one vs. the other? Just curious.

 

While I'm not as huge a fan of the 'conceptual math movement' per se I'm not opposed to it either, especially if that program helps a child better learn math. That's the real goal for all parents here, isn't it? If the child is learning and thriving that's all we can ask for. I like to use a variety of resources whether conceptually oriented or not. To me that a smaller matter when considering the overall child's development.

 

I am still using CLE because I made 3 attempts to move to using just MM, and my dd couldn’t handle it. For one, she needed the review that CLE offers. Secondly, she is just like the kids Farrar mentioned in her post. She would do fine with MM when going deeper with concepts she had covered in CLE, but when it came to something new she would melt down and get frustrated. She needs(ed) the procedural first. I didn’t want to confuse matters so didn’t mention it, lol, but I am going to try to go to only MM again in the fall. I have CLE here to use if needed, though. She has matured a lot so I hope we don’t need it.

 

I have to give more instruction with MM. As she gets older I am encouraging her to reread and try to figure it out herself. She is getting better, but still needs direct instruction from me sometimes. This is another plus for MM. I can't always see where CLE is heading, and the teaching help isn't there for me. With MM it is all right there. I can see what she needs to learn and I can look to the next lesson to see where this is going.

 

Most of the time my dd likes MM better. She finds CLE lessons to be long and dull but CLE is easier, so when MM gets tough she starts to request CLE. I saw something interesting happen last year. When she got bogged down in MM we would go to CLE for a few weeks. It was a nice break, but going to CLE would cause her to make a lot of careless mistakes both in CLE and in MM when we returned to it. I am convinced that is because she was able to go to auto pilot while doing her CLE lesson. She forgot that she is supposed to actually engage her brain during math. This is the biggest reason I hope to completely drop CLE next year. I want to be really clear though. Thanks to CLE my dd has her facts down cold. She is very efficient with all four operations. The best part, she has a ton of confidence and feels that she is good at math. I would not be saying these things if it weren't for CLE and I bet that Saxon could be substituted there.

 

[Meriwether]

Saxon, more than some other programs, enables that rigidity to take root long term. Which does not mean that your children and many other Saxon users are not completely able pupils who mastered addition at a glance through innate and highly developed number sense.

 

I pointed out that your example about Saxon wasn't about Saxon so that people who had never seen Saxon wouldn't assume that it was.

[shanezomom]

Critterfixer, if you use MEP for your own study, why not for your dc?

[dereksurfs]

I am still using CLE because I made 3 attempts to move to using just MM, and my dd couldn’t handle it. For one, she needed the review that CLE offers. Secondly, she is just like the kids Farrar mentioned in her post. She would do fine with MM when going deeper with concepts she had covered in CLE, but when it came to something new she would melt down and get frustrated. She needs(ed) the procedural first. I didn’t want to confuse matters so didn’t mention it, lol, but I am going to try to go to only MM again in the fall. I have CLE here to use if needed, though. She has matured a lot so I hope we don’t need it.

 

I have to give more instruction with MM. As she gets older I am encouraging her to reread and try to figure it out herself. She is getting better, but still needs direct instruction from me sometimes. This is another plus for MM. I can't always see where CLE is heading, and the teaching help isn't there for me. With MM it is all right there. I can see what she needs to learn and I can look to the next lesson to see where this is going.

 

Most of the time my dd likes MM better. She finds CLE lessons to be long and dull but CLE is easier, so when MM gets tough she starts to request CLE. I saw something interesting happen last year. When she got bogged down in MM we would go to CLE for a few weeks. It was a nice break, but going to CLE would cause her to make a lot of careless mistakes both in CLE and in MM when we returned to it. I am convinced that is because she was able to go to auto pilot while doing her CLE lesson. She forgot that she is supposed to actually engage her brain during math. This is the biggest reason I hope to completely drop CLE next year. I want to be really clear though. Thanks to CLE my dd has her facts down cold. She is very efficient with all four operations. The best part, she has a ton of confidence and feels that she is good at math. I would not be saying these things if it weren't for CLE and I bet that Saxon could be substituted there.

 

Tracy, thanks for the added details. We've been happy overall with CLE. But I like to supplement which we've also done some with HOE. So you got me thinking about MM again even though it was a flop initially. I find it a bit surprising that even after 3 attempts to move to MM and it not working out you are still going to to give it a forth try. Obviously there are things you really like about it. ;) However its sounds like using both together has worked best for your dd. Our dds also thrive on the spiral review which CLE provides them. Their confidence has also really grown. However this encouraged me not to completely disregard MM as a resource even if not a good fit as their primary curriculum. I'm looking over grade 4 now since dd9 is in CLE 400.

[NittanyJen]

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.

 

Just a few thoughts.

 

Wow, 8 is fairly young for LOF Fractions-- a student is to have completely mastered up through multi-digit long division before starting that book, according to the author. The division problems he poses in there are not always trivial.

 

I know many, many research mathematicians worldwide. I don't know any who claim to have used Saxon growing up.

 

As far as not wanting your kid "trained like a mathematician." I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what even basic mathematics is about among many. Math is not about plugging numbers into a formula and getting back an answer (a calculator can do that; you don't really need a human-- if that's all you want, just hand your kid a calculator and forget the math lessons). Math is not just about the final answer; math is about the logic used to arrive at the answer; this is why we have our kids write down the steps. It is not for the "purpose" of awarding partial credit on quizzes and tests-- it is to follow their logic and help them out if they are getting stuck somewhere or going astray. This logic is not just a fussy, nitpicky, snobby thing; it is what will allow them to solve a problem they encounter that does not look just like the kind they found in WHATEVER math program they learned from, be it Saxon, Life of Fred, Singapore, Tobey and Slater, MUS, Elements of Mathematics, Dolciani, or anything else.

 

There are some students who have a genuine learning deficit of one kind or another-- whose life goal is to learn to add up a checkbook, check a credit statement or a restaurant bill or hospital invoice, and that's about it. I am not addressing those students here. Those students probably will profit the most from a very procedural approach, but I don't know; I cannot pretend to be an expert in that, or any person's specific kid. I think that parent is probably the best expert in this case, yes?

 

I've never *taught* Saxon, but I have tutored the byproducts-- students who received A's in classes at highly rated private schools and then got to college and struggled. I have picked up the books themselves and read through them, and I am not terribly impressed, but I admit a bias against the drill and kill approach; I think that sometimes overpracticing a skill like math can make it just that-- a skill rather than an area of intellectual challenge, and may even signal to the student that the teacher thinks they need all that extra practice, even after they have learned the material.

 

Math is not some special category of learning that requires more practice than other subjects. If you don't practice history over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until you are bored to tears, then there is no reason to believe you must practice math to that point either. It's not harder; people just think it is and build it up that way for some reason. yes, some people are better at it than others, but it is not the fearsome beast people make it out to be. It generally does not need to be overdrilled like overcooked lima beans, until it has no flavor left, for the vast majority of students.

[Meriwether]

Just a few thoughts.

 

Wow, 8 is fairly young for LOF Fractions-- a student is to have completely mastered up through multi-digit long division before starting that book, according to the author. The division problems he poses in there are not always trivial.

 

 

She was very good at long division by the time she turned 8. I thought she'd like LOF, but she hated that book. :laugh: If Ds8 finishes Beast Academy early enough this summer, I'll let him try it. He'll be 9 by then.;)

[daniela_r]

Quote from above:

"I think that sometimes overpracticing a skill like math can make it just that-- a skill rather than an area of intellectual challenge, and may even signal to the student that the teacher thinks they need all that extra practice, even after they have learned the material.

 

Math is not some special category of learning that requires more practice than other subjects. If you don't practice history over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over until you are bored to tears, then there is no reason to believe you must practice math to that point either. It's not harder; people just think it is and build it up that way for some reason. yes, some people are better at it than others, but it is not the fearsome beast people make it out to be. It generally does not need to be overdrilled like overcooked lima beans, until it has no flavor left, for the vast majority of students."

 

I disagree with this.

 

My background: My college degree was math (from a large state university) and my part-time college job was math tutoring. I went to high school overseas, in an environment where a national test at the end of high school, over the past 4 years, was what determined whether or not you graduated high school. Result was a LOT of practice and drill and review in high school. I then went to university in the States and did very well in my math classes - partly because I had the lower-level math skills (e.g. working with fractions and long division by hand) down so well that it was easier for me to focus on (and understand) the higher-level math being taught.

 

I love the "overcooked lima beans" simile LOL and I certainly think that one could over-practice math BUT I think that math is an area of learning where over-learning IS important. Specifically, I think students need to practice many skills (hopefully in context, hopefully in interesting ways, etc.) until they are REALLY internalized - and I think that for most students that point will come AFTER the student whines "But I already know how to do this."

 

On the other hand, I do want to provide my kids with a stronger conceptual understanding of math than I got in elementary/junior high/high school math. So I think the OPs question about how to supplement a spiral/incremental, review-heavy program is a great question. It's a question I'm thinking about too. My oldest is a new 5 and we're just beginning Miquon. My plan is to move to CLE next year, use CLE as a base program, and supplement for conceptual understanding (maybe working through Miquon and then doing LOF elementary series??) and I would love more threads on how to SUPPLEMENT for conceptual understanding when a parent plans to use a more "procedural" program for the sake of review and systematic practice.

[Critterfixer]

Critterfixer, if you use MEP for your own study, why not for your dc?

 

It wasn't a good fit for third grade. Better than MM, which makes us all break out in hives.

I still love the program and would love to go back to it. The boys, however, were really struggling with basic addition and subtraction by the end of second grade. They would use the number line for everything, did not get many of the concepts I was trying to teach. Probably just me being a bad teacher, but I knew when they started crying the moment I brought out MEP 3 (bawling!) that I had to do something different. We went with Rod and Staff to just practice the basics of math calculation. I would add in concepts where I thought we could use them, and they really have made some big strides this year in math confidence.

It's still quite fragile, though. I made the mistake the other day of opening up the discussion of place value into larger numbers, and pulled a MM sheet for some practice after I'd done the explaining on the whiteboard. By the time they were done, the stronger math child was confused, and the weaker one was in tears and saying he was stupid. Not what you want to hear.

 

Basically, I've got kids that seem to do better when they learn how to do a problem, getting a little theory along the way, but they don't do well if I move to fast or try to cover new things starting with theory or experiment. I'm a little the same way. I would have been throwing up with fear if faced with MEP at their age. I may just be dumb, but some of those problems are HARD at the lower levels. Interesting, fun. But HARD. At least they are hard for me. I think I'll be better prepared to teach after going through it, but I don't know that I'd be better at math today if I'd had something more like MEP. I was raised on Abeka, then PACES. The only experience I had of Saxon was Algebra 1/2 and I hated it. My sister, on the other hand went Saxon pretty much all the way. She's the best math-mind in the whole family. It never frightened her like it did me.

 

I would love more threads on how to SUPPLEMENT for conceptual understanding when a parent plans to use a more "procedural" program for the sake of review and systematic practice.

Me too. I'd love to do both Saxon and MEP at the same time. I just can't figure out how to do that and not burn out in weeks. My intent with last year was to do MEP and supplement Rod and Staff. Once I saw that the boys were breathing easier with Rod and Staff and really responding to the fact oriented lessons I ended up spending more time on Rod and Staff and letting MEP slide for them. They still call MEP "That HARD math." And it is. Good for you, I suspect, but it's kind of like those overcooked limas--hard to get down sometimes. And call me a weenie, but if you have to face two sullen-faced, close-minded, " I can't do this!" nine-year olds over math every morning, you start wanting math that they feel they've got a fighting chance at accomplishing.

[NittanyJen]

I agree that it is not a bad question to ask; I too tend to use more than one approach-- I also like to avoid the "well the problems don't look like the ones in MY book!" syndrome. Even as a die-hard LOF fan for my older child, I did finally enroll him in the iMacs Elements of Mathematics course, and had him work the end of chapter tests in Tobey and Slater, just to acquaint him with variety of styles. I also have Lial, AoPS and Dolciani on hand, but those are more in case Singapore DM 7 doesn't work out for DS9. I, too, have a reasonable mathematical background, having completed through diffeq's and linear equations in college, and am married to a PhD in applied mth who teaches at a U.

 

I also firmly agree that no one program is magical for every single family. I love Life of Fred and Singapore PM, and I am looking forward to working with DM7 next year with DS9. Dolciani is a standby that as trained many of today's mathematicians (whoever posted that it does not explain concepts must have a different edition from any of my several editions, or else reads math texts very differently than I do). Stewart is quite good, and is used at many universities as well, for calc, and I know there is a Stewart pre calc book that looks to be of similar quality.

 

I only have two kids and limited time and budget, so I have never had hands on MUS, TT, or many others, and have no opinion. We could not use Beast Academy, as DS9 can't stand colored, distracting, jumpy pages-- we even use the US Edition Singapore to avoid the full color SE.

 

I have worked with too many families where the real math problem was Mom or Dad's problem, not the kid's problem at all. Mom or Dad had a tough time or a particular approach, and projected that onto the kid: math is hard, you have to burn it to death or you can't do it. Once I got mom and dad to shut it and shut down the drill, the grades actually came UP, because the kid discovered that not only was math not difficult, but that he actually enjoyed it and could spend time playing with new ideas instead of grinding away at 100 copies of the same problem; once he understood the logic, it was not necessary to memorize an algorithm for each type of problem variation.

 

My husband runs into this issue with some foreign (and some American) college students who are great at drill, and scored fabulously on those international tests. They will diligently grind out homework, and can nail any kind of problem that looks identical to the example. However, give them the same problem, but in a different format, and they are stumped; they can plug and play better than anybody, but cannot for money apply the information to a new situation because they did not focus on the logic of what they were doing, just the steps.

 

If you think about this, this is more than being a mathematician; applying information to new situations to solve all kinds of problems is a life skill, even in a non-mathematical sense. Proper math training is training for life.

 

 

[Cricket]

I find this conversation interesting because just this evening I told dh that I'm finally starting to understand math. We use Saxon. I started my boys out with Singapore and didn't get it at all. I mean, obviously I knew how to do the math but the way it was taught made no sense to me. Using the manipulatives in the early years with my girls helped ME finally "get" it!

[PachiSusan]

I get it!

 

Mel was having a really hard time with math. We started Saxon and she said, "is THAT why we do that???" about long division .

 

Perhaps my child is just one of those "poor dear, she sure tries" kids that Saxon seems to only be good for. <wry grin>

 

I find this conversation interesting because just this evening I told dh that I'm finally starting to understand math. We use Saxon. I started my boys out with Singapore and didn't get it at all. I mean, obviously I knew how to do the math but the way it was taught made no sense to me. Using the manipulatives in the early years with my girls helped ME finally "get" it!

 

[TracyP]

...I find it a bit surprising that even after 3 attempts to move to MM and it not working out you are still going to to give it a fourth try. Obviously there are things you really like about it. ;) However its sounds like using both together has worked best for your dd. Our dds also thrive on the spiral review which CLE provides them. Their confidence has also really grown. However this encouraged me not to completely disregard MM as a resource even if not a good fit as their primary curriculum. I'm looking over grade 4 now since dd9 is in CLE 400.

Ha ha. I agree with the bolded. I would just like the ease of one math program, but we shall see. :)

 

 

My husband runs into this issue with some foreign (and some American) college students who are great at drill, and scored fabulously on those international tests. They will diligently grind out homework, and can nail any kind of problem that looks identical to the example. However, give them the same problem, but in a different format, and they are stumped; they can plug and play better than anybody, but cannot for money apply the information to a new situation because they did not focus on the logic of what they were doing, just the steps.

 

If you think about this, this is more than being a mathematician; applying information to new situations to solve all kinds of problems is a life skill, even in a non-mathematical sense. Proper math training is training for life.

And if I may add to this, it is also about not limiting a child's options in the future. Maybe they will want to be a mathematician or a scientist. It isn't about *me* making them into a mathematician, it is about me making sure that they don't run into closed doors at some point. When you read the posts of mathwonk or regentrude (both college professors), you see them lamenting the state of math education in this country all the time. I am well aware that I had a crappy, drill and kill, memorize but don't learn math education. I want better for my kids. Since there is a lot of touchiness, I will add that this isn't necessarily about Saxon. I am just thinking about this "I'm not raising a mathematician" attitude.

[Hunter]

it is also about not limiting a child's options in the future. ... it is about me making sure that they don't run into closed doors at some point.

 

 

Everyone runs into closed doors. There is NO way to make sure a student is prepared for everything, and spreading ourselves, and them, too thin closes more doors than opens them.

 

As for straight A students that don't make the next jump, it's sometimes because they are not developmentally ready to make that jump. Sometimes students that would struggle with another curriculum, are able to AT LEAST get to the algorithm stage with Saxon. Saxon isn't preventing them from making the next step, it's just gets MORE students UP to that point.

 

And getting UP to that point opens doors for these students. But having an open door doesn't mean a student is ready to take advantage of what is on the other side, or WANTS to take advantage of what is on the other side.

 

Some kids like wrestling with difficult math problems and others don't. Some students that dutifully complete their homework are not approaching application with the ATTITUDE necessary to solve those problems. Just because a PARENT cares doesn't mean the student does. It takes more than obedience and diligence to apply.

 

These are areas where Saxon is sometimes unfairly blamed for something it is not responsible for.

 

Part of math is logical thinking, and I don't think that all the cause and effect scenarios that Saxon is accused of are logical.

[shanezomom]

Quote from above: And if I may add to this, it is also about not limiting a child's options in the future. Maybe they will want to be a mathematician or a scientist. It isn't about *me* making them into a mathematician, it is about me making sure that they don't run into closed doors at some point.

 

 

 

I love this. But therein lies the challenge of home education. How do I provide the right math education when I myself don't remember most of what I learned in math b/c I went into political science in college. This year, for 6th grade, I experimented with farming math out with Chalkdust and Thinkwell. That doesn't work well here. Sure I know my son better than any teacher could, and I want to surpass what would be provided in PS, of course!

 

I can teach critical thinking, literature, LA, philosophy, etc. with strength and confidence. Maybe I have no business handling math for my son, so I must turn to the curriculum that holds my hand. I see Saxon can lead ds pretty well with oversight by me. Singapore's IP was just too much for me but again....I like the content and from what I can see, it adds a dimension to the traditional nature of Saxon. I might take a look at Math in Focus as was suggested but I don't think it goes higher than elementary math. If Singapore had a virtual classroom that might fit the bill for what I'm looking for. Dh's degree is in engineering but he had a very traditional drill and kill education himself.

 

And then, like Hunter says, the best curriculum is the one that gets done. I know we can't switch much more now going into 7th grade and I want to solidify what we're doing. I don't want to be the cause of future math problems.

[Critterfixer]

Maybe they will want to be a mathematician or a scientist. It isn't about *me* making them into a mathematician, it is about me making sure that they don't run into closed doors at some point. When you read the posts of mathwonk or regentrude (both college professors), you see them lamenting the state of math education in this country all the time.

 

I'd add another reason to work hard at understanding math in a conceptual way--to be able to teach it. You never know when a son or a daughter would feel called to teach math, either to their own child, or other children. It helps to know why you do something so that you can explain it when you need to, but also so that you can catch errors in thinking or predict where you might get an error in thinking.

I don't think anyone here would say that teaching math for understanding is wrong at all, or even that we don't care if our children get a good math education! If we didn't care, we wouldn't be talking about it!

But I do think there are other children besides my two boys and myself that find the standard mathematics approach to make the most sense. We actually need to see math in other ways, because left to our own devices, we'll do things one way. But I've just got to be careful not to take them too far off into the wilderness when they are just learning how to walk the trails.

[Critterfixer]

I love this. But therein lies the challenge of home education. How do I provide the right math education when I myself don't remember most of what I learned in math b/c I went into political science in college. This year, for 6th grade, I experimented with farming math out with Chalkdust and Thinkwell. That doesn't work well here. Sure I know my son better than any teacher could, and I want to surpass what would be provided in PS, of course!

 

Tutoring for higher math might work well if you have a decent group of people to pick from.

Another thing that might be interesting to look into would be Art of Problem Solving. I really like their books ( I have the Kitchen Table Math series and I use that thing every time I get ready to teach a new concept just to make sure I'm teaching it correctly and not focusing only on how something is done.) You might take a look at that and see what you think.

Very challenging. But because it might only be one problem and you are encouraged to think it through it can be a way to push someone a little out of their comfort zone without overwhelming them---as long as they know that they are not supposed to just plug something in and get it!

At a lower level, I've got a book of word problems that I use with the boys on Wednesday. (Word Problem Wednesday) We solve one or two together on the board and I go through the though processes we could use to figure it out. I don't really see that we've made a lot of progress with that method, it would be better if they had the confidence to go at it themselves, but I'm working toward that.

[shanezomom]

Critterfixer, why don't you use MEP with your dc?

[Critterfixer]

Critterfixer, why don't you use MEP with your dc?

 

I thought I answered that in my previous posts.

It wasn't a good fit. It may be better this year, I won't know until I introduce it again this year. It has helped me to think about math when I teach it, but in their case, maybe it gave them too much to think about at once.

 

Edit: My "To Do" list today includes printing off MEP 4 for potential use this year, and for me to compete the first thirty pages to see how I can best use the curriculum. They may well be ready for it this year. At least one child may be. I'll be ready if he is.

[TracyP]

Everyone runs into closed doors. There is NO way to make sure a student is prepared for everything, and spreading ourselves, and them, too thin closes more doors than opens them.

Maybe, but math, reading, and communication abilities (both written and spoken) are basics that, if I can help it, will NOT be a factor in closing doors.

[NittanyJen]

I find this conversation interesting because just this evening I told dh that I'm finally starting to understand math. We use Saxon. I started my boys out with Singapore and didn't get it at all. I mean, obviously I knew how to do the math but the way it was taught made no sense to me. Using the manipulatives in the early years with my girls helped ME finally "get" it!

 

Using manipulatives first is exactly how Singapore is taught!

 

Concrete (manipulatives) THEN the pictorial, and only THEN The abstract (the mathematical lanaguage/symbols).

 

It's fine that Saxon worked for you, but I didn't want any newbies reading this thread and thinking that Saxon was a manipulatives curriculum and Singapore is not :) The entire teaching pedagogy of Singapore is centered around Concrete-pictorial-abstract presentation, in that order.

[momtokea]

I think if your child has a passion for math and wants to be a mathematician there is no holding them back, no matter what program you use. If your child is naturally mathy they will understand any math book.

[dereksurfs]

...

I also firmly agree that no one program is magical for every single family. I love Life of Fred and Singapore PM, and I am looking forward to working with DM7 next year with DS9. Dolciani is a standby that as trained many of today's mathematicians (whoever posted that it does not explain concepts must have a different edition from any of my several editions, or else reads math texts very differently than I do). Stewart is quite good, and is used at many universities as well, for calc, and I know there is a Stewart pre calc book that looks to be of similar quality.

 

Jen,

 

Let me ask a question which I am really trying to understand from the strongly 'pro conceptual' folks. What is it that is so much more 'conceptual' with texts like Dolciani Algebra 1 than another text like Foerster? Keep in mind I didn't say that Dolciani didn't teach concepts. Rather I'm not seeing this huge chasm of difference between it and another well regarded math textbook when it comes to teaching concepts.

 

I also hestitate to ask because I don't want to come across as argumentative. And that is really not my intent. But as I've said I own both texts and used Dolciani Algbera 1 (1970) myself as a young student. I also remember going through the text thinking I could never learn the 'hows 'or the 'whys' without the great instructor I had. He was the key, not the book. These textbooks are primarily 'student workbooks' to begin with and as such are designed to be supplemented by classroom instruction. The books consist of ~ 20-30% 'brief' descriptions/examples of topics followed by many problems as most workbooks do. I recall our math instructor elborating quite a bit upon each topic/concept from the book while demonstrating solving problems on the board as well as fielding many questions. Another not so gifted instructor could have used the *same* text and I would have learned very little.

 

After buying this book and comparing it with others my first thought was, 'yep, its a workbook with very light instruction as I remembered it from my Algbera class.' However if you compare any of these old/classic math texts with AoPS there is a significant and obvious difference one notices right away. AoPS contains the full instruction including both concepts as well 'how-to' solve problems right in their books. The differences between the other books are mostly scope and sequence rather than extensive 'eleboration' of concepts presented. Its minimal at best.

[wapiti]

I think if your child has a passion for math and wants to be a mathematician there is no holding them back, no matter what program you use. If your child is naturally mathy they will understand any math book.

 

I don't believe this is true. While a naturally-mathy kid may understand most math books, there is so little exposure to "real" math (not arithmetic) in many math books, even at the secondary level, that many kids who might be interested wouldn't have a clue about the various types of math that mathematicians do. (I certainly didn't; count me among those who might have chosen a different path had my own exposure had been different.) Moreover, even mathy kids have individual strengths and weaknesses such that certain styles of math programs may be a bad fit or otherwise turn them off to the subject.

 

For further discussion, see, e.g., Rusczyk's lecture on problem solving at the 2009 Math Prize for Girls, pages 2-5, regarding three general areas in which the standard curriculum is failing top students: depth, delivery and subject coverage. (For extra dramatic effect, there's a video of this wonderful lecture too :))

[Dmmetler]

I have to admit-I don't like Saxon as a homeschool program. But it's not because it's not conceptual, but because it's SLOW. In the elementary grades, a lot of the actual teaching is designed to be teacher-led in a group ( and that's where the manipulatives come in), with some practice in the classroom, some assessment, and some at home. At home, it comes off feeling somewhere between silly and overkill, and really pushes the parent into the teacher-role.

 

However, I do think that it's one of the strongest classroom math programs I've taught out of, because a majority of kids seem to eventually, by the end of the grade, get it. I don't know that this would be true for average kids in a classroom using SM on a US school schedule with pacing guides that assume 180 days when,by the time you subtract testing and other mandates, is really 140 or so of actual instructional time. And I REALLY can't imagine using Beast Academy, Life of Fred, or AOPS with a heterogeneous group at all.

[NittanyJen]

Fred, at the Fractions level and above, is written to be used independently by the student. It was not written with the intention of being taught in a group setting.

 

Many of the texts being discussed were written under the assumption (Dolciani included) that they would be taught in the hands of a capable math instructor who would know how to bring the text to life; I don't believe they were intended to include every instructive detail in the student texts. We are kind of using them 'off label.' ;)

 

Texts such as Stewart are unusual in their clarity and completeness from that sense; a good student truly could self-study well from Stewart. Most of the time I am assuming that if a parent is self teaching a student mathematics a the high school level from a traditional text such as Dolciani this means they have the background to do so, or else will find additional online, class, or other resources to help. Yes, the concepts are very much there, but these books were written for a classroom with certain assumptions (such a a teacher) in place. Where AoPS and Fred differ from that model is that they are written to the student without that assumption.

 

Derek, I have not read Foerster in as great detail, and I would not presume to knock it; I mention Dolciani when I post, because I can definitely speak to its quality, despite being a classroom text written for presentation by a teacher; a highly motivated student or a student with access to a mathematically adept parent can get quite a lot from it. As I said before, I also know reams of actual, working research mathematicians who were inspired into the field by working through Dolciani, and I merely pass along that information. I have never met any mathematicians among the hundreds I have met and who know I teach and have tutored mathematics, who grew up with Saxon. That does not mean there are none; there are many mathematicians I have never met, and not every person I meet volunteers their mathematical genealogy to me :). Sometimes we just discuss musicals, or hiking, or our kids.

 

 

 

 

[dereksurfs]

...

Many of the texts being discussed were written under the assumption (Dolciani included) that they would be taught in the hands of a capable math instructor who would know how to bring the text to life; I don't believe they were intended to include every instructive detail in the student texts. We are kind of using them 'off label.' ;)

...

Derek, I have not read Foerster in as great detail, and I would not presume to knock it; I mention Dolciani when I post, because I can definitely speak to its quality, despite being a classroom text written for presentation by a teacher; a highly motivated student or a student with access to a mathematically adept parent can get quite a lot from it. As I said before, I also know reams of actual, working research mathematicians who were inspired into the field by working through Dolciani, and I merely pass along that information. I have never met any mathematicians among the hundreds I have met and who know I teach and have tutored mathematics, who grew up with Saxon. That does not mean there are none; there are many mathematicians I have never met, and not every person I meet volunteers their mathematical genealogy to me :). Sometimes we just discuss musicals, or hiking, or our kids.

 

 

I definately agree with these books needing capable math instructors. They were written that way by design. That is one reason they are so small and short in terms of length and explanations when compared to other books like AoPS. I like their compact nature and get right to the point feel. However I would never hand one to a child and expect them to learn from it on their own. That's one of the reason I enjoy AoPS as a more comprehensive text.

 

Regarding the many mathematicians who used Dolciani I think that at least part of this observation is due to the fact that it was *the standard* algebra textbook in the US for several decades. Consequently folks from that generation including myself went through it whether we became mathematicians, bakers or candle stick makers. :) That's not to say it wasn't a good book. But rather there wasn't really a choice at the time. And for those who love mathematics and the introduction to the abstract world of numbers that was their first text which I'm sure they remember with at least some fondness and nastalgia. Had they grown up in another country at that time and used another standard they may have felt the same affection for it. This is just my observations of some of the fanfare a number these math workbooks get. Sure they are good. But are they all that when compared to other good textbooks/curriculum available? Not without a great instructor as the primary ingredient IMO.

[Erin]

The entire teaching pedagogy of Singapore is centered around Concrete-pictorial-abstract presentation, in that order.

Just as an FYI, this is child development at its most basic. If anyone has a curriculum that doesn't present this way, they need to dump it!

 

And I've seen a couple of people say Saxon is "drill and kill" which cracks me up since there are also those who are complaining that the incremental approach doesn't allow mastery. It's not possible to be both ways. Those two complaints are in direct contradiction to each other. ;)

Also, I can't understand how a curriculum that uses so many story problems, every day, can possibly be limiting a child's learning of concepts.

Story problems ARE math.

 

 

Frankly, I think there are a number of people who just really don't understand what they're talking about...

[MamaSprout]

"Also add some math logic type programs. Key To books. reading from the Living Math booklists.

 

You may also just want to read the Knowing Mathematics book by Liping Ma."

 

 

The above would be my suggestions, too.

 

Bean

[MamaSprout]

[/size][/font][/color]

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.

 

I know some. My now college-age kids. They did not use Saxon as upper math, they used the Larson books (at least that's where they switched to preA)

 

Can I say it was only because of the books- no, I'm sure it was teachers, too. Two of the three were in accelerated public school programs. I do not miss the days of trying to figure out where the lead up to that day's topic had been taught in order to help with homework. I wish I'd known then about some of the resources that are available for after schooling.

 

Although they are math functional (their majors are Engineering, Health Science and Pre Law), I see cracks in their conceptual foundation.

 

However, give me choice between MUS and Saxon? If it's your only curriculum, I'll take the Saxon.

 

YMMV

 

Bean

[MotherOfBoys]

I use Saxon (lower grades) during the school year and then Life of Fred in the summer. LoF is fun, quick, independent, and a nice supplement to saxon.

 

I also agree with Erin. It sounds like there are people posting that haven't used Saxon long enough to see the approach clearly?