"In the UK, pre-schools and nursery schools have been told by the schools not to teach anything beyond recognising the letter names and numbers. I think also recognising and writing their own name. The schools want everyone to start on a 'level' so they can begin teaching all kids phonics and maths from scratch when they start Reception (Kindergarten) at 4/5. The teachers don't like having to re-teach those who haven't used phonics 'correctly' (or at all) when they come to school already sounding out words/reading. It is just so much easier when nobody knows anything and the teacher doesn't need to work with different levels at the same time!"

A couple of comments:  What we call Kindergarten in the states is Age 5/6.  Age 4/5 is still pre-school.  David had a lot of fun that year as he was reading fluently and his teacher Miss Linda, as she had them call her, had never dealt with a kid like that (I guess early learning is still very rare where I live).  As to starting the kids at the same level - that certainly makes life easier for the teachers, and they may have a point about having to de-program kids that get taught incorrectly - and if they start phonics at that age (i.e., Age 4) the kids will be good readers - providing they move out quickly, and don't drag it out for a couple of years, and I have read that the UK is done experimenting and is back to phonics.  In the states, we don't get to systematic phonics until the kids are 0, at which time most parents have already figured out that they need to get this material covered separately (prior to that it's Sight Words, through 3rd grade, as I understand it).

Neat stuff down there, Korrale4kq.  I too remember the logical progression as I was growing up.  It was just that at the early part, they left too many loose ends.   l saw it most when I would go bowling with my friends, back before they had automatic scorers.  I had to add my scores, and got very, very, very, fast at it - I just snapped the answers, probably by second grade.  To my friends, it was a struggle, for as long as I can remember - I couldn't believe that they were so slow - but since no one expected better, that's where they wound up.

"Oh and American math makes a big fuss about separating geometry and algebra. In Australia it was all just math. "

Mr. Saxon agrees with that, at least when he was alive.  There (was) no Saxon Geometry.  Instead he just spaced it through Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 (and maybe a bit in Advanced Mathematics).  It drove a lot of 'educators' nuts, because they couldn't understand how Geometry could be taught without a separate course...but it was.  The new editions, I believe, do break out Geometry.

"The mastering of  math fact recall is what we are ultimately aiming for."

Concur.  My approach worked in my, one, case.  Other approaches likely work too, especially with kids that aren't ready to tear down the house whenever the word "math" is mentioned.


"If he has rapid and accurate recall of all basic math facts, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division by the time he is 4 I will be happy."

Agree there - having that wired by Age 4 will put him on an excellent trajectory (especially when many kids never learn it, and the ones that do don't learn it until years later).  Age 4 is probably about when David had it down, but I don't remember for sure - but it sounds right, as I was finishing up reading just after he turned 4.


"As for concepts... I don't think it is unrealistic at all to expect him to know those."

It may be something as simple as you being more patient than myself, or have a method that works (as with everything else, I was winging it).  I just made zero headway at the time and gave up.

To MummyRoo,

"Once we had drilled our way through the past GCSE exam papers in any subject, the teachers dug out the O-level papers. They are the exams my parent's generation took which were later replaced with GCSEs. We COULDN'T DO THEM!!!  It was laughable - the older the exam paper, the more we struggled!"

So you saw it first-hand.  I think I mentioned the example that Saxon used to have on their website (when they were still independent) of a school that "handed down" their old beat-up Saxon books to 'average' students, and got the latest and greatest curriculum for the honors students.  Needless to say, the Saxon kids cleaned their clocks (they obviously also had a teacher who knew how to use it).  The Saxon books represent 'yesterday' about as well as anything available now, in any subject.  The new stuff is disastrous...but it keeps coming out.

"If sending my son into the education system becomes a necessity, his primary teacher will still be me."

I like it, and as far as I know, they still cannot stop you from doing that.

To Davinia,

"Thank you so much for your response Robert, I do feel honoured to have you guidance on this (not to add to the hero worship or anything  big grin )"

Thank you too, it's always very interesting to talk to people on the inside when it comes to education.  Most of those people are very defensive about their profession (as are people in many professions), and it's difficult to get them to open up.  On this thread, there are at least two (including you), probably more, people that have taught young kids in a school setting and the stories are remarkably similar from all around the English-speaking world.


"I will do as you recommend. He knows his numbers to 20 and we were working on number value but I won't hesitate now to add maths facts in song and flash card format. I may not have been taught math in a way that left me with a burning passion but he certainly seems to enjoy it, probably from his dad's genes."

Yep, give it a shot.  He's still very young (and probably adorable).  The key is to keep an open mind, and if something doesn't work, try something else -  but definitely be quick with a number line, that was a life-saver for David.


"Glad you do not necessarily think literature is pointless, just that maths has a higher probability of guaranteeing success in later life which even  I cannot argue with - my lack of enjoying maths led to me qualifying as a secondary school teacher"

That's just what my last post was about.  I hadn't read yours at the time,  but it fits perfectly.  Liking math certainly helps as a teacher, and I loved arithmetic, so I was gunning to go with David.  But you'll do just fine, I have no doubt - your mindset is perfect.


"that is how traumatised I was by what I saw in schools even Ofsted rated Outstanding ones."

When you look at it through a political lens, as I mentioned earlier, it can help make sense of it.  In England, they have their colonial history, and that simply bothers people, a lot in some cases (not me, I got a really great country out of it)...and they tend to want to punish today's generation for that past.  All that is fine, until they get political power and start carrying it out in many ways - one being to make sure that England never produces another Isaac Newton.  I'm not saying all the politicians are like that, but enough are, and they are organized well enough to overcome the opposition (which is typically clueless anyway).


"I very quickly felt disillusioned with the school system in the UK...Perhaps it was just me"

The people that have given us this mess are much better in stifling opposition than they are at teaching kids.  I've read detailed reports on how they operate to isolate people that have 'issues'.  Basic tactics such as always telling you that no one else is complaining - and more advanced tactics (for after you've talked to others with the same issues).  An example would be a forum that the schools set up for parents to give feedback.  They will often have assigned seating, and they know the 'troublemakers', so they get split up.  Then they will plant a few people at each table to isolate the 'troublemakers' and make them feel invalidated.  Take 10 parents that all know each other and know that Everyday Math doesn't work, sit them at the same table, and you have a very powerful force.  Split them up between tables, sprinkle in one or two plants at each table to talk them down, and they don't have a chance (the others at the tables often are typical parents, and don't know anything, either way).  So don't ever let you feel isolated.


"I am talking about students about to go into university who cannot write grammatically correct structured work."

I hear you and it's simply tragic that this happens. 


"I do not remember being formally taught grammer although given the schools I was in in my indigenous hometown Nigeria, I probably was!"

I would bet on it.  Especially back then, back there, there just wasn't the organized political will to subvert education (either for political reasons, or simply to sell new coursework).  The Nigerians were taught the British method and I'm sure hung on to it much longer than the Brits, and likely still teach it.


"But I know my love of reading opened many doors and opportunities for me, so while I am passionate about sharing that with my son, I DEFINITELY want to do better than me with math. So Robert we shall be following your recommendation for math and thank you very much for bravely facing down critics of your methods, so parents like us can benefit from you willingness to tread the less beaten path."

Thanks - and it's not a choice between the two.  There will be plenty of time for both, and even lots of time for your little guy to enjoy his childhood - he just will not be wasting hour after hour being a zombie in front of a screen.

Korrale4kq ,

"Unlike Robert, we are going for a little more math understanding. I am sure if I drilled him with flash cards I could have him memorize all those math facts by the time he is 3."

I only had one kid to work with, so other kids (maybe most other kids) may be much different.  I can only relate to what worked and didn't work for me.  I did try hard with concepts as I couldn't understand how a kid could learn math just by memorizing - I learned from concepts up also.  But I finally gave up - it was futile, at least at the age I was working with him...which was probably about 3.

Let us know how it works out, and at the very least, I've given you options if it doesn't work - but like I say, David is a single-point example - things may be much different for other kids.


"We plan to start Saxon 5/4 with James is 4-6. Whenever I feel he is ready. I don't want to pressure him on it at too young and age but if he remains the mathy kid that he is, I think it won't be too long until we start."

That sounds great.  David was about 6.5 when he started (once I figured out it existed), so I agree - no hurry at all on it.

Nee1,

"Further, from Harold Stevenson's research which I cited on that thread, most of the teachers questioned tended to neglect math, because:
1) They do not like math themselves.
2) They do not feel very competent in math.
3) They did not think math was a very important subject."

Now this one I can agree with.  There are a lot of options in college for people that are decent at math - there are far fewer for those that are not.  One of those is 'Education'.  So the system tends to push non-math people into education.  My mom has mentioned to me that she thinks women's liberation had a lot to do with declining teacher quality.  Basically, women that were smart now had choices beyond being a teacher...so schools were left the others.

I also just checked on the University of Michigan (where I went) School of Education website.  They require 3 courses in math to be a primary or junior high teacher (sometimes more for high school, depending on the field).  The pre-requisite for the first course is Algebra 1 and Geometry - that's it, 2 years of math in high school, although they 'recommend' more.  The first required course is simply arithmetic.  The second course is makes it to geometry (with some probability and statistics, but I suspect simple stuff).  The third one is an elective.  More advanced math is required for an English Degree (at least at Michigan State, couldn't figure it out for Michigan).  My point here isn't that high-level math is needed to teach 7 year olds, it's that when a School of Education takes students that only did 2 years of high school math, they are really taking students that are either lousy at math or hate it (or, probably, both).  Not every teacher is like this, but some certainly are.


"Robert also said something very important, that while reading can be picked up everywhere, math is not the same."

Yea, that was one thing that really struck me.  Once he had reading wired, by Age 4, David would pick up anything with words and start reading - including adult novels (he never told me what was in those...LOL).  He just loved it.  But math, just forget it.  To this day, literally, to this day, I have never seen him do a math problem for fun.  I even do math problems for fun...to test my sharpness and memory - but I've never, ever, seen him do a single problem without some external force telling him to do so.  He never wanted to do Saxon, and I'm sure he just wished I would forget about it when I came home from work.  He's likely different in that way, but it does make him a worst-case example.


"The article is titled 'Degrees that need Math'"

Agree...a Biology, for example, degree requires a full year of college-level Calculus - and you won't get through that year unless you seriously have your act together.  The colleges mean business with that course.

To PokerDad,

"This thread is just a joy to read. Thank you again Robert for all your continued input, it's valued highly around here (if you couldn't tell)."

Thanks, I was just wondering about you.  You started the thread and I hadn't heard too much from you recently.  And yes, it's been a blast for me.


"I think the number line is an awesome idea."

Thanks, it worked.  I was flailing - David couldn't remember or derive anything.  By derive, I mean putting 2 marbles with 3 marbles and understanding it's 5 marbles.  It was hopeless.  The number line gave him something to latch on to (a tool), rather than trying to pull the answers out of his head.


"One of the biggies, IMO, is when they transitioned into using the soroban. Both girls also do traditional algorithms to solve problems, but they can also do it mentally with Anzan via their soroban training."

Wow, never heard of it, so no comment either way.


"For the early stuff, I plan on going more this route and then once we have basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division down, we'll be off and running with Saxson 5/4. I see no reason why this couldn't happen by around age 4 just based on what I've read from these other parents. Perhaps I'm dreaming and certainly time and effort will tell...."

I don't know, we were hurting at the end with his number sheets.  It wasn't until he was 6 that I even heard of Saxon, and was by sheer luck (my life story).  I don't know how he would have done if he started earlier.  On thing I do remember is that we had apply to "The School" in Houston (i.e., the best private school), at the insistence of our pediatrician.  He was applying for Kindergarten, at age 5 (just turned 5).  I wanted him to demonstrate he was smart, so we were doing number sheets with reduction of compound fractions.  I got him there, but he was ready to take off my head (and I didn't blame him).  So he was pretty far along then, even though I didn't have any kind of text to use.  So, even at that age (just turning 5), he would have likely been ready for 5/4, I just hadn't heard about it - and it would have gone slower (he started Saxon about 1.5 years later).

To MrsObedih,

"I have been following this thread since it started and especially closely after you entered the conversation Robert, and I have to admit that I had mixed feelings at the start."

Welcome to this thread and glad you joined.  As to mixed feelings - thank you, one man can only take so much hero worship - but I understand what you're saying.


"I understand that a lot of accelerated kids focus on Math, there was a popular programme in the UK on child prodigies were an Asian family were very clear that it was hard work that earned their sons' achievements, watch them respond to the very negative feedback they received for their sharing their methods - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/child-genius/articles/video-interview-with-wajih-and-zohaibs-parents"

I'll watch that, sounds interesting.  The thing to keep in mind about maths is that it's serious stuff.  In fact, I don't think it's a coincidence at all that the Industrial Revolution began almost to the day when Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz published their discovery of Calculus, as it formed the mathematical backbone of the Industrial Revolution and more.  I'd still be riding horses had it not been for them, but I like my cars better, and they pollute much, much, less (per mile driven/ridden).


"I guess I'd always thought literature was better able to provide a well rounded education so I had always planned to use a literature-based homeschool curriculum like Sonlight and use something else for math like Saxon."

Haven't heard of Sonlight, but you know what I think of Saxon.  Yes, many people do just fine without maths, but, as I've mentioned earlier, we're talking a probability game when it comes to our little guys.  If they're good at maths, and literature, then they simply have a much better chance of doing well, than just one or the other (and I would strongly argue that maths trumps literature...but many people have done fine without being good at maths).


"But I'd never thought I would have a specific maths focus for my son, well one because I really did not like maths myself much in school and thought of myself as a word person not a number person."

You're a parent, that's your call.  If you sense that maths isn't going to work, then literature only may be best.  In my case I knew David had the genes to do maths, regardless of the fact that he hated it (back then).


"I know maths is important, although I still find myself googliing that phrase for evidence to really sell me on it, but I have never given serious consideration to emphasizing math with my son until after reading this thread. So here is my question for you Robert or Mandabplus3 or anyone who wishes to chime in really - to achieve the things we're talking about here what goals should I set for my two year old son (he's two this Thursday) for us to achieve by 3."

Unfortunately I have trouble remembering David's timeline back at that age.  I think I was hitting him up with numbers, but I'm not certain.  I would suggest that you just use addition flash-cards.  As I mentioned earlier, don't worry if he understands the concept of 2 plus 3, just get him to say "5".  He will learn the concept later - that was what I found out, the hard way.  The concept is much harder than the fact...as the concept is abstract, whereas the fact is simply memorization.  Also use a number line, it really worked with David.  He would just tick down the line.  But it was on a marker board, so I stared erasing numbers, and he had to remember what was in between...and finally he got there, without the number line.  The numbner facts are very tough at that age, so be patient and expect progress to be a tiny bit at a time.


"Robert I know you started with David at 3.5 yrs and Mandab you started earlier, what would you suggest should be my goals from this year moving forard, even in terms of concentration time, his understanding of work vs play time etc."

Just as I wrote above.  And if you can get through addition, then subtraction, and times, and division (the last two actually went very easily for him).  Their brains are like computer chips at this point, if you can burn it into them, they will never forget it.  But if you wait too long (and I mean really long), it will never get there.  Just like learning a language fluently.

Best of luck!!

I'll chime in a bit too, Nee1.

"I’ll up my goal to keeping him a minimum of 3-4 years ahead in math and reading. That will change very rapidly to keeping him 5 years ahead, and even up to 8 years ahead, just like Robert accomplished with his son. So 3-4 years ahead will now be my current minimum, and then we will quickly scale it up depending on how he performs. Thank you so much for that insight."

Just a heads up here.  Saxon does get more time consuming at the higher levels, so polishing off 4 books in the first year, starting at 54 may be doable (and was done by David), that may not be as possible later on...although 2 books per year through junior high should be doable.  Also the kids, if in school, will be getting more homework as they get older, so there's that competition for time.  I can't really quantify it much better, I just observed that David's available time for Saxon dropped off as he got older...so don't count on more than 2 books for year starting at junior high.


"And thank you so much for updating us with how your daughter is doing with Saxon. 2 lessons every day is great, and as Robert mentioned,  in 11 weeks, you can get the entire book finished, then move on to Saxon 65, and so on. Please keep us updated with how it’s all going, I’m learning a lot from your updates. And thank you to Robert for explaining how David completed the 4 Saxon books in just over a year. I'll be using that game plan too, so thanks a lot for sharing."

Sure thing, and I second you, keep us informed on your kid.  If he (I think) does well, that increases my credibility on the subject and may well mean that it's doable by many, many, kids - which is what I think anyway.


"I am learning so much from this thread, and I’ve made serious modifications to my plans. And my expectations for school have changed immensely. If my child will be schooled, I will consider it simply as a day care center (as Robert advised); my child's real education will be at home under my tutelage."

Yep, dead-on.  And your child will appreciate that for the rest of his life, especially as your child sees other kids struggling.  And your child will still pick up a lot of good stuff at school in other areas, but you won't have to worry about the core stuff.


"Thanks so much, Mandabplus3. And thank you, Robert. I'm very grateful for the insights you both have shared."

Any time, like I say, this is a load of fun for me.  I had given up on finding parents that believe this is possible.

"As a teacher and a parent with accelerated kids, bearing in mind this may only be relevant in Australia, 2 years ahead isn't enough. I thought it was. My kids are two years ahead in math now. Neither of them is far enough ahead to be given differentiated instruction in math. Yes in English they do, but they also have to do the grade level grammar ect first."

Thanks Mandabplus3.  First, even though I might be looked at as superhuman or something here (a first for me as a parent), the two year number was a guess that I had, at the outset, and never got to check on it.  It seemed like the minimum amount one would need to stay far enough ahead to be good at material before it was 'taught' to them by "The System".  But there's an implied assumption there that the presentation of the material by The System is basically the same as  by Saxon (i.e., the way its been done for hundreds of years).  From what I can tell with Everyday Math, for example, they jump around, a lot - so it's certainly possible to need to be even further ahead, just in case they hit Trig proofs in 2nd grade, for example.  Also, you're still looking at school as a place where you kids should learn math - kinda old fashioned in my book (LOL), but since you are (which is fine, I just never considered that a possibility and didn't account for it), then things may change and you need to get them to the level necessary, as you state.  And my thought, also, with the 2 years was for parents that don't necessarily want their kid light years ahead of the pack, and thus with kids much older, for any of a number of reasons.  So yes, don't stop at two years, but it still may work well as a minimum (except, maybe, with Everyday Math or stuff like that).


"For math I recommend 3 years ahead OR 2 years ahead with awesome mental calculation speeds or an impressive math party tricks bag! the advanced kids who get differentiated work around here are years ahead and still get just one or two grade levels ahead for their " advanced" textbook. I think so lazy teachers don't have to teach them anything and they can work independently through a text book."

That certainly makes sense to me.  What's shocking is that program even exists there, because they're long-gone here (from what I can tell), where 'equity' is the buzz-word.  But yes, getting 3 years or more ahead is not tough (if you start young enough), and if they actually still have a way to be learning math in school, that's great.  I just can't bring myself to seeing how that could still be done here - but we still have something like 10,000 school districts, and I'm not a researcher, so maybe there is some similar stuff here.


"However the biggest factor as to whether or not your kid gets extention work is whether or not the teacher likes you and believes you."

Key point for every parent (and kid too).  You must do what you can to be liked.  Had my wife been a jerk and acted like she was owed something, then David would have been in a bind, because Pam (at the community college) would have simply told her tough-luck at that age.  Instead Pam went to the State Board of Education and asked whether there were any laws or rules against accepting a kid that young (he was much younger than anyone else they ever dealt with).  They said nope, he just needs the 500/500 SAT scores required for anyone under 18 years and he can enroll.  She also interviewed David and he charmed her (and he got the needed scores).  But I remember reading a couple of years ago about a ~12 year old at UCLA (I think) that wanted to spend a semester in South Africa as part of her liberal arts education.  Not required, but commonly done.  The school told her to take a hike and that it wasn't safe (probably not safe, these days, for adults either).  Rather than say something like "thank you, I appreciate your diligence and looking out for my kid" they filed a lawsuit, hence the news article.  That's going to make that school think a lot harder about admitting young kids again...and maybe that was their strategy?


"You all know my oldest had a whole year off last year. A year of staring out the window because her teacher was a snot! ( this is the year she should have learnt about negative numbers BTW!!!) she went from dux to below average in one year!  I will only ever experience this once, I will never again let any teacher be the sole educator of my kids. They are too impotent to me."

Ok, you're with me, cool.  Sorry about that experience.  It is very, very, difficult to have a bad teacher and realize it, even later in life.  One is, of course, inclined to think that the teacher knows what he's doing.  It is also very difficult to realize and accept as a parent that your kid is not being taught properly - because what do you know?  Do you know "early learning pedologies", or whatever the hell they call that, as well as an 'expert' in that area?  Of course not - so SHUT UP, you parent, you're clueless.  So now you're forced to play catch-up, but you have time and you will not have a problem.  David had a teacher in 3rd grade, I think, that loved looking at birds and always took the kids out there to watch, and watch, and watch - and then gave lessons on birds in class.  David knew every species native to Southeast Texas.  He would rattle off names and descriptions like he was a biologist.  The other kids lost a year of reading and math - David had nothing at all to worry about, so we just joke about.


"It's interesting to note that a number of my friends are starting to realize that my kids are not smart because they are smart. They are finally starting to realize that to top the class requires a whole load of effort at home."

Yea, I'm convinced that most parents think that if they had David as their kid, that David would have done just as well - but since they're stuck with their own kids, they might as well lay back and let The System take care of them.  That's why they never ask me questions (except for the Russian lady using Saxon).  They are ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS as to how David would have turned out if we just threw him into that meat grinder and given him calculators, Facebook, video games, etc.  Like I say, I barely made it through, and The System wasn't even half as bad as now.  They also don't realize that their kid may well be another Einstein, but even average kids with parents like myself who take education into our own hands will clean their clock, every time.  There are probably a whole lot of other kids that could have done better than David, given the same parenting...but were never given a chance.  (I know it sounds like I'm bragging, but I'm trying to make a point here)


"All of them think it is only achievable in my house because I am a teacher."

Exactly!  They figure out an excuse.  (sorry about this bragging again, but I need to make another point)  Without going into details...I am known very, very, widely on Space Station as the absolutely expert when it comes to electrical power architecture and how to keep equipment powered in contingencies.  I'm probably considered a genius in my own right - and I don't deny some of the stuff I've come up with over the years is pretty clever.  So people who know me and hear of David just think it "rubbed off" on him.  They have no idea how close, many, many, times I came to not being there.  I was not in the honor society.  I made the honor roll once in high school (you needed to hold at least a B in every class)...not to mention my near-death experiences - you get the point.


"Sadly i know correcting them is pointless, none of them are willing to put in the effort to get the results. Of the two that I thought might, I suggested one get a tutor ( which is working beautifully!) and the other is doing a second curriculum entirely in Japanese. These two families will do well over the years. But mine will do better."

A lot of it, I suspect, is fear.  I just have a tough time thinking that 99% of today's parents are that lazy.  To me, it's just that they think that either they will not accomplish anything (after all, how can they do better than the experts that designed The System), or that they could even make things worse - you know, wrong pedologies and what not.  It takes a lot of self-confidence to tell The System that they are full of it and cut one's own path.  It was only my early-life experiences (i.e., learning arithmetic and reading by sheer luck), and my political instincts (understanding that there are evil people out there that don't want my kid, or kids that look like him, to succeed) that allowed me to do what was necessary. 

Hi Nee1,

"A friend shared the story once, that he tried to teach his daughter maths the traditional way, and she whined: 'Daddy, that is not how we are taught in school'. So he gave up trying to teach her with the fear that he might mess her by teaching her the traditional way.  Based on MummyRoo's story and Robert’s response to that story, I realised my friend should not have given up. He should have known that the 'new way’ would be the thing that would rather mess her up in future."

Exactly.  The reason your friend gave up is because he (or she) trusted "The System" to do what's best.  But who should you really trust?  Math, through Calculus, was developed over thousands of years, with Calculus itself being invented (or discovered) about 350 years ago.  In other words, everything your kid learns through Calculus has been around for at least 350 years, and the early stuff for thousands of years.  So, we've had thousands of years (or at least many hundreds of years) to figure out the best way to do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, and we've come up with the traditional way - the way our parents learned.  There were many great minds in those thousands of years - and I would almost bet that they tried out the Lattice Method (as you link to), as they had plenty of time to do math and no calculators to distract them.  They almost certainly concluded that there is really no merit to that method at all, and only a bunch of politically-driven education nutcases in Chicago would ever force kids to learn that (and that would only be after the Birth of Christ, the New World, and Chicago even existed).  So, in other words, I trust the work of the first 4990 years a lot more than I trust the work of these fanatics of past 10 years, and so does Saxon.  [that was fun to write]


"If a child spends so much time learning 20 different ways of doing addition, when will he/she then learn how to do advanced math, and then go to developing math theorems? You can’t develop solid and publishable math theorems without a solid knowledge of math facts (most of it memorised); you just can’t.  The very inefficient methods of these ‘new math' curricula bother me greatly, take for instance this video of 'Everyday Math' book which I posted earlier on this thread.  (Huge thanks to Robert for originally posting this video alongside his Amazon.com review of the book)."

Yep, and again, it all starts with a political agenda.  Then their strategy makes sense.  People have trouble dealing with that, for they ask how could our huge school system not be operating in the best interests of the kids.  So once again, I would point people to Bill Honig in California.  That's probably the best-documented case of the damage they are capable of.  I lost many friends over the years because they thought I was the nutcase - but I didn't write a curriculum that threw out 4990 years of recorded history for some fad of the past 10 years and then force on to kids - with no evidence that it can match what was was even being taught prior (and it can't hold a candle to it).


"I have decided, based on the insights I've read on this thread, to keep my child a minimum of 2 years ahead in the core subjects (math and reading) with  very strong emphasis on math, just like Robert did. And that is not to brag or score points, but to ensure no one messes him up in these core subjects should he go to school. Thanks a lot, Robert. I've learnt A LOT from you. Thank you, thank you, and thank you."

You're welcome, welcome, welcome.  As I've said before, I had no intention of David shooting past others the way he did, it just happened because of Saxon.  My only goal was that 2 years, and just as you said, so "The System" could not contaminate his brain with their garbage - I got there first and got the connections made.  If he had stayed just 2 years ahead and with his peers, I suspect math class would have been fun - like doing puzzles - but he would always know the right answer and never get caught behind when he went to another school, or college, or if they decided (once again) to go to something new.

Hi Mandabplus3,

"So I just marked the rest of her lessons, she has completed 13 lessons this week."

Outstanding.  You can do that math.  You'll complete a Saxon book in 11 weeks at that pace, and that's if you do every section.  You may remember that I skipped between 20 and 40 sections in the earlier books as they were simply review from the prior book (to make up for summer break), but towards the end of the series, I had David do all problems.  Do the math again and you can easily see how David got through 4 Saxon Books in one year.  He did that only once, as the work does get harder as you progress, but 2 books a year is doable...maybe to the very end.  Remember, that 11 weeks is a full grade level.  I don't make this stuff up, it's doable for virtually any kid that has normal intelligence and a good home.


"She made a couple of mistakes. Three stupid ones so I made her redo them."
LOL.  It was very rare when David got through a single section without a mistake.  Sometimes he did so bad in a section that I made him do every problem over, from scratch.  I also made him check each problem after he finished a set in nearly all cases.  Remember, he hated doing them, and the quality of the work showed.  But our house was not a democracy, so David had to do what he was told.


"She was skipping the date questions because we don't write dates the American way. So I made her do those questions writing them the Aussie way ( day month year)."

Nice...not too many differences between us, and certainly not enough to back away from Saxon.


"To my surprise she learnt negative numbers this week. I didn't know she didn't know them until she told me she learnt all about those in the "number line thing" I made her read it was in the book so she had to read it!
So she has independently learnt a new math skill and got all the associated questions about it right."

Jeeze, I don't remember David ever doing that.  Awesome.


"I am very happy about this! Also annoyed she hasn't already learnt this stuff at school but hey we arnt relying on them to teach her for a reason!"

You waste you energy being annoyed.  Remember what I said earlier, when things are done by otherwise intelligent people, that make no sense, then there is a political agenda.  So don't get angry, you are simply on the other side of that agenda and you must accept it.  We've had almost 4 years of a president 100% opposite from me - but he got power (fairly) and therefore I accept it.  I don't get mad at what he does, simply because I know and understand who he is and I expect it.  But I do chuckle at others that are shocked and mad at what he's doing - what's there to be shocked and mad at - he's just doing what his past has shown him to do and what he promised when he campaigned.  So I accept it and do my best to adapt.  He doesn't get to make me angry.  Likewise in your case (and just about everyone else's), the teachers are either too dumb to know what works so they do what they're told, or, if they are smart enough, they have their political agenda which is also used to control the dumber teachers.  So just look at school as day care now, at least for math.


"One thing I noticed is that it takes me a good chunck of time to mark all her work if she continues at this pace, I reckon i will be working the old grey matter to get my calculation speeds up so I can keep up with her! I don't want her to get too far ahead of my marking."

That's why I recommend having the Home School kits, if you can get them down there.  They have the solutions manuals.  Even at 76, I was needed the manuals - and I am pretty decent at math, still.


"Finally her self confidence is improving. I suggested that perhaps she needed some harder work at school. ( her national testing scores came back suggesting just this  big grin ) and she said " yeah especially in math" music to my ears!"

I like that part.  I didn't get that pleasure with David, but all is fine now.  For school, do your best, and take what you get.  It's not going to affect her either way.  As to self-confidence, that improves as they get the basics figured out.  I figure 80% of the trouble that kids have with new material is that they have to use skills from the past that they either never learned or had forgotten.  One the huge benefits of Saxon is that their problems are designed to keep those skills intact, until they're needed again.


"Thanks for the list in order Robert, now I know what to shop for. This is going to be quite a challenge for me being in Australia!  confused"

Best of luck there.  I guard my set with my life.  They never leave my home - except when we hurricane evacuate - then they are always with me.

"I just want to clarify (as I didn't explain very well) - when I said that I never want my son to think of maths as painful, I meant in the sense that he feels he is stupid and incapable. I fully expect there to be battles against 'boring maths' but I hope that will be because he has 'more important' (to him) things to do, or simply doesn't want to revise topics he considers himself to have mastered."

Ok, you pass (LOL).  That makes perfect sense to me.  But you do miss an important benefit when you actually control his curriculum and thus his learning.  And that is he will never feel stupid or incapable, because he will have mastered all of the per-requisites...and the work he will be doing will just be a tiny notch above what he already knows down cold.  That's the idea of Saxon - things will be different - you're still in the institutionalized mode of education, where knowing 75% of the prior material is good enough.


""Painful" because he doesn't want to take time away from play, I can handle. Painful because he thinks he is stupid and doesn't believe himself capable, I refuse to accept."

Yes on the first, don't worry about the second, based on my first comment.


"And if I am in control of his maths curriculum, I will have the knowledge to nip any self-pity sessions in the bud because I will know exactly what he can do and beat in to him (figuratively!) that he is not incapable, he just needs to work at that topic a bit more."

Don't worry, it won't be nearly as bad as you fear.  He'll do just fine.


"And on the topic of school busywork - my brother came over to borrow my computer for his homework last night. He spent 3 HOURS making a powerpoint presentation (for English class) as prompts for a speech about his holiday!!! Preparing prompts on paper would have taken 5-10 minutes and given the same result."

PLEASE!!! Do not get me started here!!!  I saw the same thing and it was a pain in the neck.  When I write a long report for work.  I just start typing.  Then, only after I have a boatload of words written down, I go back and clean it up and format it.  Yes, you nailed it - the computer becomes a crutch, not a tool, not by a long-shot.  I saw the same with David - he would have an assignment and spend 30 minutes trying to get the margins rights on his paper.  That's why I did all that I could to keep him off of that stuff (including calculators, since many of them are as bad as computers).  There is absolutely no need for computers, and virtually no need for calculators.  In fact, if our technology-driven kids were half as educated as American kids two generations ago, we would not be the laughing stock of the Western World when it comes to education.  Computers have done absolutely nothing to help kids learn - about the only benefit they have is to act as a babysitter for teachers that don't want to teach.


"I never really thought about the content of school homework, but now that I have started noticing it there seems little of any benefit, and little that can't be done without a computer! No wonder children no longer know how to spell (or even write!) - they rarely have the need to put pen to paper, and spelling mistakes are often auto-corrected so they don't even know if they typed it right in the first place!""

Yep - one of the biggest deceptions in the educational world (and believe me, that world is loaded with deceptions) is that computers can teach kids better than pencil and paper.  Well David learned math on pencil and paper, no computer, no calculator, at all.  At one point he was 8 years ahead of his age (that was when I slowed him down, significantly).  Exactly what more should I have expected from a computer?   That's my point - they're useless, for teaching kids.  They are good for analysis, once you understand the stuff.  On Space Station we can predict temperatures of outdoor boxes very accurately using computer models - but someone wrote that software, someone that understood engineering, and without computers.