We Can Do by Moshe Kai with guest Robert Levy discussing Saxon Math.

[PokerDad]

Two more articles for Robert Levy's amusement:

It's Everyday Math's Fault

That article cites this one from a few months ago, also posted for Robert's amusement:
Is Everyday Math The Worst Math Program Ever?

In this second one they cite the "what works clearinghouse" which I had forgotten all about! It's like coming full circle sometimes.

Also in the second article, they cite actual research that illustrates Everyday Math's ineffectiveness.

I hope you get a chuckle out this Robert. I did. 

[Robert Levy]

That's too funny, thanks P-Dad.

I thinking, just this week, about Everyday Math and just how hard it has been to wake people up to just how terrible it is.  The vast majority of parents simply feel unqualified to take a stand and figure that the "experts" will take care of it.  Then Common Core comes around and the people that have been fighting Everyday Math now have a much easier target to shoot at...even if it's not the reality.  When I saw the articles and example, I said to myself “I’ve seen stuff like that from the first days of Everyday Math, nothing new here”.

But just having people saying that Common Core represents the Obama Administration shoving these crazy ideas into our schools will get half of the parents on board, and actually looking hard at the curricula, usually for the first time.  From my standpoint, I could care less whether the two concepts are being confused (intentionally or not), only that horrendous materials, like Everyday Math, get some light shined on it.

As to Common Core itself, it may have started as a "collaboration of the states", but once the federal government offered $4.35 Billion to the states to implement it, it did become federalized (i.e., Race to the Top, as they called it).  It should also be noted that many of the people involved in Common Core have been trying to federalize education their entire working career.  It's just that they finally realized that they could not get away with shoving down a federal curriculum (which may be illegal too), so they had to make it look like a state-led effort.

By the way, if you're wondering why there is such a strong drive to centralize curricula, it is because that is much, much, easier to control (you don't have to fight 50 battles, only one), and it is much harder for parents to fight, as everyone can simply blame the next level up, right up to Washington.

So what would I do now if David were 2 years old?  Exactly what I did, as I keep coming back to the same conclusions.  For reading, you teach him to read – that simple.  As you guys know, he was an excellent reader by the time he was 5 years old.  There is nothing that a future teacher can do to him to make him “unlearn” reading.  They can just throw garbage at him and he’ll twiddle his thumbs all day.  Likewise with math.  By being able to do math right, he then has a way to check his work that others don’t have (even if he has to erase his work on tests, so the teachers don’t know he’s doing it that way, since that would be ‘cheating’).  Once he’s good at math, the right way, then he should be able to do fine in the silly ways that Common Core (or whatever) demands, as it is still based on math, it just that you have to do 50 steps when 6 steps would otherwise be required.  In other words you’re kind of forced to play their games, and they are just that and nothing more.

This gives some very good background on Common Core and its development…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjxBClx01jc

…and this article looks like it could have been written by me.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/12/10/american_student_pisa_scores_math_has_to_be_at_least_a_little_boring.html
 
It talks about how math is “boring” and there is no way around it.  It basically says that Pythagoras’s Theorem was true 2,500 years ago, is true in the Andromeda Galaxy, is true whether you’re black, white, Chinese, or a cow.  You have to learn the same stuff in cases, and you might as well learn it the most efficient and direct way.  One thing to always keep in mind about math – the people “redesigning” math, the people that wrote Everyday Math, are EDUCATORS, not mathematicians, not scientists, and not engineers.  They are the people that hated math from day one and that’s why I will never, ever, trust them with the subject.

[Robert Levy]

Sorry for taking a while on this, but here's my info on Saxon Math:
-----------------------------------------------------
Saxon Math was created by John Saxon, a retired air force pilot in the early 1980s.  He had developed supplementary materials while working at a junior college, teaching math.  He put these materials together and started publishing math books, under his own company (Saxon Publishers).  As he got busier, he added some help, and their names, in some cases, show up as co-authors.   Regardless, in the versions of the books that I recommend, you will always see John Saxon’s name as an author (or co-author) – if you don’t see his name, then I’m not recommending that book.  Below is a listing of the specific books that I own, used with David (except for Calculus and Physics), and therefore recommend, along with their edition number and publishing date.  As to Calculus and Physics, I don’t see a problem at all with the editions below either.  Note that these are NOT the latest editions:

BOOKS  USED  BY  DAVID
Math 54:  Hake, Saxon;  Second Edition, 1995
Math 65:  Hake, Saxon;  Second Edition, 1995
Math 76:  Hake, Saxon;  Third Edition, 2002
Math 87:  Hake, Saxon;  (first edition), 1997
Algebra ½ :  Saxon;  Second Edition, 1997
Algebra 1:  Saxon;  Third Edition, 1997
Algebra 2:  Saxon;  Second Edition, 1997
Advanced Math:  Saxon;  Second Edition, 2003
Calculus:  Saxon, Wang;  (first edition), 1997
Physics:  Saxon;  (first edition), 1993

Some notes on the above list:
1)   All books are hardcover, with black and white text and pictures (believe it or not, kids can actually learn that way)
2)   Stephen Hake is an co-author on the first 4 books.  However, he is also a solo author on later editions of this series (which I do not recommend), and to avoid confusion, always look for John Saxon's name on each book.
3)   As pointed out above, all of the books that I own (above) have John Saxon’s name as an author
4)   There are later editions to these books, some are acceptable, and some are not, so be careful and read the other recommendations here.
5)   The first edition of his books do not say “first edition” which is why I’ve shown it in parentheses.
6)   Again, always check the editions and the publishing dates, and especially the authors.
7)   On a related comment, using the list above, the first introduction of calculator use is right near the end of Algebra 1.  While this is still too early for my taste (I would avoid calculators right through Calculus…after all billions of people were able to learn math without them), it is still much later than conventional math curricula, and only used, sparingly, in certain areas, like graphing.  In my case, I did not permit David to use a calculator until well into Advanced Math, but instead had him use log and trig tables that I developed and printed out…and this seemed to work fine.  As to the problems that were meant to be done on calculators (like multiplying very difficult numbers), he would borrow a calculator just for them.  Learning how to use a calculator is not hard at all and does not have to be dealt with at all in math class.  Now, if you do the Physics text, then, by all means, use a calculator, or slide rule, but use something, as the purpose of that course is not to teach math, but to teach science.
   The books in this list start at the 4th grade level (hence Math 54 is really 4th Grade math, at least when math standards had some sanity to them).  Don’t ask why they named them this way.
9)   The Physics book is not calculus-based, meaning that it is not a college-level, engineering track, physics book.  So your kid will still need college-level physics at some point.  Some people have questioned the need to even cover this book – I don’t know, but I will say that we did not cover this book and David still did fine in college-level physics.

[Robert Levy]

While I'm no fan of teachers, or especially their unions, on this I agree with them 100%.

For you parents of very young kids who will be sending them to schools (at least public schools in the United States), it's imperative that you understand EXACTLY what the the schools think of parents that try to take (some) control over the education of their children.  And keep in mind here that the people running the schools (and implementing this policy) are almost always from the same background as the teachers (i.e., degrees in 'education').  This one article does more to get that point across than anything I can think of.

http://www.nysut.org/news/2014/february/nysut-strongly-condemns-sit-and-stare-policies

Once you understand just who these people are and what they think of you, then dealing with them becomes a lot easier.  I have a Russian immigrant friend at work who is shocked by the standards in the United States and by the way she's treated by the teachers of her kids (she has nieces and nephews that are considered "average" in Russia that are still years ahead of what the best kids learn here).  But I know the system and there is nothing she can say to me that surprises me, at all.  (thankfully she's using Saxon, so her kids will be fine)

So be prepared and don't waste energy trying to fight it as a parent...the schools (at least the public schools) don't answer to you, they just tolerate you and try to humor you.  They answer to the people that pay them, and that is the government, always.  I could go on and on...but I won't.

I also found a Washington Post article on the same thing - to be honest, I actually am surprised a bit that they would go this far:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/14/why-schools-are-forcing-some-kids-to-sit-and-stare-for-hours/

One final comment...it took me some time to figure out why the teachers' union would have such a problem with sit-and-stare, when they are almost always in lock-step with the people that run the schools, and the last thing on their minds is the welfare of the kids.  And then, after reading a few more articles, it dawned on me that the teachers are being evaluated by these exams, and therefore hate them as much as the parents that opt-out.  So it's in the interest of the teachers to minimize the number of students that take the exams, as that discredits their results.

[Mandabplus3]

Point 5) first editions do not have it printed on the book.
Why oh why did I not think of that sooner! I have 2 first editions and couldn't figure out what they were. I assumed since it was printed as recently as 1997 that it would be a newer one and was considering another purchase. Feeling very blonde right now! 
Thanks again Robert

[Robert Levy]

"Feeling very blonde right now!"

Sorry, blonds don't use Saxon Math.  I'm not buying it.

I had to think a bit too to figure out what I was dealing with.

[TeachingMyToddlers]

Re: Sit and Stare/opting out of testing. Have you seen this article about the mother who got "suspended from school" after giving her kid opt-out forms for distribution?    (I didn't even know schools could SUSPEND parents?! Ban someone? Sure. But "suspend"... what is she, 12????)

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2014/03/california-mom-suspended-sons-school-passing-test-opt-form/

I would have been livid if my kid asked to call me in this kind of situation and was denied.

[Robert Levy]

"Have you seen this article about the mother who got "suspended from school" after giving her kid opt-out forms for distribution?"

She was caught off guard.  As a parent, you do have to understand how you're viewed by the schools (and it's not pretty).  The best thing for her to do, to the extent that she could, would have been to distribute those forms to the parents outside of school.  But sending in the kid with the forms was not that unreasonable, and the school's reaction was to be expected.

She pushed her luck with them and will probably survive, but could just as easily be facing huge legal bills and jail time.  The school can tell the police anything they want, and the police will listen to them (i.e., the 'experts', as opposed to a lunatic parent).

[Mandabplus3]

That's funny and so sad.
Our kids here only do one national test each 2 years in grades 3,5 and 7. It's 3 hours long for three days in a row for math, writing and English conventions. When I found out our school was sending emails to parents of the failing kids giving them an opt out as it may cause undue stress on their child I actually emailed ALL the parents in the grade encouraging them to have their kids sit the test. My reasoning at the time was that this is quite simply THE ONLY chance for us as parents to hold our school accountable for the education (or lack there off) that our kids received. My comments were if your child has only been at this school since prep and they hit grade 3 and can't read there is ONLY one place to blame. If you sit the test it will harm their reputation ( test results as a whole school are public knowledge) and they will do better next time. By opting out you help them lie about their results. The school had no comeback on me as encouraging parents NOT to sit the tests is illegal and they would have got a big old slap on the wrist 
I doubt I would think the same if my kids had tests as often as American kids seem to!

[PokerDad]

Serious Question for Robert:

Did you have David only go through the textbooks, or did he also take the "tests" - stated differently, text book only or homeschool kit?

I'm more interested in knowing how this worked in the upper mathematics, Alg 1 +

[Robert Levy]

Hi PDad,

Simple answer:  No.  I figured, for a number of reasons, that the tests were not needed.  Here's my rationale:

1)  The spiral method of Saxon automatically works in the entire reason for a test, which is to review material an additional time, with the objective of understanding it.

2)  Our pace was so quick that David was not going to forget material anyway.  If you do 5 hours of math in a week, it is a side hobby, if you do 15 hours, it's a profession.  David was obviously closer to 15 hours (if not a bit more).  Also, the idea of a summer break didn't happen for him - and it was actually an opportunity for us, as he had more time to work on the material.

3)  He actually did every problem twice, in that I made him check his work.  He didn't care whether he got them right or wrong, as long as he put something on paper - but I cared - so instead of getting an average of 70% right, by checking he was closer to 90 to 95% right.

4)  He did every problem and he eventually got every problem right.  In almost all cases where he was stumped, I could give him clues so that he could get to answer.  In a very small number of problems, I did actually work it through for him.  But, unlike schools, getting "enough" right was never sufficient, he had to be able to do every problem in a given section, before we moved on.

Also, I took advantage of the lack of summer breaks to let him skip the early sections in the earlier books - in the earliest ones, such as Math 65, he skipped the first 40 sections.  It was all review, and he was just doing that work a few days prior - so why do it again.

I'd recommend that approach to anyone...in 12 months we completed the first 5 Saxon Math books.  At that point I purposely slowed down, simply because I had promised him a laptop after Algebra 2, and I didn't feel like spending the money then.  Yes, it was a high workload at the time, but the net hours he spent learning the material was half (or less) than what he would have spent at a "normal" pace.

The thing to keep in mind is that your kid only has to cover the material once - so if you cover 5 years of math in 12 months those are 5 years that he doesn't have to struggle through later.

For the later classes, same thing, although we didn't skip as many sections at the beginning, as the overlap was not nearly as much.  For the Advanced Math (pre-Calc) book, he did every section, starting at the beginning (lots of material in that book...forget about getting through 2 or 3 sections in a day).

[Korrale4kq]

BOOKS  USED  BY  DAVID
Math 54:  Hake, Saxon;  Second Edition, 1995
Math 65:  Hake, Saxon;  Second Edition, 1995
Math 76:  Hake, Saxon;  Third Edition, 2002
Math 87:  Hake, Saxon;  (first edition), 1997
Algebra ½ :  Saxon;  Second Edition, 1997
Algebra 1:  Saxon;  Third Edition, 1997
Algebra 2:  Saxon;  Second Edition, 1997
Advanced Math:  Saxon;  Second Edition, 2003
Calculus:  Saxon, Wang;  (first edition), 1997
Physics:  Saxon;  (first edition), 1993

Some notes on the above list:
1)   All books are hardcover, with black and white text and pictures (believe it or not, kids can actually learn that way)
2)   Stephen Hake is an co-author on the first 4 books.  However, he is also a solo author on later editions of this series (which I do not recommend), and to avoid confusion, always look for John Saxon's name on each book.
3)   As pointed out above, all of the books that I own (above) have John Saxon’s name as an author
4)   There are later editions to these books, some are acceptable, and some are not, so be careful and read the other recommendations here.
5)   The first edition of his books do not say “first edition” which is why I’ve shown it in parentheses.
6)   Again, always check the editions and the publishing dates, and especially the authors.
7)   On a related comment, using the list above, the first introduction of calculator use is right near the end of Algebra 1.  While this is still too early for my taste (I would avoid calculators right through Calculus…after all billions of people were able to learn math without them), it is still much later than conventional math curricula, and only used, sparingly, in certain areas, like graphing.  In my case, I did not permit David to use a calculator until well into Advanced Math, but instead had him use log and trig tables that I developed and printed out…and this seemed to work fine.  As to the problems that were meant to be done on calculators (like multiplying very difficult numbers), he would borrow a calculator just for them.  Learning how to use a calculator is not hard at all and does not have to be dealt with at all in math class.  Now, if you do the Physics text, then, by all means, use a calculator, or slide rule, but use something, as the purpose of that course is not to teach math, but to teach science.
   The books in this list start at the 4th grade level (hence Math 54 is really 4th Grade math, at least when math standards had some sanity to them).  Don’t ask why they named them this way.
9)   The Physics book is not calculus-based, meaning that it is not a college-level, engineering track, physics book.  So your kid will still need college-level physics at some point.  Some people have questioned the need to even cover this book – I don’t know, but I will say that we did not cover this book and David still did fine in college-level physics.

Just to clarify some stuff. Stephen Hake actually wrote the books what he is co author for. He came across John Saxon's controversial articles in some teachers or Maths publication when he was searching for idea to teach his middle school students. John Saxon hit home for him because the Saxon method was how Hake was already teaching his students successfully with. Hakes was a teacher and had experience in the classroom, Saxon never did. Hake approached Saxon and offered to write a series for middle school. Saxon said okay. After Hake had written the curriculum, or adjusted what he had already been teaching, Saxon approved and published it. I think that credit is due to Hake too. Some of the books have been amended over the years to fix flow issues and any typographical errors. And a series has been written and published for the schools. Hake says it is very similar but due to copywriter issues they have to change things.
When Saxon publishing changed hands though, that is when the editions changed. And then, Nancy Larson was enlisted to write the elementary books, which have a very different format. Hale also wrote several intermediate books for between elementary and 5/4.

[Korrale4kq]

I really don't understand the hullabaloo about testing. Here in Ohio they tests aren't that hard. The tests aren't tricks. They are just testing what the child should be competent with. Children with learning disabilities or cognitive delays get accommodations. The kids get chances to practice past tests so that they are comfortable with them. The girl I tutored who was a D grade student all around was able to pass the tests with proficiency.

We had tests all the time when I was a kid, in Australia.  They weren't these big giant tests. But almost weekly or at least once a month our teachers gave us tests. It let them know where the 25 or so students in their classes were academically. I don't recall anyone suffering from test anxiety. We did our tests, then went out to play. There was no detriment. If a child was sick, there would be a make up test. It was no biggie.

How else are we going to know how well our kids are doing in school. We wait too long and then children start to lag in class.

[Tamsyn]

Not to start a debate, but the hulabaloo about testing has very little to do with parents not wanting their kids to be tested.  It is more about not wanting to take national tests, not wanting to be part of the data mining the common core tests do as far as questions about religion, political preferences, etc, and wanting to keep things more local.  All I'm saying is that it's a lot more complicated than test anxiety.  I don't know enough about it to give solid facts or references at this point, but I do hear enough of the discussions in the homeschooling community to know that these are the common objections.

[TeachingMyToddlers]

Another reason parents oppose it is that teachers' bonuses or school bonuses may be based on the the scores, which creates a high pressure environment for teachers and administration. Then teachers spend the majority of their time "teaching to the test" in a very contrived fashion without the freedom to allow good teachers to teach in the manner they teach best. And people question the educational value or feeding kids answers to a test so they can regurgitate it for the sake of a score.

It would be like someone coming in your house and telling you that you needed to parent your child in a specific way...you know you're a good parent and you're being asked to parent in a way that is not your natural style (be it authoritarian, authoritative, uninvolved, or permissive), or that this style might not be right for the child, and that they can learn better another way, but hey, rules are rules. So that's what you have to do. And instead of capturing teachable moments, you basically are required to follow the script and parent-by-number everyday....becoming a sub-optimal parent and creating sub-optimal children in the process who are having the same cookie cutter experience as every other "equalized" child across the nation.

From what I can tell it is similar for teachers. First, they must "follow the recipe" to teach to the test to get their individual and/or school bonuses, or just not get fired. It's enough to even encourage some teachers and administrators to go in and change the bubble answers after hours....it's happened more than once!  Then later, when enough schools are "following the recipe" to get their race to the top funding (which dribbles in like cocaine fixes for lab rats) these methods/curriculum/watered down educational approaches can be turned into law on a national level because there is so much buy in already and now the schools are depending on the money. It is no longer treated as bonus in their budget, they've come to expect it so they are going to do what they need to do to keep it rolling in. And like Robert Levy posted, if you think that "fighting" with your local school board is a nightmare, then try and "fight" a garbage curriculum on a national level. Forget it.

So the testing is just part of this big, ugly scheme to keep the hamster wheel turning. I don't know enough about it to fully debate it, but these are my initial impressions from what little I've read. Maybe I'm full of it. But nationalized education just allows SO MUCH control as to what kids are/are not exposed to. Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but say over the next 20 years they water down education every couple of years a little more through textbook revisions....the population could be fed anything the "powers that be" want them to be fed. I am not saying the majority of people in positions of power are bad, but it would allow sooooo much room for abuse! Think about the agriculture industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, or government contracting....those deals are HUGE. There is some BIG MONEY involved. And when there's big money involved, there is almost always corruption. Introducing a bad math book on a national level because someone was offered a nice, fat check on the side or a new sports car could impact the outcome of an entire generation.

Now, I know there are bad teachers and maybe they need these kinds of regulations, but the effective teachers will have their hands tied behind their back....most likely cutting all the tall poppies in the process.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214772
• Latest: addisonjones

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 522
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 353
• Total: 353