Thanks Evelyn for the kind words (from both of us...plus mom).

We talked Sight Words a bit before, so I'm probably covering prior material.  And, once again, I only have a sample size of one, so there's always risk if I try to make a general rule out of it, but I'll talk it again a bit.

First, never once did we try to get David to memorize any words by sight.  I'm not even sure they pushing Sight Words 18 years ago (when I taught David reading).  As far as I knew back then, it was either Whole Language or Phonics, and I knew enough to understand the unmitigated disaster that Whole Language is.

So, without ever being told to recognize a word by sight, David quickly developed that capability by being able to read phonetically (i.e., after seeing the word enough times you no longer have to sound it out).  And that's where I think the problem is with Sight Words...all adults that can read, read by sight.  And all adults that can read know phonics.  It's just a matter of timing - when do the kids learn each, and in what order?  To me the main question is when are they taught phonics.  Again, to me, Sight Words, at least as implemented in our public schools, seem like a stalling tactic designed to slow kids down (sounds mean, but I really have trouble coming up with another reason to delay phonics until 4th grade).  I also agree with the author that being taught two ways can be confusing, because I can see the kids trying to figure out whether a particular word is one that they were supposed to remember, or one they are to sound out.

Anyway, just my take.

Bob

By the way, this is a very good column regarding Phonics versus Sight Words, at least for kids K to 3rd Grade.  The links he includes are also very good.  Needless to say, David was taught exclusively phonics and the speed at which he learned to read still astounds me (along with his outstanding spelling capability...much better than mine ever was...which I attribute to phonics).

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/why_kids_cant_read.html

Hi again people, for those that know me at least.  Greetings to others here.

It's been while since I gave an update on David, but he's now 21 years old and doesn't mind me getting more specific about his education and career.  So I'll give a quick run-down (some of it may have been posted before).

David graduated from the University of Houston just prior to turning 17.  He received a Bachelor's Degree in math, and a second Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering.  He then went to Texas A&M for a Master's in Mechanical Engineering (that dragged on a bit due to his thesis, and he didn't get that degree until he was 19) - they gave him a teaching assistantship, which covered the cost (that was nice).  During a job fair at A&M he went past a Bloomberg LLC booth and they asked him if he knew programming.  He said he knew some programming (I had him take an on-line class in "C" when he was young, and then it became his big hobby).  They hired him and he worked for 2 years in New York City.  Between business trips and vacations, I must have made it there every 2 months (I love visiting that city).  He lived in a dump, but it was in a great area (Upper East Side of Manhattan) and was within walking distance to work for all but they last few months there (when they relocated his team).  But he had his own place and even managed to save up some money there.

During the time at Bloomberg he came across a Google "challenge" where they would give him an assignment to write a program to perform to meet whatever requirements they gave him.  When he was successful, he'd get a harder problem.  He managed to advance pretty far doing that (with some serious prodding from Mom when she visited) and got to the level where Google asked to contact him.  So now he works for Google in Venice Beach, California.  He's paid well too, very possibly exceeding my income next year (and I do well, as a senior engineer).

So that's his status.  Probably the only thing he knows that I didn't teach him is Programming, and that's his career - pretty funny, but who cares.

You're certainly welcome, it's still a lot of fun to write up this stuff.

Some other considerations on the financial end.  As we zipped through Saxon Math, I had no clue (and certainly no plan) as to how that would affect David as he got older.  But I did know one thing (early college or not), we would not be spending a penny on tutors, after-school instruction, or anything else regarding math, at least through Calculus (nor would we he have to spend much time on it for homework, since it would all be review).  I also didn't know if he even would go to college early as the inclination of most colleges is to not do special favors for people (i.e., it's more work and more risk for them).  So, had he not entered junior college to take Calculus, I was prepared to take him all the through the same math that I took to get my degrees in engineering (I still had my books and these days there are a lot of other places for him to get help).  In other words, by the time he entered college (at age 18 or so), all the math he needed for at least a BS in engineering would be simple review for him - thereby assuring that he wouldn't get tripped up and weeded out in math, and also making some of the other classes (particularly Physics) that much easier (and yes, I would have also taught him Physics early).  In other words, with math already under his belt, the probably of graduating goes up significantly, the probability of graduating with a high grade point average goes up significantly, and the probability of requiring no more than 4 years to complete a BS in a useful field (maybe even 3 years, or less) increases significantly.   All of the above is also a return on investment.

One other factor that may help (if your kid goes to college early), depending on the college and where you're located is that your kid may get some kind of discount for tuition if he's under 18, since the state is supposed to pay his way if he was in public school.  In our case, for a couple of years, we only paid half-price for his tuition at our community college.  We probably could have done the same at his 4-year school, but it was priced low enough for us without the discount, and they were doing us enough of a favor just by enrolling him, so why bother asking about it (the community college did it without us asking).  Related to that, if you had planned to send him to private K-12 schools from the outset, as we were going to do with David anyway, then the tuition we would have paid for high school ended up instead paying for college, so the net effect was that we paid roughly the same amount in tuition for his first 17 years of life, but he had a marketable college degree, rather than a high school diploma and years of college expenses staring us in the face.

Yep, I'm quite cynical regarding public schools, and I have yet to be convinced that I'm wrong.  I probably mentioned this earlier, but my mother (now retired) was a math professor at New Jersey Institute of Technology (basically an engineering/architecture school in New Jersey).  NJIT is a state school.  Obviously New Jersey has public K-12 schools from which NJIT gets most of their students.  One day my mom tells me that virtually everyone is flunking out of her Calculus class.  I ask her why and she tells me it's because they stopped letting kids use calculators on exams - and that was because the kids were graduating with engineering degrees, but couldn't do arithmetic without a calculator.  So that makes sense...but why couldn't they do arithmetic?  Well that was because the K-12 schools gave out calculators in Kindergarten and never looked back - they had completely given up on teaching math without calculators, and these poor kids were entering engineering school without ever having to do a math problem by hand.  Now if those kids were trying to go to Harvard, and Harvard had a no-calculator rule for math tests (which is likely the case), that would be bad enough for those kids, but I certainly wouldn't blame Harvard.  But NJIT is a state school - in the same state as the K-12 schools, yet it didn't seem to occur to anyone that maybe they should coordinate their policies a bit, and either be all-in for calculators, or not permit them in math class - but either way, do it throughout all of the state schools (K-12 and colleges), rather than allowing different policies for different levels of education.  My God, a lot of those kids flunking out probably would have done just fine and gotten their engineering degrees if a coordinated policy had existed...but lives got ruined instead.

"Robert, What can you tell us about Thaddeus Lott? The reason I'm asking is because he's a local educational legend there in Houston, and Saxon math played a role in his success. I went looking online to learn what I could about him, but found the resources were scant. I did come across a comment on a blog that said he had been exposed as a fraud and discredited, but other than some anonymous comment on a blog, I found nothing to suggest the veracity of the accusation.   I also know he was really big into Phonics (as was John Saxon).  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all ITT and especially to the all of those in the Levy household!"

Sorry PD, this one dropped off my radar.  Thanks for the kind words - we had a great Christmas - David was out here, as were a lot of his friends.

As to Mr. Lott, I can't say that I've heard of him, but a few thoughts here.  I'm sure you remember the movie "Stand and Deliver", where Mr. Escalante kids were tearing up the Calculus AP exam in a school that was supposed to have dumb, minority, kids in it.  So the College Board nullified the exam results due to suspected cheating (i.e., Escalante kids "getting help"), and made the kids re-take the exam, this time in much more controlled conditions.  Needless to say, the kids did great again - because they were taught right.  Likewise with the Imani School in Houston, and that was something that I witnessed first hand - again, a school filled with kids that are supposed to be dumb (since they're also minority), but instead running circles around virtually every white kid (and even giving David a run for his money).   So when Mr. Lott is called a fraud, my inclination is that he's doing things right, and therefore making a lot of "experts" look really bad.  The fact that he supports phonics is reason-enough to trust him.   I truly think that people at the upper levels know the real answers when it comes to educating kids - and they simply don't want it to be done.

[Hi Evelyn.  Yep, I'm still checking in, it's just that I'm reverting somewhat to my more stable, lazy, state.  But it's time to start replying again!]

My boy is now 9months old.  When he was around 4months I realized that he was getting BORED, so I started surfing around for games to play with him.  I ended up on a lot of occupational therapy sights and reading about "sensory activities", lots of busy work crafts.  Nothing too exciting until I stumbled on DadDude's teach your baby to read paper.   Came away from that totally excited about teaching my son to read, then ended up here (the article references Brill Kids).  I noticed there was a math section on this forum and thought "hmmm, never considered a baby could learn math too".   

[I can't say much for kids that young.  In our case we didn't do or try to do anything special, other than what I mentioned earlier, which talking to him in the same voice I'd use with an adult.  I actually did that with my dog when I growing up, decades ago, and was amazed that he did actually learn an incredible amount of stuff (such as identifying 15 different people by name call-outs).  There was no way to predict what my dog would learn, so I said everything to him, just as if I were explaining something to a co-worker...and he (the dog) really surprised me with what he did wind up learning.  So I figured no down-side doing that with my kid.  Same results.  One thing I'll never forget was when he was about 5 years old he was talking to my mom in New Jersey and then he hands me the phone.  My mom says (to me): "I feel I'm talking to an adult".  But other than that, nothing - no attempts to imprint anything at such a young age.  Having said that, David's two weaknesses are geography and foreign languages...he's terrible at both, in my opinion, although I happen to be quite good at geography, so my standard is probably unreasonable.  For language, nope, he simply knows next to nothing...so exposing him to that would have been good when he was young, but it didn't happen.]

So then I sorted the posts by number of responses, and of course this one jumps to the top.  Needless to say, I read the whole thread (about a month or so ago now), and have since gone on a mission to research in depth how to teach my baby math.  There is going to be lots of basics, right start math, soroban in his is future to get him ready for Saxon.  Now my biggest problem is explaining to my husband that we need to invest $$$ in out of print math books and store them for about five/six years.

[Maybe I can help here.  Barring a life-changing event, David will have earned about $400,000 in wages by the time he would have otherwise graduated from college with a 4-year degree (i.e., age 22).  While the large majority of these wages are for his work in New York City (where things are expensive, and he's paid in kind), he still would have earned at least half that amount had he stayed in Houston.  Now most parents of college-bound kids of that age would instead be seeing their kids taking out loans, and possibly, also, getting second mortgages on their homes.  We, instead, are just trying to figure out the best early retirement date for me, since I was able to pay off my house a couple of years ago.  Total investment to create that flip in economic forture:  about $500 of Saxon Math books.  There is simply no way that I could have taught him what he needed to zip ahead of everyone else without those books - they literally blew my mind as to how thoroughly they covered everything he needed.  Obviously I cannot promise you the same results, but there is a darn good chance you'll get those results, as long as you follow the Saxon rules (i.e., do every problem, in every section - with the possible exceptions that I call out).  As to the books themselves, like me, they are not getting any younger...so the sooner you get them, the better condition they'll be in, and also you have a better chance of getting the exact editions of the books (i.e., before Big Textbook bought them out).  So move out on it!!!  I've gotten clobbered on virtually every investment that I've made - except for this one, huge, investment.]


Thank you so much for all your insights, and to PokerDad and others who have kept the dialogue going and shared their insights.  I'm from Canada and had no idea of the education politics here.  A few of the books you mentioned are now on my reading list.  I checked with my Canadian friend who teaches grade 1, they are still teaching phonics "phewf".  My husband is from Switzerland and needless to say when I shared some of the insights, he was appalled.  He attended Swiss schools until 10th grade, at which point he went to an international baccalaureate school, and from there a Canadian University for business degree.  He says he learned nothing new past 10th grade.      Makes me want to send my boy to Swiss schools!!!!

[I try not to get too political on this forum, as that is now why we're here (although if Tiger Dad wants to start a thread dedicated to just that, I wouldn't mind...to say the least), but I think it's worth noting something that I read about 2 weeks ago.  It was basically a quote that went something like this:  "I think we all agree that the primary goal of education is equity."  This was directed at a "friendly" education audience, but it was posted.  Again, without getting too political, I'm not sure if most parents here would agree with that - I suspect that most parents reading this would substitute the word "excellence" for "equity", as they would prefer that all kids be given a chance to reach their inherent capabilities.  But once you consider the implications of the term "equity", you then can see why phonics and the times-tables are no longer taught (or, at a minimum, are given a much lower emphasis) - because not everyone learns at the same pace with phonics, or can master their times-tables fast enough.  So we move down, and down, until pretty much everyone can pick up what's going on.  As I've mentioned before, the only person that took Saxon Math to heart (in my personal life) is a Russian immigrant (big surprise there).  Last autumn, she sent her 4th grade daughter to her family back in Russia, to spend 2 months in school there.  She had learned Saxon Math through 6th grade and was actually ahead of her classmates there (not by much, but still ahead).  Had she been taught math by US standards she would not have lasted a week, as they still take math very seriously in that part of the world, regardless of what people may otherwise think of them.]


One more thing before my question - the requisite adulation.  You took a huge leap of faith teaching your son math, a true pioneer.  We have a whole community to rely on and share ideas with.  You trusted your guts and trailblazed, that takes major guts.  Awesome.

[Yep, it's great have such a community around.  As to being a pioneer, yes and no.  In my own little world, definitely yes.  The Internet was still in its early stages and there was no one guiding me.  I only knew of Saxon because my kid's 2nd grade teacher had given David a few photo-copied pages from Saxon 54 (which her daugher was using in 4th grade).  The moment that I saw the quality of the execises I flipped out because that was exactly what I had spent years searching for.  Not too long after that I realized that Saxon Math existed and the rest was history.  But the REAL TRAILBLAZER was John Saxon.  He was the one that put out the books, went to the conventions, was laughed at, and had results that blew away the competition.  Had he not done that, no one would have ever heard of him.  He will always be my lifelong hero, and David's lifelong hero.
  But yes, it was tough...as I mentioned, the progress is not constant, so it's easy to question whether you're doing it right.  But my political instincts literally made the difference for me - again without getting too political here, the people that said that education should phonics and no calculators were the ones that I generally agree with on other issues, so I trusted them here, and they were right.]


Ok, on to my question.  You mentioned your boy would do approx. 2 hours of math a day at home and that you treated his school more or less like a daycare.  Did he ever take his Saxon math book to school and work on it there?  Or was he just keeping his head down in math class working through the regular material?  It seems crazy to think he would do the regular exercises and tests.  I would love for my boy to be able to do one hour of Saxon at his school, then the other hour at home.  It would make it so much easier to get the two hours in.  I also recall that you said you always taught your boy to be very humble, not to shout out answers, only respond if he is asked directly by the teacher, etc...  Did you not want him to do the Saxon at school because you were afraid he would be ostracized? Or was the school just not supportive?

[First question is easy.  I treat my set of Saxon Books the same way I treat my passport, it is never far away from me.  When hurricanes threaten my house (as happens once in a while here in Houston), they are among my top priorities for loading up the van.  There was simply no way that I was about to let my books ever leave my house (except under my possession).  It even drove my Russian friend nuts, as she had to do some serious eyelash batting for me to lend her books, just for her review.  So, no, David wasn't about to bring Saxon Math books to school - way too risky, and had it been a public school I suspect that they would have treated the material as they treat pornography, so no thanks.  I simply taught him to do his best to both keep quiet, and keep his hand down (obviously he could immediately answer any math question that the teach threw out).  A big part of that was so that people would treat him nicely, rather than as a conceited jerk - and that is what happened, they liked him.  Everything, until now, was based on your first question - so it looks like I answered much of the rest already.  As to the school supporting him...no need, he was doing fine at home.  The question of finding the time comes down to priorities.  Two hours per day is not that much, if it is the priority - but if it's put up equally against t-ball, karate, Boy Scouts, Gymnastics, etc., then yes, finding 2 hours can be tough.  We had David do some stuff (Karate and a bit of Boy Scouts), but in the end Saxon Math was the top priority.  I am totally convinced that math and reading need to be done early, or kids simply will never catch up, as their brains can only be wired properly when they are young (just like learning a foreign language) - so for that matter, if you allocate 2 hours to Saxon Math everyday (average) as the highest-priority activity after coming home from school, your kid wins.  After those 2 hours, if there's still time for other stuff, have at it...if not, your kid will be fine too.  Other stuff can wait - your kid will never make a living in gymnastics or karate, so why push it so hard when they are little - there's time later]


One final thanks.  DadDude changed my sons life, thanks to him I was convinced to teach my son to read.  You have now changed my sons life, thanks to you my eyes are now open to possibilities of what children can do with math given the proper environment.  Looking forward to seeing what the years ahead will bring for my family!

[Thank you, that was very sweet.  There is a lot of pressure to "conform"...hopefully I can push back on some of that.  Best of luck, Bob]

Come on now, PokerDad, that study was in Canada - we're talking about American children here (primarily).  Of course their study methhods will get different results, since the children are completely different up there (for example, they get more snow and live in smaller houses).  How can anyone have have doubts about the US educational system, when it's put us where we are relative to rest of the world?
[end of sarcasm]
--------------------------------
My thoughts have always been that you unless you get proficient at the basics, you simply cannot enter the vaulted state of "higher-level thinking skills".  It just makes no sense to me that a person struggling with addition will be able to master the field of Differential Geometry, for example.  I never bought that argument, but I suspect that it was found to be effective at getting parents to stop asking questions such as "why aren't my kids learning their multiplication tables".   And I certainly don't have a reason to doubt that now.
--------------------------------
My (immigrant) Russian friend, who thinks I'm a God because I showed her Saxon Math (ironically, I see her the same, as she's the only person that's ever taken my advice to use Saxon, other than hopefully on this forum) - her daughter is spending 2 months with relatives in Belarus (just started), which for people that may not know, is very similar to Russia in many ways (was part of Soviet Union, uses the same education system, speaks a very similar language, etc.).

She finished her Saxon Math 65 book, and started 4th Grade math in Belarus.  She was also born here and only her father is Belarus, so she is still trying to learn the language there, while being having math fire-hosed at her, Russian-style (no discovery learning there - direct student-on-student competitions instead).  Saxon had her completely ready for their math.  In fact, had it not been for the Saxon prep, she would probably be back here now, it's that different.  I'll keep you guys informed on how that goes.  I'll also ask my friend if there's a Russian word for "calculator", as I doubt it...at least as it pertains to learning math.
------------------------------
I still laugh at that posting (at Amazon).  I was on a roll that day.  But seriously, take the example of Sir Isaac Newton, who gave us Calculus (and Physics).  He is undoubtedly one of the greatest minds in human history, and guess what, he learned Calculus through the "Discovery Method" simply because that was his only choice, as it hadn't yet been discovered (obviously).  But how did he learn Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, and Trigonometry?  I can assure you that it wasn't through the "Discovery Method" as no one used that method back then - it was Direct Instruction, and obviously without calculators.  So Mr. Newton, one of the smartest persons to ever live spends half of his adult life coming up with Calculus via the "Discovery Method", while colleges can teach that same Calculus to people of average (or maybe slightly above average) intelligence in 12 months (3 semesters).  Had Mr. Newton been expected to also learn the precursors to Calculus by the "Discovery Method", it's doubtful that he would have ever even got started on Calculus before he died.
------------------------------
I also noticed that with Mr. Hake regarding Algebra 1/2.  I'll still stick with my rating for it.  Here's my take:

(1)  How I remember it was that David had lightly learned pre-Algebra in the early book (Math 87) as it did cover every aspect of pre-Algebra, but what Algebra 1/2 did would pound it in, and really pound it in.  Similar, maybe, to getting a driver license.  When you get the license, you should have covered all aspects of driving, but it's going to be another 5 to 10 years before you really good at it, and can respond reflexively.  That is a big difference to me (and also a big difference to rental car and insurance companies, LOL).

(2)  I remember Math 87 as being the "optional" text in the series, but Algebra 1/2 being required.  Saxon stated that kids that did really well in Math 76 could skip to Algebra 1/2, whereas kids that struggled somewhat (or more) in Math 76 would do Math 87, and then Algebra 1/2.  So either way, Algebra 1/2 was going to get done.  I also just went to my nuclear explosion-proof vault and too out some of David's Saxon materials to look at.   In their 2001 Home Study Catalog they describe Math 87 as "a transition program for (those) who have completed Math 76, but are not ready to begin Pre-Algebra".

(3)   The first paragraph of the introduction to the Second Edition reads as follows (essentially matching what I wrote, just above):
"This is the second edition of a transitional math book designed to permit the student to move from the concrete concepts of arithmetic to the abstract concepts of algebra.  The research of Dr. Benjamin Bloom has shown that long-term practice beyond mastery can lead to a state that he calls 'automaticity'.  When automaticity is attained at on conceptual level, the student is freed from the constraints of the mechanics of the problem solving at that level and can consider the problems at a higher conceptual level.  Thus, this book concentrates on automating the concepts and skills of arithmetic as the abstract concepts of algebra are slowly introduced.  The use of every concept previously introduced is required in every problem set thereafter.  THIS PERMITS STUDENTS TO WORK ON ATTAINING SPEED AND ACCURACY AT EVERY CONCEPTUAL LEVEL (note:  the original text is bold here, I capitalized, instead).  Students often resist this practice because they feel that if they have already mastered a concept, no further practice is required.  The do not realize that being able to work the problem slowly is not sufficient.  They need to be reminded that mathematics is like other disciplines.  For example, playing a musical instrument well requires long-term practice of the fundamentals.  Playing football, golf, tennis, or any other sport well requires long-term practice and the automation of fundamentals.  Mathematics also requires this long-term practice."

(4)  One other comment, buried somewhere in the book, that I remember, goes something like this (although I wasn't able to find it in the text):  "We realize that many of these problems are contrived and the student will never see them in the real world.  However, doing these problems will get the student very proficient at the underlying math and so that when they come across similar, but simpler, problems, they will solve them with ease."  This comment was written at some point in the book where the problems were getting totally insane (very long arithmetic, pre-algebraic, strings)...so they felt that they had to explain why they were doing it.  It was those kind of problems that convinced me that this was the best math book ever written, something I still believe.  Any kid that does all of the Algebra 1/2 problems (and works them until getting the right answers) will breeze through Algebra, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

(5) Mr. Hake is a co-author (with Mr. Saxon) on my Math 87 book, while Mr. Saxon is the only author on my Algebra 1/2 book.  You can draw your own conclusions as to what that means, if anything.

Good posting, nice to see him talking about the books he was involved with.  Now I just need to find a few hours to read through it (LOL).

In any case, he seems to confirm what I mentioned earlier, which is to be sure John Saxon, himself, appears as a co-author (or only author) on any of the books you use - you'll get a good book (although some early editions are better than other early editions, as long as his name is there, it's going to be a good book).  If his name isn't there, you're rolling the dice.

Thanks for the info - I never heard of Jacobs until now, but they have been around for a while.

I read some reviews on Jacobs, and it does seem pretty decent.  The Algebra book seems to meet my first requirement, which is not using calculators in any way (I know that the 1979 edition would not...but not as sure about the newer editions), and the reviews generally match what you've said, that Jacobs is more engaging than Saxon for kids, but a similar approach (i.e., always reviewing) and also not flashy.  There was some concern that the level of Algebra in Jacobs was a bit insufficient (i.e., too easy and therefore may not be learned as thoroughly).  I don't have any pages from Jacobs, so I can't compare myself and there weren't too many of those reviews.

So, my thoughts, based (again) on my limited experience:  If I were teaching a classroom of kids, I would probably choose Jacobs, since it looks more engaging, and it's still likely of a sufficient level.  If I'm homeschooling, I would think differently, since I have more 'flexibility' in 'motivating' my kid to do his work (and believe me I used that flexibility with David), so what looks like the main attraction to Jacobs wouldn't have been necessary for me.  The bottom line was that given the importance of math, he was going to learn it the way I demanded and there was no debating that issue.

Another way to look at it was that David was going to hate learning math regardless of how it's taught, just as he hated learning to read, and even hated learning programming, initially (but loved reading and programming once he became proficient, math...so-so) - for some kids (especially boys) there simply isn't any interest in sitting down and learning (anything), when there are much more fun things to do.  So, with the enjoyment benefit removed, I would then, given my experience, go back to Saxon, since I now know, 100% certain, that if you do every problem, you will not have a problem with college-level engineering math (and by doing every problem, that means doing every one until you get it right).  Obviously I can't say that with other programs as I never used them - although they may work just fine.

So it may come down, somewhat, to the parent - if you're not bothered with having to watch the kid every moment he's doing problems (as I had to), then Saxon will work well - if you rather be able to have the kid work more independently , Jacobs may be better.

The timing is close.  I was trying to figure it out also.  I think the while the school may have had this program when David competed against them, it was just starting - so David was competing with people that got most of their math education prior to the start of this program.  It's hard for me to remember the timing, but I think the math competitions ended in 6th grade (at least for him), which was when he would have been the 2003/2004 school year (he was 2 years ahead by then).

I still point to the school, however, as they continue to do really well in these competitions.  There is someone there...or probably multiple persons there, that wasn't immediately dazzled by "technology" and instead understood how to effectively use it.

Thanks!  Just enough to get me started.  I did some reading on "Reasoning Mind" and I have to say, at first, it looks a lot different from the way that I taught David, but actually it may not be.  It's totally Internet-based and adaptive, so it tracks what the student is able to do, and then adjusts what is taught. In a way, it's like how I taught David, in that he didn't "progress" to the next lesson until he fully understood the one he was working - easy to do with a one student (or maybe a few), much tougher to do with 20-30 students...but if it's computer-based and adaptive, then it can be done with any number of students.

The person that developed it is a math and physics professor, unlike the "Education" majors that write today's math books for the public schools.  Additionally he's from Russia, so he obviously learned math properly.  He came here, put his kid in public school, and immediately discovered what a disaster it is (like all Russian immigrants that try out our schools).  So he developed Reasoning Mind.

Here are a few links that I found:

The classroom at Imani - not your typical-looking classroom.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/35491648@N07/sets/72157625008216680/

A couple of articles:

http://defendernetwork.com/news/2009/jan/28/a-reasoning-mind-innovative-math-program-bridges/?page=1

http://www.sramanamitra.com/2009/08/12/teaching-k-12-math-online-reasoning-mind-ceo-alex-khachatryan-part-1/

In the second one (just above) he states that he adapted the Soviet system for teaching math to his Interactive/Adaptive format.  If that's the case, it would explain why the Imani kids are running circles around just about everyone they compete against.


Their website:

http://www.reasoningmind.org/

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.

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.

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.

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