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

[Robert Levy]

"It seems like something Robert might say... and I might point out, completely disagrees with modern pedagogy and "best practices" that attempt to teach understanding before doing (or doing complicated methods in an attempt to understand)"

Thanks again PD, that is exactly what I stated and I stand by it.  And not just for little twerps - I remember getting hung-up in my engineering (and related math) classes trying to physically understand what was going on when I was doing calculations.  It was driving me mad and my test scores were showing it.  Thankfully a friend of mine told me to simply give up on trying to understand the physical meaning, and rather just get to an answer.  And the answers would then make sense.  The methods (such as matrix calculations or Laplace Transforms) made no sense at all in the physical world - rather they were simply tools to getting to the right answer, in a way that was easily done.

This push to "higher-order thinking skills" really makes no sense at all, if you don't know the lower-order stuff.  If you don't know understand addition, how on earth will you understand what multiplication means?  Same with division versus subtraction.

Another great point from the article is when John Saxon notes that people don't learn how to play piano by learning "piano theory".  They learn it by practice.  But I would add a bit here - in piano, it is actually "drill and kill" because you're mostly playing the same music, over and over and over and over, again - in order to try to get good at it.  In Saxon Math, if you look carefully at the problems - they do get harder as you go later into the book.  For example, Section 42 of a book may be division of fractions and in Section 42 you'll do a half a dozen of them.  Then in Section 43 you might do 3 of them.  Then in 44, 2 of them;  45, 1 of them; then 48, 1 more; then 55 one more.  If you compare the problem in Section 55 with the half dozen in Section 42, you'll see that the problem in Section 55 is significantly harder than the ones in 42 - so you are not repeating, you are learning.  What Saxon did was figure out that the way math was taught for the past 2,400 years (until about 1970) was actually right, and that is why he will always be hated by people that think they know better.

[Mandabplus3]

Jeez getting the right versions of the books is getting harder and harder every time I read a post. I was just learning about this edition switching problem on the Robinson curriculum Facebook page and need to check yet again what I have and what is missing 

Higher order thinking skills. Hmm yes. Was just at some professional development where this came up. Must say I was discussed overall about the ridiculously low standard these teachers were aiming for ( yep I told them so). There was some talk about higher order thinking skills  as this school runs a the international bachelorette program from prep to grade 6. Incidentally i didn't realise this was even an option for these ages! But part of this training is teaching thinking skills. Of course math came up ( I may have prompted it  ) I wondered how a school who expects me as a preschool teacher to send them kids who can recognise their own name ( NOT kidding that was the hardest skill they asked me to teach the kids!!!!) incorporates thinking skills into their math. Frankly it wasn't much of an answer. Basically they said " we want them to be familiar with manipulatives and not afraid to use them" honestly how they get from there to international bachelorette baffles me.
Personally I DO believe in teaching higher order thinking skills. Especially in math. BUT ( yep it a big BUT) I don't think this should slow or replace memorisation or just doing it. I just can't see why both can't be taught as separate ideas. Do he the math facts by rote for half the lesson and do them with manipulatives for the other half. In school it's very possible to do the manipulative work in school and send the memorisation work home for homework even!
Anyway feeling very disappointed in the education system again as I could graduate my ENTIRE class tomorow and I am only 2 months into the school year   

[linzy]

I was struggling with finding the right edition books. The once I found them ensuring that the homeschool packet (the answer key with the problems worked out) and the test forms (which has the daily fact practice and other non-reusable rescources for the lessons) corresponded to that book.

As you may know I am pretty type A, so I complied a list of the editions I had researched and found to be best (I mostly referrenced Art Reed's website for info on the books) and found the corresponding ISBNs so that when searching on amazon and other book sites you can be sure the books go together. When there was an option between 2 books I choose hardcover over softcover and corresponding chapters listed if possible. I hope this helps some of you.

One happy note, my 7 year old finished Saxon 6/5 today and will be starting 7/6 tomorrow. He is thrilled with his progress
                             
Math 76: Either the hardback 3rd Ed or the new soft cover 4th Ed. (The Math content of both editions is the same)
3rd edition ISBN:1-56577-153-2, Homeschool Packet ISBN:1-56577-156-7, Test Forms ISBN:1-56577-157-5             

Math 87: Either the hardback 2nd Ed or the new soft cover 3rd Ed. (The Math content of both editions is the same)
2nd Ed ISBN:1-56577-188-5; Homeschool Packet ISBN:1-59141-168-8; Test Forms ISBN:1-59141-169-6                       

Algebra 1/2: Use only the 3rd Edition. (Book has the lesson reference numbers added)
ISBN:1-56577-149-4, Homeschool Packet ISBN:1-59141-172-6; Test Forms ISBN:1-59141-173-4; Homeschool Kit ISBN: 1-565-77499-X

Algebra 1:  Use only the 3rd Edition. (Book has the lesson reference numbers added)
ISBN: 1-56577-134-6; Homeschool Packet  ISBN: 1-56577-138-9; Test Forms ISBN: 1-56577-139-7   

Algebra 2:  Use either the 2nd or 3rd Editions. (Content is identical. Lesson reference numbers added to the 3rd Ed)
3rd ed ISBN: 1-56577-140-0;Homeschool Testing Book ISBN: 1-60032-014-7

Advanced Mathematics:   Use only the 2nd Edition: (Lesson reference numbers are found in the solutions manual, not in the textbook)
ISBN:1-56577-039-0; Homeschool Packet ISBN:1-56577-159-1; Test Forms ISBN:1-56577-160-5;

Calculus:  Either the 1st or 2nd Edition
2nd ed ISBN:1-56577-146-X; Answer Key  ISBN:1-56577-182-6; Homeschool Testing Book ISBN-13: 978-1-6003-2015-6;  ISBN-10: 1-6003-2015-5

[Mandabplus3]

Brilliant! Linzy. You have the same criteria as me but clearly WAY more patience! Thankyou! Slapping you with some karma for it 

[linzy]

No problem, I was struggling with committing to buy books and then not being sure if I was purchasing the correct edition until I was able to actually look at it first hand. So I was hoping this would help a few other people.

[Robert Levy]

Here's a gem of a video, if you have a couple of hours to spare.

Pretty much tells the story of Common Core...you'll think very hard before exposing your kids to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si-kx5-MKSE#t=0

[PokerDad]

Thank you for the video Robert.

I took the time to watch it, plus I watched another talk Duke Pesta did in Illinois recently. YouTube has a new feature where you can stream and watch a video at normal speed, 1.5x or 2x - which means someone can get through the video a lot faster.

Someone could chalk up many of his points to "fear mongering" and I think this would be missing the point. Perhaps not every school will succumb to the social engineering taking place, but the point is that the schools spend far too much time contemplating social issues instead of focusing on educating.

The standards themselves are suspect at best, but I think we could have easily guessed that. Pesta points out that Jason Zimba (one of the main authors of the common core) has admitted that the math standards will produce substandard math students. Also in this video, Pesta shows the clip from the mother against Every Day Math (constructivist math program). It's funny, I watched that, and even at high speed was able to calculate the addition problem in my head in under a few seconds. The poor girl spends 8 minutes on this and gets the wrong answer. I personally think Pesta is correct that this sort of math was designed for people that aren't so good at math. The people who "get" math don't need to break problems down to understand what's happening when doing some rote process, at least not at this most basic level.

Diane Ravitch, a former reformist who is against school choice and the charter movement (I certainly don't agree with her on these) posted an email she got from Jim Milgrim (Stanford Math Professor emeritus) to her blog:
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/09/11/james-milgram-on-the-common-core-math-standards/

It's certainly worth a read.

It's a Brave New World out there.... I'm more and more finding that I sympathize with the "savage" (one that elects to withdraw from the government social order, in this case, the schooling)

[Robert Levy]

Hi people,

Here's an article that basically summarizes what reading 10 books on the subject might say (and no, I didn't write it).  Saxon is mentioned in a good light, needless to say.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/reform_math_must_be_destroyed_root_and_branch.html

By the way, my Russian friend, who's teaching her kids math, now uses the term "Magic Books" when talking about Saxon.

[melodym37]

Hello Mr. Levy,

I haven't read this whole post so please forgive me if this has been asked already but did you teach your son to play chess and if so at what age?
 
Thanks

[nee1]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/reform_math_must_be_destroyed_root_and_branch.html

Thanks for the article, Robert.


This excerpt said:

The common denominator of all these inferior programs is an artificial complexity, and an emphasis on learning concepts and “meaning” without actually being able to do problems.  These programs teach algorithms that parents don't know.  A tremendous separation is created between the generations.  Parents are rendered irrelevant.  The children are frustrated to tears.  In a few years, in all of these Reform curricula, the kids end up dependent on calculators.

So true. My friend was telling me that methods used to teach the simplest things like arithmetic and basic year 4 math were so complicated that she found it very hard to understand, talkless of helping her kid with school work.

When she complained to the teacher, she was told to ``leave it to the experts (the teachers)  - they know best''. She was also told that she may confuse the child if she teaches the child with the traditional methods she was brought up on. Why basic year 4 math should be so complicated that only teachers know how to teach it is beyond me.

My greatest concern with this is that when you leave it to the ``experts'', and the child receives no tutoring at home (since the parents don't understand the method themselves), the child gets further and further behind. Heavy parental involvement and at-home teaching is the key to educational success. When that factor is absent, everything falls flat.

I also found this article on that link you shared.- http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/common_cores_dirtiest_trick_dividing_parents_and_children.html.   Exactly what is happening to my friend now. The child is failing, but the mother can't help because she can't understand the unnecessarily complicated methods herself. And worst of all, the child rarely gets math homework. Hence, my friend finds it hard to even know the child is learning in school.

 Here is another article online: http://www.chinahush.com/2013/01/23/teachers-from-uk-shocked-by-chinese-multiplication-table/.
An excerpt:

During the math classes yesterday, the chairs for the UK teachers were all left unseated. They walked into the students, checking their textbooks, notebooks, and took photos with their cellphones. The Chinese kids did not let them down.

72÷3＝?

One student went to the stage and quickly wrote the correct answer of 24. This student said the answer can be quickly concluded through the use of multiplication table. The 12 teachers at the scene were surprised by the method.

The English teacher said they don’t have such multiplication table in UK. If they want to solve the problem above, the process will be like this:

10×3＝30，10×3＝30，4×3＝12，then add them up and get 24.

For this kind of problem, students in UK will have to learn through several lessons to solve them successfully.''

QUOTE ENDS.

The above method of solving 72 ÷ 3 is unnecessarily complex and inefficient. Like that Chinese student said, the answer to the question can be easily deduced from the multiplication table.


So, how does a parent solve this ``New Math'' problem?  Any suggestions for my friend will be highly appreciated. The child is in year 4 (4th grade). How does the mother remediate this problem? Should she get the Saxon math books? The problem is, she does not know what the school is teaching (due to the near absence of math homework), and consequently does not know if the Saxon sequence of topics differs from the school's sequence. How do we go about this? And do you have any ideas she could put to work immediately? She really wants to help but feels totally helpless.
 

Thank you for ideas and suggestions.

[Robert Levy]

Hi melodym,

Nope, never made an effort to teach my kid chess.  I think he knows how to play it, but I never played against him, I just don't like the game (used to play it though).  I have my doubts about the theories that learning non-math skills will help with math.  While David did play violin for a while, he was already 6 to 8 years ahead of his age in math...so it certainly wasn't needed, at least in his early years.  With music, I tend to think it's people trying to sell their services and products that push the idea that music is helpful.  With chess, I don't they care either way, as the market just isn't that big.

Hi Nee,

David and myself recently went through the Common Core test for Florida (I think), in 4th grade math, and we found some interesting things.  The  was that some 75% of the test was actually traditional math questions.  Another 15% or so could be found by learning (or re-learning) some basic mathematical terms (like ordinate, associative property, etc.) - the stuff we're taught at some point and then quickly forget, since the terms themselves are obscure and basically useless, even though what they represent is very important.  The remainder dealt with some of the far-out (and stupid) methods associated with the way math is taught today (like "Use the Box Technique to multiply 45 by 82") - for those you have to know the method to get credit.

Now, here's the 6th Grade Common Core Math Test in New York:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.engageny.org%2Ffile%2F8541%2Fdownload%2Fgrade_6_math_released_questions.pdf&ei=lD-5U9_gOcj_oQTetILYBg&usg=AFQjCNFX285BpdqMhQXNd6e0UKDy-dRogw

Virtually all the questions could be in a Saxon Book.  If you learn Saxon Math, you can answer virtually every question (same with Florida, although you have to also know the terminology and some stupid methods too).  But if you know the real math, you then can easily answer the question, and then backfill with whatever garbage they're demanding.  In other words, you basically have the answer key, and since most questions are multiple choice, that's all you need.  For the others, you may or may not have to show some freaked-out method of doing the problem - but even then, if they don't ask for a freaked-out method, you can make one up by playing with the numbers until you get the right answer, which isn't too hard, since you already know the the right answer.

Back in Engineering School, I had used that technique in an advanced class and aced it (one of my two "A's" in engineering - I was far from top of the class).  What happened there was very fortunate for me.  I had bought a calculator that was so advanced that even the teachers didn't know what it could do (I don't even remember buying it, and it was costly).  So I programmed-in most of the grunt-work, like multiplying polynomials and adding vectors, and other stuff that takes a lot of time on tests.  The calculator not only enabled me to whip through my tests, but also whip through my homework, and actually learn the material.  I also learned the grunt-work thoroughly because I had to write and test the programs for each technique.  I can still do that stuff in my sleep, even though I never used any of it, for anything, for the past 30 years now.   In one case, having been liberated from the grunt work, I developed a single-step means of doing what was considered a complex problem involving control systems.  I basically was able to pick up the patterns in the problem illustration and have the equations ready to go in one step.  I taught it to a friend of mine and told him that he must backfill the steps when he does it on a test.  He didn't - he wrote "by inspection", and the teacher thought he was "inspecting" his neighbor's test, so he got no credit (even though he had the right answer, LOL).  The bottom-line here is that you have to teach your kid to backfill if you teach him how to do the problems right, at least for the problems where you have to show your work.

So, to answer your question, yes, definitely, have the kid learn math in the traditional way.  I think it will pay dividends from Day 1, as knowing even the basics will speed up stuff.  The teachers are now being told, at least in the US, to tell parents not to "confuse" the kids with the old methods.  Don't believe that for a minute and keep in mind that the only goal for the teachers is to keep everyone in the class at the same level.  Smart (or advanced) kids are just as much of a "problem" for teachers as slow kids.  Also keep in mind, at least in my (strong) opinion, that the techniques used now are meant more to "level the playing field" for girls and minorities that don't do as well in traditional math, likely because they get less help from their parents (certainly true for blacks and Hispanics in the US, and likely true for girls due to gender stereotyping).  Get the parents out of the game, and things become a lot more level.

My opinion of what the education establishment is trying to do to children has not changed in 30+ years of studying it.  They keep morphing, but they seem wedded to assuring failure of kids that are not fortunate enough to have parents to actually educate them.  I will never trust them, at least in US.

[nee1]

Thank you, Robert.

[nee1]

This post is not directly related to Saxon or math per se, but it is very relevant to education, learning and high expectations for our children. This weekend I read ``The Marva Collins Way: Returning to Excellence in Education'' - http://www.amazon.com/Marva-Collins-Way/dp/0874775728.


I was very inspired and encouraged by this book. Marva Collins' work as a teacher had been cited several times in the book ``Mindset'' by Carol Dweck. Mrs Collins had a growth mindset and believed that all children could learn, regardless of whatever negative labels had been previously placed on them. The more we learn, the brighter we become. Intelligence isn’t fixed in stone. Those were some of her guiding principles. Labels like ``learning disabled'', ``attention deficit'', ``mentally retarded'' did not matter to her. She took in these cast-off children who had been given all sorts of negative labels, taught them phonics, introduced the classics to them, and got them doing very, very well.


In her book, she said that every 4 year old entering her school in September must be reading by December. No excuses. Otherwise the teacher gets replaced. Talk about high expectations. The 3 and 4 year olds in her school studied vocabulary using a book titled ``Vocabulary for the High School Student'' by Levine. The other students used the book ``Vocabulary for the College Bound-Student’’ by Levine. Talk about very high expectations. All this was coupled with reading of classical literature.

At the back of ``The Marva Collins Way'' was the reading list for 4-6 year olds. I was awed. There was also the school's reading list for the other children (i.e., the children older than 6). I was amazed at what these children were required to read. Most of those books are only found on college reading lists. These children did so, so well, and what makes it more amazing is that these were the same children that few years back had been given all sorts of negative labels and were said to be unteachable. These same children were now celebrated by the media and the public. This simply showed what dedication, love, high expectations, and a growth mindset could accomplish.


At http://www.homeschoolfreebie.wholesomechildhood.com/page/11/  (the homeschool freebie folks), you'll find link to the movie ``The Marva Collins Story’’. You can read some background about the movie on the link above. It is said to be one of the best educational movies ever made.  Here is the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n-2Ovk7cuHY


Based on the information I got in the book ``Marva Collins Way'', I decided to search on youtube for the ``60 minutes'' segment on Marva Collins. ``60 minutes’’ had tracked down some of Mrs Collins' former students to see how they had fared after graduation from Westside Prep (Marva Collins’ school). And they were all doing very well. The best for me was Erika. Erika had been mentioned in ``The Marva Collins Way'', and I was very happy to see how she had turned out. She had been labelled ``unteachable'’, in the former school she attended, and was about to be placed in the special education class. Erika had believed the label and acted the label.  This is what the book said: ``She [Erika] staggered into the classroom, knocking desks and turning over chairs. She was behaving like a severely disturbed or retarded child. Clinically she was neither. Somehow she had been made to feel that she was supposed to act like that...''


How did this happen?  Ericka was previously at a parochial school and according to the book ``Marva Collins Way’’:

  ``Each afternoon, when Mrs McCoy [Erika’s mother] picked up her daughter at the parochial school, she would faithfully ask the teacher how Erika was doing and whether  there was anything she needed to help her daughter with at home. Each day, just as faithfully, the teacher told Mrs McCoy, ``No, everything is fine.'' Then came the phone call. The teacher was requesting a conference to discuss ``Erika’s problem’’. Mrs McCoy was beside herself. It was only three weeks into the semester. What could be wrong? She drove to the school that evening. The teacher said: ``Erika cannot read and she will probably never learn to read. We are taking her out of first grade and putting her into a special class''. Mrs McCoy didn't hear another word. Her daughter was only 5 and a half years old and already these people were writing her off. Dazed, Mrs McCoy went home to work with Erika. Erika shook her head: ``No I can't do that. My teacher said I can't learn how to do that''. No matter how much Mrs McCoy tried to coax her daughter, bribing her with ice-cream, candy, and a new toy, Erika would only repeat: ``Oh, no, Mommy, my teacher said I can't do that. I can't learn that…'' QUOTE ENDS.


Yet, this same girl, Erika, after spending several years at Westside Prep (Marva Collins' school) went on to graduate from college summa cum laude.  Here are the clips from ``60 minutes’’ follow-up of the early 33 graduates of Westside Prep.

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qqnBazyeA

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmW_Qu3yhjA


Thoughts?

[PokerDad]

This likely deserves it's own thread.

Here is my recent book review:
Book Review on Goodreads

I gave it 5 stars (the second rarest rating I give)

We could easily have a very good thread on the subject of Marva Collins and the category of book (classical education)

[Robert Levy]

I mentioned this a while back, but one of the things that we'll never forget when David was in Math and Spelling competitions back when he was maybe 7 to 9 years old.  He was going to a Christian school and they had competitions with other Christian schools.  There was one school that always beat the daylights out of the other schools in both math and spelling (although David could still beat them, but not by much).  They were incredible...and all black.  Their behavior, also, set the standard at those competitions.  Dressed beautifully and the ultimate in class - yet they still didn't have a problem cheering as they kept winning.

I'm sure plenty of their standouts didn't come from Leave it to Beaver backgrounds either.  The funny thing is that I never heard about them either before or after (other than checking up on their website once in a while after).

Apparently they're also unbeatable in chess also:

http://imanischool.org/714444.ihtml


Here is a typical performance by them in math (same as David competed in)...keep in mind there are something like 10 to 20 schools competing in each category...

http://imanischool.org/714011.ihtml


I don't know what their secret is...but I suspect it's similar to mine.

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: 509
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 498
• Total: 498