Why is Saxon Math either loved or hated?

[Wind-in-my-hair]

Strong script for the parent, lots of practice problems, and a sense of accomplishment for the math-shy student seem to be its main virtues. 

 

Its criticism seems to be in the way it negatively compares to SPM, of which I have no experience.

 

So what is it about Saxon that might be considered negative? Is it too didactic? Is it just not conceptually strong? Too much busywork? Is it the spiral approach that drives people mad?

 

I would love to hear from people who have experience with it. I am baffled at the mix of praise and resentment for this one curriculum. 

 

 

[Roadrunner]

, and a sense of accomplishment for the math-shy student seem to be its main virtues.

 

You mean a sense of frustration for mathy students because they have to do the same thing over and over and over again. You asked for criticism. :)

My kids need challenge, not a mind numbing drill. Singapore provides that challenge through its complementary books. They aren't thrilled about SM. Saxon would kill all love of math for them. If I had different kids, maybe......

[Crimson Wife]

Saxon is a solid program whose extreme "spiral" format can work great for certain students but can also drive others to want to poke their eyes out with a stick.

 

Some kids do better with a "soft spiral" program where each chapter is on a different topic that the student masters, then doesn't see again until the following year.

[Tsuga]

I think Singapore math allows you to skip drills if you only do half the program, as some posters have said.

 

If you are a concept-only person and hate doing repetition, you will prefer Singapore.

 

I will say, however, that I don't care if my child doesn't like drills. Except a tiny, tiny, tiny minority, most people will benefit from internalization of math concepts and application via drill and repetition.

 

No, they don't necessarily like it, but sometimes I don't like doing pilates either.

 

However, my abs would not be what they are without the drills.

 

I'm thinking that in order to perform at the highest levels of math, like internationally--well all those kids are both mathy and trained through repetition.

 

Kind of like some kids are naturally slim and can jog a kilometer without trouble, and some will struggle. But at some point, that slim kid who has an easy time with jogging is going to encounter other naturally talented runners.

 

And at that point, you will easily be able to distinguish the runners who did the drills and pushed themselves and internalized the starting block and the time and the feel of the track, and those who never practiced because it came easily.

 

Singapore is great but Singapore math scores on the PISA--one reason it got so much acclaim--did NOT come from concept workbooks alone. The drills are a key part of that program. Internalizing the processes required for math through drills is a key part of moving to the very highest math levels, so you don't spend brain power on computation of math facts or re-iteration of math concepts.

[Korrale]

Two sides of the same coin....

Hated because it is boring, loved because it builds rigor.

Some people love math play, more fun stuff, some love solid drilling.

Some prefer mastery, some prefer spiral.

Some people prefer their children to be guided in math, others prefer that they garner independence. Saxon is written to the student.

I don't think Saxon is neither good nor bad. What it really depends on is the parent and the child needing a method that fits their educational philosophy and learning style.

Fwiw I don't think that anyone who knows Saxon has ever complained that it was not a solid program. I think it really is. It is just that it was t a good fit.

[Jane in NC]

My son had attended a Montessori school and it seemed that there were some gaps in his math education.  Saxon offered him the opportunity to review and strengthen those weak spots at the pre-algebra level.

 

The spiral nature of the curriculum drove me bonkers though.  There is no way that I could have processed algebra in that manner so in 8th grade we ditched Saxon for my beloved Dolciani.

[purduemeche]

Saxon allows you to do the same thing as Singapore mentioned above....skip drill.  The common complaint I hear about Saxon is too much drill, but our role as teachers means we can skip drill if it isn't going to help our children.  We are Saxon converts to MUS, precisely because of the intensive drill, but we realize we will need to cut back some.

[Ellie]

Strong script for the parent, lots of practice problems, and a sense of accomplishment for the math-shy student seem to be its main virtues. 

 

Its criticism seems to be in the way it negatively compares to SPM, of which I have no experience.

 

So what is it about Saxon that might be considered negative? Is it too didactic? Is it just not conceptually strong? Too much busywork? Is it the spiral approach that drives people mad?

 

I would love to hear from people who have experience with it. I am baffled at the mix of praise and resentment for this one curriculum. 

 

The same can be said about almost any publisher/subject. :-)

 

It isn't spiral, it's incremental, but yeah, some people don't like it.

 

I can't figure out the whole conceptual/not-conceptual thing, but AFAIK, Saxon *does* teach concepts, so...

 

People who are fans of one publisher/method are of course not going to like different publishers/methods. Saxon has too much of a proven track record to dismiss because some people don't like it.

[leeannpal]

My daughter liked Saxon at first but then grew so tired of spiral review that changed. Last year while she was homeschooling, we used Horizons and liked it better. This year in private school she uses BJU. So far, she likes this one the best. If we homeschool again in January, we will stay with BJU.

[...................]

Well every time someone comes on explaining why they don't like Saxon, they get an earfull, but oh well...

 

When I liked Saxon, it was because:

 

Basic elementary tests scores were good

I understood the explanations (traditional, how I was taught)

It was EASY to use for a homeschool mom who was not mathy (the layout, the way the little numbers are next to the solutions, how every single problem does have a solution)

Nothing was left out (or so I thought), ie all concepts were covered

 

YOU MUST supplement Saxon math for it to be effective for application to anything real life or for conceptual work.  AND....it's not fun at. all.  But some kids absolutely need the incremental drill.

 

If you cannot apply the math in unusual out of the box word problems with multiple steps and understand how the algorithms work, then you don't "know math"...they are useless algorithms that you can only get so far with.

 

 

[regentrude]

So what is it about Saxon that might be considered negative? Is it too didactic? Is it just not conceptually strong? Too much busywork? Is it the spiral approach that drives people mad?

 

I can tell you what about Saxon did not work for us and our children:

 

Spiral method. My kids want to understand a topic comprehensively before moving to the next, instead of being offered a crumb and having to do something completely different the next day, before resuming the topic a week later.

 

Too much busywork. I have very strong math students who did not need the amount and kind of practice in Saxon.

 

Too many similar problems that could be done by turning the crank, too little creative thinking.

 

Lack of joy. We did not feel inspired by Saxon; it conveyed that math is important, but not that math is tremendous fun and a series of wonderful puzzles.

 

Some explanations were conceptually sloppy, formulas were given without being derived, and some derivations were not mathematically rigorous (without explicitly stating that they had to be so for lack of advanced tools).

 

We are much happier with a curriculum that

teaches to mastery instead of spiral,

has far fewer practice problems, but those are of a nature that the student has to think about a creative way to applied the learned concept for each problem

has mathematically rigorous derivations for every relationship

conveys utter JOY in mathematics.

[...................]

Yes Regentrude!!

 

Like, I wonder how many people who actually KNOW math (not that I do but I know moms that do) and have used either Beast or Singapore would actually go FROM that conceptual understanding TO Saxon?  Just curious....I hear of a lot of people going from poorly taught public school math to Saxon, or starting with Saxon...

 

And yes, I am so hoping that after this year of tutoring for problem solving that my son could take AOPS Algebra next year. ?  That would be the culmination of our rescue from Saxon.  Meanwhile I am crossing out 1/5 of the Horizons Busy work and my dd is flying through Zaccaro's primary and will be ready for Zaccaro's Middle School within a month. She loves actually using the math.  

 

It's harder, because we can't just use one book but it's better.  They are actually using the math now, all the time.

[imagine.more]

Spiral method drove me batty as a teacher, Saxon moved on before my students could even grasp the concept fully and it provided almost no help in explaining concepts. The way they even worded things was unusual and nonsensical to me. I was assured "oh, it'll spiral back around, they'll get it" but by the end of the year I was not at all confident that the students had learned ANYTHING from that program. The Saxon Phonics was even worse so I got a real sour taste in my mouth over Saxon.

 

We chose Singapore because it is mastery and because several math-minded people recommended it. I was taught basic public school math in the 90's and while I'm not bad at math I got to PreCalculus and then hit a wall, I didn't understand any of it! I squeaked by with a C....twice. I was so frustrated and I don't want my kids to hit that wall in math, I want them to go on as far as they have a desire to. So, we started in Singapore. And I can say it took my very literature-minded kid and turned him into a math whiz as well. He LOVES math, begs for more math, and truly understands it. 

 

Over on the former homeschooling student thread several people mentioned Saxon and hating it as students. My daughter used Saxon in 4th grade at her public school and hated it too. I think that is also worth taking note of. Besides the theoretic problems with the program (too much senseless drill, poor conceptual teaching, and spiral method that creates bad learning habits) I think it's worth taking note of how many students seem to have bad memories of Saxon specifically. I mean, some kids just won't like certain subjects no matter the curriculum but when so many mention hating Saxon specifically I have to think there's something more to it. 

[Ellie]

Yes Regentrude!!

 

Like, I wonder how many people who actually KNOW math (not that I do but I know moms that do) and have used either Beast or Singapore would actually go FROM that conceptual understanding TO Saxon?  Just curious....I hear of a lot of people going from poorly taught public school math to Saxon, or starting with Saxon...

 

 

I have several friends who are way mathier than I am, who love Saxon and whose dc used Saxon all the way through high school, and who went on to real-life careers well prepared. Some of them have math degrees and were *not* taught poorly in public school.  

 

And none of y'all have ever explained to me why Saxon isn't "conceptual." Or even what "conceptual" is.

[AimeeM]

Honestly, there's not much more love/hate for this than for any other program.

 

Saxon brought my previously math-loving girl to her knees; there were tears. It's uninspired, tedious, ridiculously tightly spiraled (and we like spiral; love CLE, but Saxon is just TOO TIGHTLY spiraled, imo). Honestly, it reads as though the person who wrote it hates math.

 

So that's why we dislike Saxon. You asked :D

[Crimson Wife]

 

If you cannot apply the math in unusual out of the box word problems with multiple steps and understand how the algorithms work, then you don't "know math"...they are useless algorithms that you can only get so far with.

 

 

 

Most students, even most college-bound students, are not headed into engineering or other STEM field where they need to be able to do high-level math. Many college majors just require students to be able to pass a College Algebra or stats class in order to satisfy general ed requirements.

 

Saxon may not be the best choice for a future STEM major but there are plenty of HS and private school graduates who found it fine preparation for getting through a basic college math for liberal arts/social science majors course.

[OneStepAtATime]

CLE does spiral and incremental steps, too, but I like the spiral/incremental of CLE far better than Saxon.  I used to think spiral instead of mastery was a bad idea for my kids until I found CLE that incorporates spiral, and incremental and does it well.  Saxon just didn't work as well for us, although we didn't use it for very long. 

 

As with any math program, though, some will fit well with some kids and some teachers and some won't.  There are a lot of people who have used Saxon very successfully.  I think that is true of nearly ANY well done curriculum.  What fits great for one family may be a terrible fit for another family.  Saxon is a great fit for many.  When it isn't a great fit, it usually ends up being a truly dismal fit, but there are a lot of families that mesh well with Saxon.

 

I agree with others, though, what makes math interesting for many and what can really help get concepts over clearly is the fun, conceptual stuff like in Beast Academy and some of the Math in Focus (Singapore based) math word problems, etc.  Even my math challenged child enjoys math so much more with those programs.  Not with Saxon.  

 

What I found really interesting, as was mentioned by a previous poster, was the thread regarding homeschoolers who now homeschool and what their memories were of being homeschooled themselves.  There were a whole lot of them that specifically talked about hating Saxon math.  I don't think any other math program was mentioned as being something people hated that consistently on that thread.

 

Edited to add:  There ARE kids out there that have switched to other math programs and wanted to go back to Saxon.  And there are a LOT of families on this Forum that have successfully used Saxon all the way through.  Some will love it and some will hate it but I do think it interesting that this program inspires some pretty strong feelings on both sides.  I find the OPs question interesting.

[Dory]

I grew up on Saxon and hated it pretty strongly. I never fully understood it, just memorized the steps. It's constant spiraling left me feeling like math was disconnected and I had to memorize each piece on it's own instead of seeing that they all connect together. There was lots of 'review' but to me it was just a huge amount of work. So long as I memorized the steps, I got all the questions correct but the constant reviewing didn't really connect any of the pieces together, it was just repetitive.  I really don't think I could come up with one good thing to say about that math as I saw it back then. I do know all the steps in math pretty good, and for some career choices that would really be all I'd need. I would never choose it for a kid who wanted a future in a STEM career. 

[wendyroo]

I've never used Saxon, but I looked through it at a local homeschool store, and I can tell you why I decided not to use it.

 

From everything I've seen and heard, Saxon teaches the student how to do.  Do this in exactly this way, because this is the right way to do it.  Now do it again and again and again.

 

Singapore teaches the student how to think.  How could you solve this?  Can you prove your answer is right?  Can you think of another way you could solve it?  How could you apply those concepts to this other type of problem?

 

I think this can be seen by looking at the respective programs' placement tests.

 

To test into Saxon 3, the placement test asks the student:

 â€œHow much money is this?† (Showing them 4 dimes, 3 nickels, and 2 pennies)

 

“Draw hands on this clock to show half past one.â€

 

“Divide the square into 4 equal parts.â€

“Color three fourths of the square.â€

 

 

To test into Singapore 3, the placement test asks the student:

"Paul wanted to buy two candy bars. One cost $0.55 and the other 

cost $0.35. He gave the cashier 4 quarters. How much change did 

he receive?"

 

"A test started at 10:30 a.m. 

It ended at 11:20 a.m. How long did it last? "

 

"4/7 and _________ make 1 whole. "

 

"Arrange the fractions in order, beginning with the smallest.   1/6, 1/8, 1/2, 1/3"

 

 

I have nothing against Saxon if it works for other kids and families, but it is not the math education I want for my kids.

 

Wendy

[AimeeM]

I have several friends who are way mathier than I am, who love Saxon and whose dc used Saxon all the way through high school, and who went on to real-life careers well prepared. Some of them have math degrees and were *not* taught poorly in public school.  

 

And none of y'all have ever explained to me why Saxon isn't "conceptual." Or even what "conceptual" is.

One could argue that naturally mathy people will do well with almost any math program :) My husband is one. While he didn't feel particularly inspired by any one book used in his parochial school math education, he would have done well regardless... unless, as he acknowledges, someone had went out of their way to break his spirit about math. In his opinion, Saxon may have done just that if he'd used it in school :D

 

Conceptual is the buzz word these days. FWIW, I don't really care if something is or isn't conceptual. It's been my experience that even programs that aren't touted as "conceptual" (like my own beloved CLE) certainly DO teach the concepts; in fact, using the grade 1 CLE math for the first time, it's is a LOT of teaching the concepts with manipulatives - entirely teacher intensive, lol. 

 

I've come to realize that I dislike using "conceptual" -vs- whatever else when talking about math. If a program lacks something (in CLE's case, strong word problems), I'll supplement it.  

 

I can't supplement Saxon. It's just dreadful for us. I know it works well for some others. It just doesn't work here.

[Ellie]

Most students, even most college-bound students, are not headed into engineering or other STEM field where they need to be able to do high-level math. Many college majors just require students to be able to pass a College Algebra or stats class in order to satisfy general ed requirements. Saxon may not be the best choice for a future STEM major but there are plenty of HS and private school graduates who found it fine preparation for getting through a basic college math for liberal arts/social science majors course.

 

But there are still plenty of students who *are* headed into engineering or other STEM fields who *did* use Saxon and were very well prepared for their careers. The teachers who came through the Saxon booths at teacher conventions I attended raved all day long about Saxon, and about the number of their students who had gone on to advanced math fields in much greater numbers than when they had used other publishers. And Saxon's incremental approach (not spiral--incremental) was key to its successful results.

 

Honestly, I don't know where y'all come up with your statistics, lol.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Saxon allows you to do the same thing as Singapore mentioned above....skip drill.  The common complaint I hear about Saxon is too much drill, but our role as teachers means we can skip drill if it isn't going to help our children.  We are Saxon converts to MUS, precisely because of the intensive drill, but we realize we will need to cut back some.

I am not sure what you mean by skip drill since from what I understand the Saxon books from at least Algebra 1 and up are designed to not skip any problems at all. I believe the lower books might be the same. I think Art Reed said that it is critical to every problem because if you don't then you may miss some key concepts and practice.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Most students, even most college-bound students, are not headed into engineering or other STEM field where they need to be able to do high-level math. Many college majors just require students to be able to pass a College Algebra or stats class in order to satisfy general ed requirements. Saxon may not be the best choice for a future STEM major but there are plenty of HS and private school graduates who found it fine preparation for getting through a basic college math for liberal arts/social science majors course.

BASIS Charter schools whose high schools have consistently ranked in the top 5 or top 10 high schools for the country use Saxon math quite successfully. Their curriculum is heavily science and math focused plus a heavy dose of humanities. Their kids often get 5's on AP Calculus exams from what I heard. I think that is a pretty big endorsement for Saxon math for STEM focused kids as well as those who are not STEM focused.

[regentrude]

I am not sure what you mean by skip drill since from what I understand the Saxon books from at least Algebra 1 and up are designed to not skip any problems at all. I believe the lower books might be the same. I think Art Reed said that it is critical to every problem because if you don't then you may miss some key concepts and practice.

 

Yes, but if you know what you are doing, it is possible to evaluate which of the problems are needed for your student, which present new concepts, which are merely busywork, and cut accordingly

Even if "Art reed says so", he does not know MY students and can not know how much practice they need.

 

FWIW, I ruthlessly cut out drill from Saxon 8/7 so that my DS could complete the lessons that contained the prealgebra material in 5 months of 5th grade and was prepared to move into a strong algebra program. (And I cut a lot of problems with DD the year before).

the fact that both were perfectly capable of succeeding in AoPS algebra is proof that they did not  "miss key concepts or practice"

 

Of course  need to be able to discern between different problems and evaluate which ones your student needs and understand the differences between problems before you tweak a program. But any program that claims it MUST be used in ONE particular way only disregards that students come with different abilities. Adopting a math curriculum does not mean joining a cult.

 

[regentrude]

I was going to stay out of this thread (because my comments have been repeated over and over in threads like this), but I thought that I'd mention (again) that I have my BS in mathematics, and I used Saxon with my kids from Math 1 all the way through calculus.  I now have two university students, one of them being an engineering major.  Granted, they are still in their first semester of college, so the jury's still out on how they will do, but...  my point is that Saxon, IMO, is a solid program that works just fine.  I took some time to look closely at Singapore math at a curriculum fair several years ago, and I decided that we'd just stick with Saxon.

 

I do not dispute that it is a solid program.

I do have a question for you as a mathematician, however: Did you ever feel that Saxon inspires JOY and excitement?

because some people want more than a merely utilitarian program; they would like *inspiration*.

 

 

[...................]

I was going to stay out of this thread (because my comments have been repeated over and over in threads like this), but I thought that I'd mention (again) that I have my BS in mathematics, and I used Saxon with my kids from Math 1 all the way through calculus.  I now have two university students, one of them being an engineering major.  Granted, they are still in their first semester of college, so the jury's still out on how they will do, but...  my point is that Saxon, IMO, is a solid program that works just fine.  I took some time to look closely at Singapore math at a curriculum fair several years ago, and I decided that we'd just stick with Saxon.

 

 

Did you supplement?  How much?

[OneStepAtATime]

I do not dispute that it is a solid program.

I do have a question for you as a mathematician, however: Did you ever feel that Saxon inspires JOY and excitement?

because some people want more than a merely utilitarian program; they would like *inspiration*.

Honestly, this is why I supplement CLE with Beast Academy and Zacarro's and other material.  For inspiration.  Although they have really enjoyed CLE, are retaining the information very well and do not complain about lessons anymore.  And frequently look forward to them.  DD even sometimes does additional lessons.  The other adds a much needed and loved additional layer, though.  

 

With Saxon and other programs we tried, just doing utilitarian math killed any love of math for my kids, especially since one struggles terribly with computational skills.  Seeing that there is more to math than just addition, subtraction, multiplication and division got her interested in math again.  And enjoying it.

 

But Saxon works just fine for a lot of families.

[mathnmusic]

We did Saxon for 2 years but it was with tears (my son's, not mine) - he gets concepts quickly and it was just so wordy, the student workbooks resembled novels in their word-count.  It literally pained him and caused groans.  Another issue was that there were too many repetitive practice problems, it was like beating a dead horse.  CLE is also spiral and just as rigorous, IMO, but much cleaner-pages, straight-forward and efficient.  DS actually enjoys CLE math.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

BASIS Charter schools whose high schools have consistently ranked in the top 5 or top 10 high schools for the country use Saxon math quite successfully. Their curriculum is heavily science and math focused plus a heavy dose of humanities. Their kids often get 5's on AP Calculus exams from what I heard. I think that is a pretty big endorsement for Saxon math for STEM focused kids as well as those who are not STEM focused.

Having said the above, I also wish his school used AOPS or Singapore but Saxon has served him well too.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yes, but if you know what you are doing, it is possible to evaluate which of the problems are needed for your student, which present new concepts, which are merely busywork, and cut accordingly

Even if "Art reed says so", he does not know MY students and can not know how much practice they need.

 

FWIW, I ruthlessly cut out drill from Saxon 8/7 so that my DS could complete the lessons that contained the prealgebra material in 5 months of 5th grade and was prepared to move into a strong algebra program. (And I cut a lot of problems with DD the year before).

the fact that both were perfectly capable of succeeding in AoPS algebra is proof that they did not  "miss key concepts or practice"

 

Of course  need to be able to discern between different problems and evaluate which ones your student needs and understand the differences between problems before you tweak a program. But any program that claims it MUST be used in ONE particular way only disregards that students come with different abilities. Adopting a math curriculum does not mean joining a cult.

This makes sense to me too since I know the school I referred to will also skip some kids straight to Algebra 1 who have mastered multiplication, division, decimals, fractions, and some basic algebraic concepts. As for discerning which ones to skip, I do not have the know how at higher levels of math to do so. The school does not skip problems the overwhelming majority of time but they tend not to finish the last 10 chapters or so.

[chiguirre]

Like, I wonder how many people who actually KNOW math (not that I do but I know moms that do) and have used either Beast or Singapore would actually go FROM that conceptual understanding TO Saxon?  

 

We have for this year. Trinqueta was ready for algebra, but she hit the argue-about-everything stage at the same time. We really needed to step back from me correcting her work and the VHSG's at-your-own-pace Saxon Algebra 1 solved the problem for us. I think it works well for a first pass at algebra with a younger than typical student. I'm not sure yet if it will be our only pass through algebra or if we'll go back to DM or Foerster or Dolciani.

 

Saxon doesn't have the in depth thinking questions that Sing Math has, but it does make sure you've got the algorithms down and that you pay attention to details. At this stage, that's what T needs. Once she's used to keeping track of signs, exponents and variables, we can stretch her skills with Alcumus or competition math. But she needed to learn the nuts and bolts of working with equations first. Saxon does provide that instruction without frustrating her. Since we're using VHSG, half of the assignments are complete problem sets and half are just the new topic. That seems to be enough for T and her test scores have been solid.

[regentrude]

Hmmm... I seriously don't think that many math programs "inspire joy".  I think that many good math programs do, however, inspire competency, which is my goal in teaching math.  If I want to make math "cool" and "fun", then that's largely up to me, the teacher.

 

Ours does :-) When you have a kid jump up and down because the new math book came in the mail, or hear them exclaim "that's soooo cool!" when they are working, you know you have a gem.

I do not have to make math cool and fun, because math already is cool and fun - unless it is presented in a boring uninspiring way.

I like using a curriculum that radiates this joy and excitement from every page, that screams that the authors is thrilled about math and wants to convey this love to the student.

I prefer that over trying to add joy to a program that treats math like cod liver oil "because it's good for you". Competency is necessary, of course, but I want more from my math, if that makes any sense.

 

[trulycrabby]

Singapore Math is our primary curriculum, and by the time the child has done the Textbook, Workbook, Extra Practice book, Intensive Practice book, and Challenging Word Problems, and Tests, he has had plenty of repetition, enough to rival Saxon, IMO. We love it, and no, I don't make DS10 do every problem from all those books. Just sometimes, when he needs additional work to solidify a concept. :)

 

That said, I believe Saxon Math is an excellent curriculum which will produce very competent mathmeticians, engineers, scientists, and homeschooling moms. :)

[EmseB]

Ours does :-) When you have a kid jump up and down because the new math book came in the mail, or hear them exclaim "that's soooo cool!" when they are working, you know you have a gem.

I do not have to make math cool and fun, because math already is cool and fun - unless it is presented in a boring uninspiring way.

I like using a curriculum that radiates this joy and excitement from every page, that screams that the authors is thrilled about math and wants to convey this love to the student.

I prefer that over trying to add joy to a program that treats math like cod liver oil "because it's good for you". Competency is necessary, of course, but I want more from my math, if that makes any sense.

 

I use Saxon supplemented with BA.  I thought my kid would love BA in the way you're talking about, but it's funny because he actually prefers the Saxon and likes doing the lesson with me each day and having a cut and dry worksheet.  He likes the concreteness of it, I think, if that makes sense.

 

I do think this is because my kid is used to things coming easy for him and that is exactly the reason we do some BA once a week.  I make him do it because it's good for him.  :P  And I know it is presented in a plenty fun way, but he'd just rather do easy.  But it's not like we're giving it to him as an "eat your veggies", because his dad loves to sit with him and figure out the problems and help him through it, and we all appreciate a really cool equation in this house.  And he is happy when the lightbulb goes on, it's just he would prefer not to have to work for it, so BA is not exactly joyful for him.  He is only 7 though, so that might be part of it.

 

 

 

And (separate from the above quote) I think the idea that Saxon doesn't produce kids who are ready for STEM degrees is an inaccurate generalization.  One of the smartest people I know has a PhD in a STEM field (obtained at a relatively young age) and was homeschooled using Saxon through graduation.  Did it work for him because he was gifted at math?  I don't know, but my point is Saxon didn't fail him because it wasn't innovative or "conceptual" enough.

[Hunter]

Sorry, I didn't read every post, but...

 

There is FIRST edition Saxon books and then there are the CURRENT editions of Saxon and they are NOT they same thing.

 

There is the 54-Calculus and then there is the K-3 and they are NOT the same thing.

 

Sometimes the love/hate is because people are not even talking about the same curriculum.

[Pronghorn]

Some kids, including mine, don't do well with a lot of repetition. My daughter's brain seems to go into a brown-out condition when she is faced with a series of familiar problems. When given variety, she becomes highly engaged, sometimes almost brilliant. I would rather she keep her brain in the highly engaged mode. That is best for all of us.

[Ms.Ivy]

I was homeschooled with Saxon. We switched from A Beka in 4th grade, and it was a HUGE improvement over A Beka.  Although I found the lessons boring, I was happy with Saxon because I was able to get really good math scores.  I memorized all the algorithms because of the daily review and practice built into each lesson.  That part of Saxon, I admire.  And I felt confident in math.  HOWEVER....

As soon as I took a college algebra class, I was doomed.  I realized that I had never learned what the algorithms were FOR, or WHY I was using any of them.  I was totally lost.  I am not the kind of person that can figure that sort of thing out on my own.  I need it all spelled out for me.  Saxon does not do that.  It's a book that is supposed to be used with a math teacher.  My mom thought I could do it independently -- and it seemed I could, because of the great test scores.  

 

I thought that math was some sort of magical code that only certain people could experiment and figure out.  I was totally shocked when I got my hands on Singapore Primary Mathematics, Right Start, Liping Ma's book (the title escapes me at the moment) and the Education Unboxed videos.  (All of which I found due to the recommendations on this board!)  I was shocked that I could understand math!  That it WASN'T so magical or mysterious.... it was logical and knowable by regular people like me.  

 

All my siblings feel the same way about Saxon.  I have one brother who, although he used Saxon, has a great natural talent for math and has a STEM career -- did okay in college math, although he had to redo some algebra.  

 

So, this is why I "hate" Saxon.  If you know math yourself, you can probably do okay teaching math to your kids using Saxon.   But if your kid isn't a math genius, and you have had a bad math education yourself, I wouldn't expect Saxon to work any miracles.  Test results may look good for a while, but I want more than just test scores for my kids.  

 

As a side note, one difference in the way Saxon and Singapore PM approach concepts is that Saxon will introduce the concept once, maybe in separated pieces, but usually presenting one way to solve a problem -- while Singapore will slowly work its way into several ways to solve a problem by introducing the concepts in steps.  And Singapore checks for understanding by presenting the problems in different ways, so you really have to understand what you're doing before you can move on.  

Saxon's greatest strength -- the daily repetition -- can also be a crutch and a source of boredom for a lot of students.  I feel like there are so many good alternatives to Saxon nowadays.  Back in the 80s it was a welcome change from what was available, but I think we can safely move on  ;-)

[Korrale]

I have several friends who are way mathier than I am, who love Saxon and whose dc used Saxon all the way through high school, and who went on to real-life careers well prepared. Some of them have math degrees and were *not* taught poorly in public school.

 

And none of y'all have ever explained to me why Saxon isn't "conceptual." Or even what "conceptual" is.

Likewise the people I know in math and engineering fields are huge fans of Saxon Math.

[Momling]

We're going to give Saxon a try for geometry when we finish Algebra 1 (Foerster). I'm curious how it'll go... My daughter is good at math but dislikes it, but we've come to a place where she no longer complains. I don't try to find ways to make it fun or relevant or cool because she just wants to do it and move on. My thinking is that she'll appreciate the plain pages, straightforward lessons and consistent number of problems. I'm hoping that the amount of algebra in the book will keep it fresh for her.

[AimeeM]

Ours does :-) When you have a kid jump up and down because the new math book came in the mail, or hear them exclaim "that's soooo cool!" when they are working, you know you have a gem.

I do not have to make math cool and fun, because math already is cool and fun - unless it is presented in a boring uninspiring way.

I like using a curriculum that radiates this joy and excitement from every page, that screams that the authors is thrilled about math and wants to convey this love to the student.

I prefer that over trying to add joy to a program that treats math like cod liver oil "because it's good for you". Competency is necessary, of course, but I want more from my math, if that makes any sense.

What she said.

I find no real, personal joy in mathematics. Unfortunately (well, maybe fortunately) for me, I have children, thus far, who enjoy math. Well, DD used to. If I could find a program that inspired joy for math for her again? I don't know that there isn't a price I'd pay. I miss her sitting at the whiteboard, at 11 pm, with Dad's old trig book, insisting he "teach her JUST ONE MORE" before bed.

Unfortunately, that joy for her is dead. I'm trying to revive it, but I struggle with it since I do not personally enjoy math. We settle for now, for one that doesn't cause tears, but I wish she had *more*.

[Tsuga]

I do not dispute that it is a solid program.

I do have a question for you as a mathematician, however: Did you ever feel that Saxon inspires JOY and excitement?

because some people want more than a merely utilitarian program; they would like *inspiration*.

 

I studied higher math and I liked Saxon and yes. It saved math for me.

 

However, people have said it has changed; so that was for what they had in the 1990s.

 

ETA--I just looked up Singapore for third grade.

 

It is the same stuff, with more problems per page and less concept work, than my daughter is getting in SECOND GRADE in her public school--public school, in the US--math book. This is not the gifted program.

 

Am I looking at the wrong thing?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Math-Practice-Level-Grade/dp/0768240026#reader_0768240026

 

http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Math-Practice-Level-Grade/dp/0768239923/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416123394&sr=1-1&keywords=singapore+math+grade+3+2a#reader_0768239923

 

LOL. They did thousands, hundreds, tens and ones with the public school books last year.

 

This year, they are moving to multiplication and division. And again--this is second grade.

 

For pete's sake, people are pulling their "mathy" kids out of public schools for this? What?

 

 

Here is Houghton Mifflin--now I'm not trying to sell this because I have plenty of issues with their textbooks-- for 2nd grade:

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mw/minv/3/minv_3c2.html

 

Now THAT is conceptual.

 

 

 

 

 

My stepson's big challenge starting fifth grade was multiplying three digit numbers together--well, it took him a bit to remember it.

 

He had to complete 15 problems and then explain why two were wrong. And again, we are talking public school.

 

Here is the start of Singapore:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Math-Practice-Level-Grade/dp/076823994X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416123549&sr=1-1&keywords=singapore+math+fifth+grade#reader_076823994X

 

Uh... am I missing something? Is fifth grade actually fourth grade in that system?

 

How could "mathy" kids possibly be challenged by this?

 

Start of Houghton Mifflin for 5th grade:

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mthexp/g5/challenge/pdf/cm_g5_1_1.pdf

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mthexp/g5/challenge/pdf/cm_g5_1_7.pdf (<- Seriously, if your kid loves math, check this public school math out--they will love it. Also, as someone who has completed upper-level math courses, this kind of proof is very useful in linear algebra.)

 

That's public school. Yep, good old uncle sam contracting to one of the most popular math textbooks in the United States.

 

Here is Saxon:

 

http://www.kgbsd.org/Page/2970

 

Still more conceptual than the Singapore example I found although I will say that my daughters general education, non-gifted class of learners have learned even from odd based on the last digit in the FIRST GRADE because it is really just not that complicated, so uh... wow.

 

So I guess if you want conceptual, go to public school?

 

The idea that "mathy" people would not enjoy the worksheets from any program is like saying that a musical child couldn't enjoy arpeggios over and over and over and over. Sure, you like challenge, but it's also fun to practice.

[lewelma]

Binip, I don't usually respond to math threads because my ds's experience is so unusual that it can't really help anyone, but I do feel the need to respond to two of your quotes:
 

I'm thinking that in order to perform at the highest levels of math, like internationally--well all those kids are both mathy and trained through repetition.

This is false. My ds is set to represent NZ in the International Math Olympiad, and he has never done drill, ever.

I have often compared math drill for him to proof reading a phone book. You might have good intentions, but you. just. can. not. do. it. If I had asked him to do Saxon, he would have tried, procrastinated, cried, and quit. There is a level of math student that Saxon just can't work for. And I am not talking about budding Engineers.
 

The idea that "mathy" people would not enjoy the worksheets from any program is like saying that a musical child couldn't enjoy arpeggios over and over and over and over. Sure, you like challenge, but it's also fun to practice.

No, it is very different. Math for him is not about replicating what he has been taught, but rather creatively solving problems that are *nothing* like he has ever seen before.  He is currently taking Olympiad Geometry, and they are given TWO homework problems for the *week* and these are expected to take 10-12 hours.

Last year, my ds solved this problem after he had finished only Algebra 1 and 1/2 of Algebra 2:

In a sequence of positive integers an inversion is a pair of positions such that the element
in the position to the left is greater than the element in the position to the right. For
instance the sequence 2,5,3,1,3 has five inversions -- between the first and fourth positions,
the second and all later positions, and between the third and fourth positions. What is
the largest possible number of inversions in a sequence of positive integers whose sum is
2014?

This is considered a problem that bright high school students can tackle, and it took my ds 20 hours to answer. My point is that there is a level of math that Saxon does not touch, at all. It just does not train students to think creatively about math.

Saxon is clearly good for some kids. But for the internationally competitive kids, Saxon is not only not going to cut it, but in my experience is not a program that my ds could actually even do.

Ruth in NZ
 

[deerforest]

The Singapore stuff linked above is not the curriculum folks refer to. I have never understood what those workbooks are. Here is a link to some of the books folks refer to: http://www.singaporemath.com/mobile/Category.aspx?id=134

 

To me conceptual is going beyond memorizing algorithms and learning how they came to be or why they work. For example, many math programs encourage the memorization of divisibility rules but do they all explain why they work? Beast Academy covers some in 4B and then more in 4C. My daughter isn't a fan of memorization but her overwhelming excitement at figuring why these work ensures she won't forget them now. She was jumping up and down and so thrilled about it.

 

That's the joy of mathematics. Seeing all those wacky and almost hair-raising ways that math just IS. I was a PhD candidate in neuroscience and have had advanced, grad level math but I never felt math was more than utilitarian until I started re-learning it with DD.

[SeaConquest]

Binip,

 

The Singapore that we use is the Primary Mathematics series -- specifically the Intensive Practice and Challenging Word Problems books. We also supplement with books by Ed Zaccaro and Cleo Borac. These may give you a better picture of the rigor. I'd link you up, but am mobile.

[The Governess]

I studied higher math and I liked Saxon and yes. It saved math for me.

 

However, people have said it has changed; so that was for what they had in the 1990s.

 

ETA--I just looked up Singapore for third grade.

 

It is the same stuff, with more problems per page and less concept work, than my daughter is getting in SECOND GRADE in her public school--public school, in the US--math book. This is not the gifted program.

 

Am I looking at the wrong thing?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Math-Practice-Level-Grade/dp/0768240026#reader_0768240026

 

http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Math-Practice-Level-Grade/dp/0768239923/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416123394&sr=1-1&keywords=singapore+math+grade+3+2a#reader_0768239923

 

LOL. They did thousands, hundreds, tens and ones with the public school books last year.

 

This year, they are moving to multiplication and division. And again--this is second grade.

 

For pete's sake, people are pulling their "mathy" kids out of public schools for this? What?

 

 

Here is Houghton Mifflin--now I'm not trying to sell this because I have plenty of issues with their textbooks-- for 2nd grade:

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mw/minv/3/minv_3c2.html

 

Now THAT is conceptual.

 

 

 

 

 

My stepson's big challenge starting fifth grade was multiplying three digit numbers together--well, it took him a bit to remember it.

 

He had to complete 15 problems and then explain why two were wrong. And again, we are talking public school.

 

Here is the start of Singapore:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Math-Practice-Level-Grade/dp/076823994X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416123549&sr=1-1&keywords=singapore+math+fifth+grade#reader_076823994X

 

Uh... am I missing something? Is fifth grade actually fourth grade in that system?

 

How could "mathy" kids possibly be challenged by this?

 

Start of Houghton Mifflin for 5th grade:

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mthexp/g5/challenge/pdf/cm_g5_1_1.pdf

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mthexp/g5/challenge/pdf/cm_g5_1_7.pdf (<- Seriously, if your kid loves math, check this public school math out--they will love it. Also, as someone who has completed upper-level math courses, this kind of proof is very useful in linear algebra.)

 

That's public school. Yep, good old uncle sam contracting to one of the most popular math textbooks in the United States.

 

Here is Saxon:

 

http://www.kgbsd.org/Page/2970

 

Still more conceptual than the Singapore example I found although I will say that my daughters general education, non-gifted class of learners have learned even from odd based on the last digit in the FIRST GRADE because it is really just not that complicated, so uh... wow.

 

So I guess if you want conceptual, go to public school?

 

The idea that "mathy" people would not enjoy the worksheets from any program is like saying that a musical child couldn't enjoy arpeggios over and over and over and over. Sure, you like challenge, but it's also fun to practice.

If you want to look at the true Singapore Math curriculum, go to singaporemath.com. The workbooks sold on Amazon are put out by a different publisher. The 2A/2B books are labeled grade 3 by that particular publisher but they are really grade 2. A lot of the conceptual work is located in the instructor's guide and the textbook. The books you linked are practice books and are not a true example of the Singapore methodology.

[TracyP]

 

 

ETA--I just looked up Singapore for third grade.

 

Am I looking at the wrong thing?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Math-Practice-Level-Grade/dp/0768240026#reader_0768240026

 

http://www.amazon.com/Singapore-Math-Practice-Level-Grade/dp/0768239923/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416123394&sr=1-1&keywords=singapore+math+grade+3+2a#reader_0768239923

 

 

As others have said, YES, this is the wrong thing. It is some publisher's attempt to use Singapore's good name to sell math books. I don't use SM, but here is a link to placement tests which will give you an idea what is covered. You can rest assured that everything that is there is taught conceptually.

 

 

Here is Houghton Mifflin--now I'm not trying to sell this because I have plenty of issues with their textbooks-- for 2nd grade:

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mw/minv/3/minv_3c2.html

 

Now THAT is conceptual.

 

 

 

When people are talking about conceptual, they mean a math program that teaches *why* math works the way it does. It is the difference between a math book that says, "Multiplying fractions is easy - just multiply across the top and across the bottom" and one that teaches why this works.

 

 

Start of Houghton Mifflin for 5th grade:

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mthexp/g5/challenge/pdf/cm_g5_1_1.pdf

 

http://www.eduplace.com/math/mthexp/g5/challenge/pdf/cm_g5_1_7.pdf (<- Seriously, if your kid loves math, check this public school math out--they will love it. Also, as someone who has completed upper-level math courses, this kind of proof is very useful in linear algebra.)

 

 

THIS is conceptual. This is the type of thing that Singapore, Math Mammoth, and AoPS do all the time. I'm sure there are other programs, too - I'm only listing the ones I know. I agree, this is great stuff, which explains why some like these other programs much more than Saxon.

 

I have seen many posts (on this board and another) where kids using Singapore are struggling. IMO, most kids will need added drill, and many Singapore users do not realize that this is something that parents in Singapore provide for their kids. So I think I agree with your overall point.

 

Regenetrude was asking about programs that inspire JOY. In the case of AoPS, it shows a joy and beauty of math that I didn't realize was possible. My dd subtitled her AoPS notebook 'the most interesting math ever in the whole wide world." :D I suspect that she would not have done that with Saxon.

[Crimson Wife]

 Their kids often get 5's on AP Calculus exams from what I heard. I think that is a pretty big endorsement for Saxon math for STEM focused kids as well as those who are not STEM focused.

 

I have heard many complaints from people I know who are college professors about students arriving with high AP test scores not actually being prepared for math & engineering courses at the university level. Some schools are no longer allowing students with 5's to skip intro courses because too many were struggling in the later courses. That suggests high scores on the AP exams don't actually indicate readiness for university STEM courses.

[regentrude]

I have heard many complaints from people I know who are college professors about students arriving with high AP test scores not actually being prepared for math & engineering courses at the university level. Some schools are no longer allowing students with 5's to skip intro courses because too many were struggling in the later courses. That suggests high scores on the AP exams don't actually indicate readiness for university STEM courses.

 

Yes, I heard that from my colleagues in the math department as well.  Students coming in with AP scores, but failing the precalculus placement test.

[specialkmom]

My 4th grader and 2nd grader have done Singapore St. Ed. from the beginning, my 2nd grader finished 2a last year. My 4th grader did SM 3 and Beast Academy 3 A&B last year. Due to moving overseas and being a full time student this year, my boys are both in school. The school uses Saxon. My boys and I are not fans. They are so bored. For one, it is nothing but review for my 2nd grader. And with the exception of a few concepts, pretty much review for my 4th grader. They both are asking me for the fun, harder math. We are finishing Beast 3C&D and SM Intensive Review as my time allows. My older son takes Beast to school with him and does it during down time in class. We go over it together at home.

 

My son's 4th grade Saxon book is dry, tightly spiraled, and with the exception of a few problems lacks the inspiration and thinking skills that Singapore and Beast cultivate. I'm with Regentrude on desiring math curriculum that brings joy to my students. I never considered myself good at math and I actually always hated it. I wanted better for my kids than just a human calculator. I wanted them to think, understand, and enjoy. Singapore and now Beast has done that for them. MEP also was a great addition here and there.

Every child is different and Saxon may be a good fit for some. But, my kids and I can't wait to get back to homeschooling next year and our old math curriculum.

[Jane in NC]

I have heard many complaints from people I know who are college professors about students arriving with high AP test scores not actually being prepared for math & engineering courses at the university level. Some schools are no longer allowing students with 5's to skip intro courses because too many were struggling in the later courses. That suggests high scores on the AP exams don't actually indicate readiness for university STEM courses.

 

One of my beefs with the AP Calc exams is the reliance on calculator algorithms.  No delta/epsilon limit proofs but using a calculator to integrate numerically?  Not something I would do in my classes!