Tamsyn,

No, I'm not here to dictate to people exactly how to raise their kids and what to do and not do.  Music bugged me, because my wife is like you, very talented (piano) and in her case badly wanted David to be good too.  And David was good at it too, piano and violin.  The only problem was that he HATED it, and we had screaming session after screaming session about it.  I was stuck in the middle, but had to support my wife.  So with David, it was just a matter of time before he hung up the violin and tried his hardest to forget it ever happened.  It also gets under my skin when people say music helps kids learn math.  Maybe it does, but with David 8 years ahead in math (when he started piano), how much more help did he need?

So you have violin and piano, then add gymnastics, girl scouts, and whatever else, not to mention actual school, and all of  a sudden the hours for Saxon are reduced and reduced.  That's my real point - I agree, you're right regarding music, if it can earn the kid a scholarship, it may well be worth the effort, and has to be started early, as you say.  But again it's priorities.  Music like sports, is very difficult to make a living in -  maybe one in a thousand reach that level (if that).  Leaning Calculus by age 15 (like Robinson's kids), almost guarantees the kid will make a good living providing his head stays on his shoulders (and provided his parents aren't idiots that shop him around to the media, and I don't see that here).  So my complaints about music are more to the effect that it's combined with a bunch of other activities and math is left out of that structure and has to be worked into available time.

As to number of Saxon hours, I guess the bottom line is you get out what you put in.  10 hours isn't bad, and will keep the kid well ahead of his grade level.  With that, the kid will not get messed up by "The System" and should do great.  Looking at Dr. Robinson, he did 12 hours a week and had Calculus completed at age 15, so it's hard to complain about that (I would estimate that David averaged around 18 hours).  But beware, if the kid is in school, after-school time becomes harder to get as he gets older.  I found that out with David, between homework and useless projects, it was getting hard for him to have enough time for his college math (during his first year in college, he was still enrolled at our Christian school and also taking math classes at our community college).

Sorry to hear that about your brother, and I forgot about ripping out the answers in the higher-level Saxon books.  Yes, I did that, and yes, I nailed him copying the answers after he 'finished' a section in 20 minutes and couldn't show me where he did the work.  David had the terrible disadvantage of having a father whose brain is wired EXACTLY the same as his - I knew everything he would think of (in the dishonest world) before he even thought of it.

No prob...we're on the same page.  I agree, mutually exclusive.

"Are there any unschoolers here??  Any thoughts?? "

No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply there were - I doubt it too.  The term just set me off because they're the same bunch of people that have wrecked our schools...and now they wreck their own kids even worse.

And no, if you're teaching the kid what he needs to learn (or at least being sure it is being learned), then you're not "unschooling" - even if the kid gets to select stuff outside of the core curriculum.

Mandabplus3 ,

"So it looks like I can get one of my three kids to mark their own work occasionally. I don't trust the other two at all! since that just isn't going to save me much time I think I will just continue to mark them all."

Yea, and you'll get good at it, so it'll be a breeze.


"Well I thought my Saxon WAS mandatory but it appears even I am too relaxed. I thought i was a hard ass! Well you will be proud to hear I told my girl I wasn't driving her to gym until her Saxon was done. She knows I never say anything I don't mean so she knew I meant it. She was of course done in time.  tongue time to adjust the rules and expectations a little."

I like it.  Use the stuff she like to motivate her to do the important stuff (i.e., Saxon).


"Since our last chat I have changed my mind a little about the reading. It appears I do believe their is still more learning to be done in reading. I had decide that like you once they can read well they are done with reading but I no longer think that way. I believe there is still more learning to be done WITH reading as the focus. Learning about sentence structure, creative writing, developing a sense of world experiences, history, vocabulary, developing deeper thought patterns or creativity and deeper comprehension."

There probably is, I just dig into it.  But if learning this stuff doesn't detract from learning math, then there's nothing wrong it.  The point being that this can be learned later, but not math (to speak of).


"Now I see a need for more reading where before I was done with it. However I don't see that as an excuse to take time away from our Saxon so the girls are required to read from a selection of books I have given them each night before bed."

Then you're fine.


"The writing part of the whole thing I just can't find room for just now so that is shelved for now hopefully school will cover it well enough for now."

School will.  And they will fill in other stuff.  That was part of my strategy with David.  Since he was going to school, I figured any loose ends that I missed would get picked up, and they did.  Reading and Math are the really, really, critical stuff, because (in my opinion) the schools teach them in a way that they know will fail the kid, and as I always say, the kid only gets one chance to learn reading and math, and be fluent at it.  They may still learn it later, but they will suffer greatly.


"Yes I did think you might like that Robinson guy."

I'm going to watch it again and then put up a posting of what I agree with, since he says it some much better than I can.

Hi Jenene,

I'll make a few comments here:

------------------------------------------------------------
"Glad to see you have read the other thread and like what Dr Robinson has to say.  The independence in learning that is fostered in the families that we are discussing is very much within a structured framework (curriculum and schedule)."

I agree, it is structured, especially the way Dr. Robinson ran his home.  And, of everything, and I mean everything, in that video, the only disagreement that I had was the self-marking...and I consider that very minor, since if the kid is honest, it doesn't matter who grades, and if he's not going to be honest, then the parent needs to either take over, or somehow make the kid understand that honest is a smoother path.  I also have to yield to a single parent with 6 kids - what was not much trouble for me with grading David can become a lot more trouble with many kids, so yes, it's important to find ways to keep time available.

Now the Unschooling stuff that was discussed is frightening to me, and is one of the few non-physical abuses that I would support CPS taking kids away.  If a home schooled kid wants to play with Hot Wheels or a video game to the point that he doesn't learn math or reading, then he needs new parents.

As far as independent studying goes, I'm about talked out...

"Robert you do a lovely job of slapping me in the face each time you visit.
" it just drives me up the wall to hear other parents treat Saxon as optional and gymnastic, violin and other stuff as mandatory" "

LOL.  Obviously I don't know you specifics, but back in David's early reading days I was trying to teach a couple of girls his age...they could make it to my house twice a week.  It was hopeless.  Now, one of the two families that use Saxon (the Russian one, not the Hispanic one - Americans are hopeless, they just think David is a "smart" kid - you know that line)  just doesn't have much time for it either, what with Russian lessons, gymnastics, and who knows what else.  But they try, so I give them credit.

Wow, I think I met my match with that Robinson guy (on the other thread).  He seems to think just like me (unlike 99% of the rest of the country)...that the kid is clueless and needs direction and discipline.  I don't feel like as much of a radical listening to this guy...and seeing the respect he has here.

Hi Mandabplus3,

Yea, this has been my little hiding place.  I haven't tried diving into the rest of this website.  I'll comment on your posting:

"Hey Robert since your back again ( I know you missed us)
What are your thoughts on having the children mark their own Saxon lessons?"

NEVER!!  Well, at least in my case (and my kid agrees, I asked him), and I'd suspect in most cases for boys.  The way that I see it, unless the kid is really motivated, such as begging to do Saxon sections rather than X-Box 360, then I simply would not trust the kid to accurately mark up his own work.  His motivation will be to get back to something more fun, as quickly as possible (i.e., Mom!!, I got them all right).  That was certainly David's case and it doesn't mean that the kid is a bad or anything, it just means that the kid, understandably, cannot see any value at all in doing those weird math problems, when television, video games, and who knows what else are out there.  In other words, the kid will cheat in whatever ways can get him liberated from that book.  This question is a no-brainer for me, for my situation.  There may be other kids that are a bit more motivated, but not David.


"Also what are your thoughts on reducing the quantity output if children are struggling to get accuracy?"

Not having anyone other than David, I'll give my thoughts, but I don't really have a basis for comparison.  I think that kids can spend about 15 to 20 hours a week on Saxon, which is about what David spent.  It's hard work for them, but it pays off big-time, as the total number of hours they spend getting through math, to Calculus level is probably half of what it would be if they went at a slower pace (and had to keep re-learning).  So, to answer your question - you do it by the number of hours.  I think more than 20 in a week would be tough (but maybe possible), so even if the kid is slow, you have to limit to that.  But you must demand the accuracy, or your wasting your time (and his).  If he's having trouble with earlier stuff, then go back and get that covered, before trying to progress in Saxon.  The number of sections that I suggest doing per week is really based on the assumption that the earlier stuff (all the way back to addition tables) have been fully mastered.  If not, then you definitely need to slow down - and you can, since you (not the classroom teacher) control the pace.


"We have another thread going which is Saxon heavy and these are the key questions. The children under this curriculum are (taught) to be self sufficient and independant in their education."

Sorry, that's new-age stuff for me.  I'm a proponent of total traditional education - that's how it's done in Asia and they run circles around us.  That's also how I did it with David, and he's run circles around everyone anywhere near his age.  I realize that we're always searching for that magic bullet...but it doesn't exist in education, it's simply hard work.


"Saxon comes first then they mark their own and fix their own mistakes. Then they write whatever for a page ( which daddy marks) and then they read classics and history for the remaining time up to 6 hours. Apparently the curriculum is effective."

I don't know the age, but overall, I don't see much value in anything other than reading and math, until about high school (maybe a bit before).  In other words, if reading classics (as opposed to learning to read) and history (and science) detract from reaching the 15 to 20 hours of Saxon (and/or remedial math, if needed), then, in my opinion, the schedule should be rebalanced.  As I see it, kids have one chance to become very good in reading and very good in math, and that is when they are very young.  Regardless of what the 'experts' say, if the kids miss that opportunity, they may learn reading and math, but it will be a struggle, maybe for life.  Other stuff, history and science, will come much, much easier if reading and math have already been fully mastered.  Stuff beyond that, gymnastics, piano, karate, etc. - maybe do some of that, but not to the point where it cuts into the number of hours for math (and early reading)...I know that I sound like a radical, but I give my opinions here - no one has to listen to me.  It just drives me up the wall to hear other parents treat Saxon as optional, while gymnastics, violin, and other stuff are mandatory.


"My thoughts are sure, have your kids mark them if you trust them to do it accurately. But I also think its important for parents to mark them too, in order to keep an eye on where your kids are falling behind.  If they constantly get the same questions wrong then that is a problem that needs addressing. If they are marking it you may never know. I make my daughter go and fix any mistakes she makes herself. If she is completely stick I send her to look up the lesson it was taught in ( if possible) or we sit together and I ask guiding questions until she figures it out."

I agree, other than saying why bother even having them do the marking?  It doesn't take long for parents to do the same and like you said, you can tell where the problems are.  Or if there are enough mistakes, then the kid is simply not trying, which is what happened with David a number of times.  In those cases, I ripped up his work and made him redo the section, and I wasn't happy about it.  He got the message that that tactic wasn't going to work on me.  Also, just as you said, I also had David look back at the earlier sections and try his best to answer the question.  Obviously if he was completely stuck, I would start giving hints, but only after he spent a decent amount of time trying.


"As to reducing the quantity, I think if a kid is struggling they really need more not less...but we just do as much as time permits anyway so that one won't effect us."

Exactly, as I said.  But if you're at 15 to 20 hours on Saxon, you're about maxed out, so reducing quantity really isn't a factor...the kid is working just as hard, but on earlier material.

"However... I was under the impression that all states had to adopt the common core standards by 2014. I wonder what made Texas exempt. I also thought I remember reading that Texas was one of the few states that did not use the horrid Everyday Math curriculum. And I applauded them for that.
They use that everyday math here in ohio and upper elementary students are struggling. And contrary to the initial philosophy  it is not teaching mathematical thinking."

Actually, Common Core is by bribery, not mandate.  All but 4 states (Texas being one of those 4) took the bait (as I say), and now have their curricula handed to them from DC.  California had to tone down their math standards to match the feds - they no longer require Algebra in 8th grade, but now in 9th (albiet, 8th was pretty agreesive for them, but it's interesting that they had to go backwards).

Yes, our State Board of Education rejected Everyday Math.  Schools are still permitted to use it, but the state won't pay for the books...so they wind up not using it (i.e., good).  But all of that is mute with CSCOPE, as there's no accountibility with it, and if they want to take the worst from Everyday Math, no one can stop them, and, in fact, no one will even know.  And as you do your research, you'll find that pretty much what they did...their approach to teaching has a lot in common with Everyday Math.

"The curriculum is open to interpretation and that interpretation can make a huge difference to what is taught. In our state there is only one line in the curriculum about handwriting. ONE LINE! it certainly doesn't cover fonts, typing, print or cursive. It's just covers legibility. That's all they deamed important apparently.  Math interpretations would make a difference to the level of difficulty taught within the math strands. Not to mention the amount of practice time and whether any math facts are memorised."

Mandabplus3 ,

I remember reading somewhere that schools JUST LOVE parental involvement...until.  Until the parents start to question the curricula.  Then those people turn into Tasmanian Devils.  Try it, you'll think you were a bit south of Hobart or something.  It seems that they like parents to help with the chores, run the bake sales, chaperone the trips, but don't want them anywhere near the "Adult" decisions,  I read that in the context of either parents trying to get Saxon Math into their schools (back when they were competing head-to-head with Big Textbook, as I call them), or trying to get Everyday (or Connected) Math out of their schools.  Either way, the parents were presenting their own research, and the schools did not like it one bit.


"Our Saxon is still progressing nicely. We are managing just under one a day now that school is in full swing and gym is 6 hours a week."

Nice, you're doing fine.  I agree with the others, don't worry about the SI units, metric is easy to pick up.  My kid had to do the same for college and never skipped a beat (and neither did I).

I hear you Mela,

One of the scary parts about an on-line curricula is the way it can be changed.  Here in Texas, if you are involved in CSCOPE, and are called to testify to the State Senate, it can go like this (where they did have a hearing, and part of what I'm saying is true...I just don't know how much):

1)  You are given questions in advance, based on people that have disclosed some CSCOPE comments.  One question asks about CSCOPE stating that the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act (which is what they said).
2)  You arrive at the State Capitol, swear to tell the truth under threat of perjury.
3)  You are asked about the Boston Tea Party and you state that that reference has been deleted from CSCOPE, which is true, as the reference was deleted a few days ago, after the questions arrived.
4)  The hearing ends, you go home.
5)  The next day, you put the reference back into CSCOPE, without having committed perjury.

Number 1, above is likely true, number 3 is true, and I don't know about number 5, but there's nothing to stop it.

My point is that the curricula is now totally in control of the schools and parents and others never can be sure of what they're seeing or being told about.  In fact, the curricula could easily be 'updated' at 3:30 PM every day to something likeable to the parents.  So when the parents come to see the teachers, they pull up a very nice, traditional curricula, but by 7 AM the next morning it's back to the old version for the kids.

I realize that I'm sounding paranoid, but I follow education as close as I can in Texas and I am really shaken up by the way the schools were able to slip in CSCOPE, bypassing all accountability that our state has (which is a lot), and then deploy it to 80% of our school districts, almost without a whimper.

So, what I'm getting at, is that there has to be some configuration control of these electronic curricula if they are  used (basically a locked-down version that cannot be modified without an official revision), otherwise it's no different than a contract that you can modify at will after signing.  But I doubt that legislators can figure that all out.  I wasn't even able to figure that out until it was pointed out at our State Senate hearing.

As to what's better - I'm with you - BOOKS!!!  They worked for my kid, starting with Saxon Math and all through college.  He never had to deal with a "virtual" curriculum and he did fine.

Hi people,

I realize this isn't a thread to bash public schools, although lots of us do it by default.  But this jewel just popped up here in Texas.  What's happened is that virtually all of the public schools in Texas (80% of them) did an end-around to get away from the annoying accountability requirements of our state.  They did it right under the noses of parents, legislators, or others that think they follow education (myself included).  Essentially the schools, through a state-chartered organization, developed a curriculum that they keep so secret that teachers have to sign a contract threatening criminal penalties, if they disclose any of it, to anyone, even parents.

They have completely circumvented state law which guarantees access of class materials to parents and they managed to do it through some loopholes they found in the way our school funding system works.

So, for those interested, simply type "CSCOPE" into Google look down the page a bit (past the propaganda links) and you'll see what's going on.  It's spooky that they could pull it off without virtually no one knowing it, or at least understanding the significance of it.  For background, here in Texas, we have an elected State Board of Education, whose job it is to review and rate curricula.  The schools don't like it, since many times what's approved lines up with Texas values, rather the values of the schools.  So they got around it.

I only bring this up so that parents understand just how devious these people can be, and that they should never trust the primary education of their kids (i.e., reading and math to them).  For example, with CSCOPE, there are no textbooks, it's all on the Internet...and only visible to teachers, and can change in an instant (if the webmaster decides to do that).  So what really stirred this up were parents that wanted to help their kids, but had absolutely nothing in the way of reference material.  No books, no handouts, nothing.  I heard a parent complaining about that last week on the radio.  But, of course, that was only the tip of the iceberg, as the curricula appears to be terrible, and would have never been approved here, had they gone the conventional way.

I agree - there is a huge difference between someone who is 15 months and someone who is 3.5 years old.  I won't even begin to guess as to how I would approach someone that young - so you guys are having good results - so much the better.  As I've often said, my sample size is ONE, and I can't reset him to try out different approaches (not that I would, though).

I like what I see of the Jolly Phonics, it seems to be right in line with the way I taught David.  Just the sounds, no fluff.   I probably would have bought something like that if I knew it existed back then...but it was still common sense to me.  If you want a kid to learn to read "cat", you teach him "ca", "aa", "ta".  No need to have him singing songs or doing other stunts.

Nice replies.  I did a bit more looking around to see what others said about the study.

It seems that the people that were shooting down the Scotland study did so because it wasn't up to the standards they demanded and also because the kids were only 9 months ahead in comprehension (versus 3.5 years in reading otherwise).  It was kind of amusing to read - the implication seemed to be that there was some way kids could be several years ahead in comprehension without being able to read - LOL.

So, regarding the scientific rigor test - it's real easy to shoot down a study by saying that it didn't control this or that - but it's plain-as-day when they don't bother mentioning their own controlled studies (which probably never existed) to prove their system works.

As to the comprehension aspect, one thing that wasn't always clearly stated about the Scotland study was these kids were about as disadvantaged as they get in the UK, so getting their comprehension even up to grade level was a major accomplishment - not to mention getting the rest of their reading capability way beyond that (as they got virtually no help from their parents).

I guess the bottom-line for parents is understand that everyone now at least gives lip-service to phonics - it's just been proven hands-down.  Teachers can no longer get away with saying that Whole Language is better, and that phonics doesn't work and shouldn't be used.  Parents, even the ones that don't drink this stuff, know that's a non-starter.  But "the establishment" attitudes don't change, so they tell parents things like "no one-size fits all" and we use the "best of both methods".  Just beware, because those are generally code-words for telling you that they don't take synthetic phonics seriously, but they may teach a sound or two when the kids are really stuck.