To a less controversial topic: Robert, which version of Saxon do you think is the best one to get? I won’t need it for quite a while but I would like to keep an eye out for it second-hand. Thanks
This is an interesting four part write up by Saxon Author Stephen Hake. He talks about the history and purpose of Saxon.
http://homeschoolingodyssey.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/saxon-math-author-stephen-hake-part-1/
supposedly Robinson says avoid 1st edition? http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/173624-older-versions-of-saxon-math/
Excellent links! K2U all.
I already have all the Saxon student + teacher editions that I bought off Abebooks about a year ago, BUT I will go through the links later tonight and make sure I did okay by my purchases.
:yes:
I got most of the Saxon books on E-bay for a very decent price. I think I paid less than $50, including shipping, for 5/4 through Algebra I. The best part about getting them second hand is that the older, hardbound books are much more sturdy and I’ll be able to use them for multiple children.
I used Art Reed’s advice to know what edition of Saxon to buy. (Art Reed is the guy referenced in the WTM thread TeachingMyToddlers posted above). Art Reed does monthly newsletters on Saxon Math, and his April 2013 newsletter was on the correct editions of Saxon Math books to buy. Here is the link - http://www.homeschoolwithsaxon.com/newsletterpage-2013.php#0413.
I used his advice in the above link to know what editions to buy. I recommend the hardback copies over the soft-cover copies. Since the books are quite large, the hardback copies will be sturdier than soft-cover copies. You can get all the correct editions of the hardback copies used (and very cheaply too) on Amazon or Abebooks or Alibris.
Thanks nee that’s a. Great link. I was wondering what the differences were with the new ones and the old ones. Now I know. Means not only do I know which ones to get but some of them will be easier to get answer sheets for now too! Very useful. karma to you!
:biggrin:
Thank you Tamsyn, yes that is who I meant, Reed, not Robinson. But now that I think about it, I wonder which he prefers. I am only vaguely familiar with Robinson’s stuff. Do you know?
I am listening to this blog talk radio show right now with Leigh Bortins (creator of Classical Conversations) and guest speaker Art Reed. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/1smartmama/2009/04/08/leigh-for-lunch-with-art-reed Start at 7:52 and skip a lot of B.S.
I am still not sold on Saxon yet, but all of this discussion has piqued my interest so I need to learn more.
When I tried the link nee posted, I got the following message: 404 Not Found Attention: The administrator has blocked your country from gaining access to this network.
Would someone please post the content for me as I would love to read what he says? THanks
[b]Math 54 (2nd or 3rd Ed):[/b] You can use either the hard cover 2nd edition textbook or the newer soft cover 3rd edition as they have identical math content. In fact, they are almost word for word and problem for problem the same textbooks. The page numbers differ because of different graphics and changed page margins, and the newer soft cover 3rd edition homeschool packet has an added solutions manual. However, my experience with that level of mathematics is that most home school educators will not need a solutions manual until they encounter Math 76. If you can acquire a less expensive homeschool kit without the solutions manual, I would recommend acquiring that less expensive set. Calculators should not be used at this level.Math 65 (2nd or 3rd Ed): This book is used following successful completion of the Math 54 textbook. Successful completion is defined as completing the entire Math 54 textbook, doing every problem and every lesson on a daily basis, and taking all of the required tests. To be successful in this textbook, students must have scored eighty or better on the last four or five tests in the Math 54 textbook. As with the Math 54 textbooks, the 2nd edition hard cover book and the newer soft cover 3rd edition have identical math content. The newer 3rd edition series also has a solutions manual, but if you’re on a tight budget, I do not believe that it is necessary at this level of mathematics either. Calculators should not be used at this level.
Math 76 (3rd or 4th Ed): The kingpin book in the Saxon series. This book follows successful completion of the Math 65 textbook. Again, successful completion of Math 65 means completing the entire book as well as all of the tests. To be successful in Math 76, students should have received scores no lower than an eighty on the last four or five tests in the Math 65 course. Either the hard cover 3rd edition or the newer soft cover 4th edition can be used. As with the previous two math courses, there is no difference between the math content of the hard cover 3rd edition and the softcover 4th edition textbooks. I recommend acquiring a copy of the solutions manual as this is a challenging textbook. Students who score eighty-five or better on the last five tests in this level book indicate they are ready to move to Algebra 1/2, 3rd edition. Student’s who encounter difficulty in the last part of Math 76, reflected by lower test scores, can easily make up their shortcomings by proceeding to Math 87 rather than Algebra 1/2. Calculators should not be used at this level.
Math 87 (2nd or 3rd Ed): Again, there is little if any difference between the hardcover 2nd edition and the softcover 3rd edition textbooks. Even though the older second edition does not have “with pre-algebra” printed on its cover as the 3rd edition softcover book does, the two editions are identical in math content. Students who successfully complete the entire textbook and score eighty or better on their last five or six tests can skip the Algebra 1/2 textbook and proceed directly to the Algebra 1, 3rd edition textbook. Both the Math 87 and the Algebra 1/2 textbooks get the student ready for Algebra 1; however, the Math 87 textbooks start off a bit slower with a bit more review of earlier concepts than does the Algebra 1/2 book. This enables students who encountered difficulty in Math 76 to review earlier concepts they had difficulty with and to be successful later in the textbook. Students who encounter difficulty in the last part of this book will find that going into Algebra 1/2 before they move to the Algebra 1 course will strengthen their knowledge and ability of the basics necessary to be successful in the Algebra 1 course. Their frustrations will disappear and they will return to liking mathematics when they do encounter the Algebra 1 course. Calculators should not be used at this level.
Algebra 1/2 (3rd Ed): This is John’s version of what other publishers title a “Pre-algebra” book. Depending upon the students earlier endeavors, this book follows successful completion of either Math 76 or Math 87 as discussed above. Use the 3rd edition textbook rather than the older 2nd edition as the 3rd edition contains the lesson concept reference numbers which refer the student back to the lesson that introduced the concept of the numbered problem they’re having trouble with. These concept lesson reference numbers save students hours of time searching through the book for a concept they need to review - but they do not know the name of what they are looking for. From this course through calculus, all of the textbooks have hard covers, and tests occur every week, preferably on a Friday. To be successful in John Saxon’s Algebra 1 course, the student must complete the entire Algebra 1/2 textbook, scoring eighty or better on the last five tests of the course. Students who encounter difficulty by time they reach lesson 30 indicate problems related to something that occurred earlier in either Math 76 or Math 87. Parents should seek advice and assistance before proceeding as continuing through the book will generally result in frustration and lower test scores since the material in the book becomes more and more challenging very quickly. Calculators should not be used at this level.
Algebra 1 (3rd Ed): I strongly recommend you use the academically stronger 3rd edition textbook. The new owners of the Saxon Publishers (HMHCO) have produced a new fourth edition that does not meet the Saxon methodology. The new fourth edition of Algebra 1 has had all references to geometry removed from it and using it will require also buying a separate geometry book. While the associated solutions manual is an additional expense, I strongly recommend parents acquire it at this level to assist the student when necessary. Depending upon the students earlier successes, this book follows completion of either Math 87 or Algebra 1/2 as discussed above. Calculators are recommended for use at this level after lesson 30. While lesson 114 of the book contains information about using a graphing calculator, one is not necessary at this level. That lesson was inserted because some state textbook adoption committees wanted math books to reflect the most advanced technology. The only calculator students need from algebra through calculus is an inexpensive scientific calculator that costs about ten dollars at one of the local discount stores. I use a Casio fx260 solar which costs about $9.95 at any Target, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Radio Shack, etc. If the 3rd edition of Saxon Algebra 1 is used, a separate geometry textbook should not be used between Saxon Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 because the required two semesters of high school geometry concepts will be covered in Saxon Algebra 2 (1st semester) and in the first sixty lessons of the Advanced Mathematics book (2nd semester). Because they have removed all references to geometry from the new 4th edition, I do not recommend using the 4th edition of Algebra 1.
Algebra 2 (2nd or 3rd Ed): Either the 2nd or 3rd editions of the Saxon Algebra 2 textbooks are okay to use. Except for the addition of the lesson concept reference numbers in the newer 3rd edition, the two editions are identical. These lesson concept reference numbers save students hours of time searching through the book for a concept they need to review - but they do not know the name of what they are looking for. If you already have the older 2nd edition textbook, and need a solutions manual, you can use a copy of the 3rd edition solution manual which also has solutions to the daily practice problems not in the older 2nd edition solutions manual. Also, the 3rd edition test booklet has the lesson concept reference numbers as well as solutions to each test question - something the 2nd edition test booklet does not have. An inexpensive scientific calculator is all that is needed for this course. Upon successful completion of the entire book, students have also completed the equivalent of the first semester of a regular high school geometry course in addition to the credit for Algebra 2. I strongly recommend you not use the new fourth edition of Algebra 2 for several reasons. FIRST: The fourth edition has had all references to geometry removed from it requiring the purchase of an additional geometry book. SECOND: The Advanced Mathematics textbook assumes the student has just successfully completed the 2nd or 3rd edition of the Saxon Algebra 2 textbook with their inclusive geometry. If the student took a separate geometry course between the fourth editions of algebra 1 and Algebra 2, theywill not have had any exposure to geometry for as much as fifteen months (nine months of school plus two summer breaks). This gap will result in the student encountering extreme difficulty in the Advanced Math textbook.
Advanced Mathematics (2nd Ed): Do not use the older 1st edition, use the 2nd edition. The lesson concept reference numbers are found in the solutions manual - not in the textbook! Students who attempt this book must have successfully completed all of Saxon Algebra 2 using either the 2nd or 3rd edition textbooks. Upon successful completion of just the first sixty lessons of this textbook, the student will have completed the equivalent of the second semester of a regular high school geometry course. An inexpensive scientific calculator is all that is needed for this course. For more information on how to transcript the course to receive credit for a full year of geometry as well as a semester of trigonometry and a second semester of pre-calculus, please Click Here.
Calculus: The original 1st edition is still an excellent textbook to master the basics of calculus, but the newer 2nd edition affords students the option to select whether they want to prepare for the AB or BC version of the College Boards Advanced Placement (AP) Program. To prepare for the AB version, students go through lesson 100. To prepare for the BC version, they must complete all 148 lessons of the book. While the 2nd edition reflects use of a graphing calculator, students can easily complete the course using an inexpensive scientific calculator. I recommend that students who use a graphing calculator first attend a course on how to use one before attempting upper level math as they need to concentrate on the math and not on how their fancy calculator works. It is not by accident that the book accompanying the graphing calculator is over a half inch thick.
Also from Art Reed’s newsletter (I think this is worthy of posting in addition to the edition info)
THAT OLD "GEOMETRY BEAR" KEEPS RAISING HIS UGLY HEAD .Home School Educators frequently ask me about students taking a non-Saxon geometry course between algebra 1 and algebra 2, as most public schools do. They also ask if they should buy the new geometry textbook recently released to homeschool educators by HMHCO (the new owners of Saxon). As I mentioned in a previous newsletter late last year, a group of professors who taught mathematics and science at the University of Chicago bemoaned the fact that educators continued to place a geometry course between basic algebra (Algebra 1) and the advanced algebra course (Algebra 2) to the detriment of the student. AND THIS WAS 105 YEARS AGO!
I recently attended the homeschool convention in Wichita, Kansas and the question about the pros and cons of using a separate geometry textbook came up again. The danger of using a separate geometry textbook as described by these professors more than a hundred years ago - still exists today! Placing a nine month geometry course between the Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 courses creates a void of some fifteen months between the two algebra courses because - in addition to the nine month geometry course - for some students, you must also add the additional six months of summer between the two courses when no math is taken. The professors went on to explain in their book that it was this “void” that prevented most students from retaining the necessary basic algebra concepts from the basic algebra (Algebra 1) to be successful when encountering the rigors of the Algebra 2 concepts. Even if you are one of the home school families that schools the year round without taking a summer break, the student will still encounter a nine month “void” from the concepts of algebra during the separate nine month geometry course.
Home school educators also asked about using the new fourth editions of Saxon Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 recently released by HMHCO together with their new separate geometry textbook now offered for homeschool use. To create the new fourth editions of both the Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 textbooks, all the geometry was gutted from the previous third editions of both Algebra 1 and Algebra 2. Using the new fourth editions of their revised Saxon Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 now requires also purchasing their new Saxon Geometry book to receive any credit for geometry. That makes sense, if you consider that publishers make more money from selling three books than they do from selling just two. Regardless of which editions you finally choose to use, I would add a word of caution. If you intend to use John’s Advanced Mathematics, 2nd Ed textbook, do not use the new fourth editions of Algebra 1 or Algebra 2.
So what Saxon math books should you use? The editions of John Saxon’s math books from fourth through twelfth grades that should be used today are listed at the end of my December 2011 Newsletter. This same list appears on page 15 of my book. These editions remain the best math books on the market today, and they will remain so for two or three decades to come.
What came to mind when I saw this was my sophomore year of high school. I took Algebra 1 my 8th grade year and was one of those students that never did assigned homework. The concepts I understood okay, but I was a horrible student (I tested near the top in ability to “learn algebra” the year prior which placed me into the “advanced” class). My 8th grade teacher told me to take the class again my freshman year. I was disappointed, but I did it. We even had the same textbook. Another guy was with me in both classes and let me tell you that we immediately had a reputation for “being amazing at math” when it was really just we had already taken the class. I don’t recall being challenged in the slightest in that freshman course.
Because I wasn’t able to take Geometry (for whatever reason, they needed the Alg 1, Geo, Alg 2 sequence intact) my freshman year, it meant I was going to have to “double up” on math classes one of my years. The good news was that I was able to take Algebra 2 & the Geometry courses concurrently. I may have even had the classes back to back that first semester. I aced both classes, again barely being challenged (I recall it taking me some time to figure out matrices though).
The reason I’m posting the quote and then telling you this story is because of what I noticed between myself and the other students in Algebra 2. That was the class where the instructor allowed me to work ahead in the book at my own pace. I took off. Meanwhile, most (2/3 or 1/2 of the class maybe?) struggled.
Struggled.
We all had Algebra 1, right?
Well, perhaps the difference was that I had a three month break and they had a 15 month break.
Something to think about, no? John Saxon was onto something that I hadn’t really thought of before today.
In Australia math is integrated. Frankly I can’t tell you the finite differences between geometry., trigonometry, statistics, algebra, calculus, because it is all just called Maths. It is a brilliant idea and I can’t figure out why the US does not integrate math.
We do 2 years of Maths in 9th and 10th grade and then in 11th and 12th grade we have the choice to do 2 more years of Maths. There is Maths A, (basic Maths) Maths B (slightly more advanced but still general) and Maths C (Maths for those who wish to do a math related career).
I have read that Singapore. Math is integrated… But I am not sure if it really is.
OK now I get it! Thanks for the country comparison.
Yes in Austrlaia all math is intergrated right up until university studies and I couldn’t even imagine doing it the US way and passing. All my kids do geometry every term of every year. In fact I am quite sure they are well ahead of the US kids age for age. My grade 3 kid is very solid on all geometric shapes, prisms, pyramids, all terms and area calculations. Some of this stuff is in the Saxon 8/7 book. I can Randomly ask any of my three how many sides a ?agon has at any time and they know. I have to credit the schools for this as I never considered EL in shapes.
The reason I like Saxon as much as I do is because revisits everything over a few weeks. It is constantly refreshed in the mind. You learn how to calculate the area of a rectangle one week and you will never forget it because you practice it for the next 10 days and it will pop up again further down the track as part of a more complicated problem. Pulling the geometry out is a VERY UNSaxon thing to do. Leaving it in as part of a wider math curriculum just makes sence to me. Also if a kid hates geometry then doing it separately for 6 months would be pure torture! And while they are tortured they forget everything else they have learnt all year. It’s quite rediculous when youth ink about it.
I can tell the difference in my kids math ability if they even take a couple of weeks of their Saxon. A few months would be FAR worse.
( i really shouldn’t chat here while i am Cooking dinner! I just burnt the tacos shells :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: )
Looking at the Saxon sample pages, it looks so familiar. I wonder if they have a french version of their elementary textbooks. If so I may have used it in third grade.
Two more articles for Robert Levy’s amusement:
That article cites this one from a few months ago, also posted for Robert’s amusement:
Is Everyday Math The Worst Math Program Ever?
In this second one they cite the “what works clearinghouse” which I had forgotten all about! It’s like coming full circle sometimes.
Also in the second article, they cite actual research that illustrates Everyday Math’s ineffectiveness.
I hope you get a chuckle out this Robert. I did. lol
That’s too funny, thanks P-Dad.
I thinking, just this week, about Everyday Math and just how hard it has been to wake people up to just how terrible it is. The vast majority of parents simply feel unqualified to take a stand and figure that the “experts” will take care of it. Then Common Core comes around and the people that have been fighting Everyday Math now have a much easier target to shoot at…even if it’s not the reality. When I saw the articles and example, I said to myself “I’ve seen stuff like that from the first days of Everyday Math, nothing new hereâ€.
But just having people saying that Common Core represents the Obama Administration shoving these crazy ideas into our schools will get half of the parents on board, and actually looking hard at the curricula, usually for the first time. From my standpoint, I could care less whether the two concepts are being confused (intentionally or not), only that horrendous materials, like Everyday Math, get some light shined on it.
As to Common Core itself, it may have started as a “collaboration of the states”, but once the federal government offered $4.35 Billion to the states to implement it, it did become federalized (i.e., Race to the Top, as they called it). It should also be noted that many of the people involved in Common Core have been trying to federalize education their entire working career. It’s just that they finally realized that they could not get away with shoving down a federal curriculum (which may be illegal too), so they had to make it look like a state-led effort.
By the way, if you’re wondering why there is such a strong drive to centralize curricula, it is because that is much, much, easier to control (you don’t have to fight 50 battles, only one), and it is much harder for parents to fight, as everyone can simply blame the next level up, right up to Washington.
So what would I do now if David were 2 years old? Exactly what I did, as I keep coming back to the same conclusions. For reading, you teach him to read – that simple. As you guys know, he was an excellent reader by the time he was 5 years old. There is nothing that a future teacher can do to him to make him “unlearn†reading. They can just throw garbage at him and he’ll twiddle his thumbs all day. Likewise with math. By being able to do math right, he then has a way to check his work that others don’t have (even if he has to erase his work on tests, so the teachers don’t know he’s doing it that way, since that would be ‘cheating’). Once he’s good at math, the right way, then he should be able to do fine in the silly ways that Common Core (or whatever) demands, as it is still based on math, it just that you have to do 50 steps when 6 steps would otherwise be required. In other words you’re kind of forced to play their games, and they are just that and nothing more.
This gives some very good background on Common Core and its development…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjxBClx01jc
…and this article looks like it could have been written by me.
It talks about how math is “boring†and there is no way around it. It basically says that Pythagoras’s Theorem was true 2,500 years ago, is true in the Andromeda Galaxy, is true whether you’re black, white, Chinese, or a cow. You have to learn the same stuff in cases, and you might as well learn it the most efficient and direct way. One thing to always keep in mind about math – the people “redesigning†math, the people that wrote Everyday Math, are EDUCATORS, not mathematicians, not scientists, and not engineers. They are the people that hated math from day one and that’s why I will never, ever, trust them with the subject.
Sorry for taking a while on this, but here’s my info on Saxon Math:
Saxon Math was created by John Saxon, a retired air force pilot in the early 1980s. He had developed supplementary materials while working at a junior college, teaching math. He put these materials together and started publishing math books, under his own company (Saxon Publishers). As he got busier, he added some help, and their names, in some cases, show up as co-authors. Regardless, in the versions of the books that I recommend, you will always see John Saxon’s name as an author (or co-author) – if you don’t see his name, then I’m not recommending that book. Below is a listing of the specific books that I own, used with David (except for Calculus and Physics), and therefore recommend, along with their edition number and publishing date. As to Calculus and Physics, I don’t see a problem at all with the editions below either. Note that these are NOT the latest editions:
BOOKS USED BY DAVID
Math 54: Hake, Saxon; Second Edition, 1995
Math 65: Hake, Saxon; Second Edition, 1995
Math 76: Hake, Saxon; Third Edition, 2002
Math 87: Hake, Saxon; (first edition), 1997
Algebra ½ : Saxon; Second Edition, 1997
Algebra 1: Saxon; Third Edition, 1997
Algebra 2: Saxon; Second Edition, 1997
Advanced Math: Saxon; Second Edition, 2003
Calculus: Saxon, Wang; (first edition), 1997
Physics: Saxon; (first edition), 1993
Some notes on the above list:
- All books are hardcover, with black and white text and pictures (believe it or not, kids can actually learn that way)
- Stephen Hake is an co-author on the first 4 books. However, he is also a solo author on later editions of this series (which I do not recommend), and to avoid confusion, always look for John Saxon’s name on each book.
- As pointed out above, all of the books that I own (above) have John Saxon’s name as an author
- There are later editions to these books, some are acceptable, and some are not, so be careful and read the other recommendations here.
- The first edition of his books do not say “first edition†which is why I’ve shown it in parentheses.
- Again, always check the editions and the publishing dates, and especially the authors.
- On a related comment, using the list above, the first introduction of calculator use is right near the end of Algebra 1. While this is still too early for my taste (I would avoid calculators right through Calculus…after all billions of people were able to learn math without them), it is still much later than conventional math curricula, and only used, sparingly, in certain areas, like graphing. In my case, I did not permit David to use a calculator until well into Advanced Math, but instead had him use log and trig tables that I developed and printed out…and this seemed to work fine. As to the problems that were meant to be done on calculators (like multiplying very difficult numbers), he would borrow a calculator just for them. Learning how to use a calculator is not hard at all and does not have to be dealt with at all in math class. Now, if you do the Physics text, then, by all means, use a calculator, or slide rule, but use something, as the purpose of that course is not to teach math, but to teach science.
- The books in this list start at the 4th grade level (hence Math 54 is really 4th Grade math, at least when math standards had some sanity to them). Don’t ask why they named them this way.
- The Physics book is not calculus-based, meaning that it is not a college-level, engineering track, physics book. So your kid will still need college-level physics at some point. Some people have questioned the need to even cover this book – I don’t know, but I will say that we did not cover this book and David still did fine in college-level physics.
While I’m no fan of teachers, or especially their unions, on this I agree with them 100%.
For you parents of very young kids who will be sending them to schools (at least public schools in the United States), it’s imperative that you understand EXACTLY what the the schools think of parents that try to take (some) control over the education of their children. And keep in mind here that the people running the schools (and implementing this policy) are almost always from the same background as the teachers (i.e., degrees in ‘education’). This one article does more to get that point across than anything I can think of.
http://www.nysut.org/news/2014/february/nysut-strongly-condemns-sit-and-stare-policies
Once you understand just who these people are and what they think of you, then dealing with them becomes a lot easier. I have a Russian immigrant friend at work who is shocked by the standards in the United States and by the way she’s treated by the teachers of her kids (she has nieces and nephews that are considered “average” in Russia that are still years ahead of what the best kids learn here). But I know the system and there is nothing she can say to me that surprises me, at all. (thankfully she’s using Saxon, so her kids will be fine)
So be prepared and don’t waste energy trying to fight it as a parent…the schools (at least the public schools) don’t answer to you, they just tolerate you and try to humor you. They answer to the people that pay them, and that is the government, always. I could go on and on…but I won’t.
I also found a Washington Post article on the same thing - to be honest, I actually am surprised a bit that they would go this far:
One final comment…it took me some time to figure out why the teachers’ union would have such a problem with sit-and-stare, when they are almost always in lock-step with the people that run the schools, and the last thing on their minds is the welfare of the kids. And then, after reading a few more articles, it dawned on me that the teachers are being evaluated by these exams, and therefore hate them as much as the parents that opt-out. So it’s in the interest of the teachers to minimize the number of students that take the exams, as that discredits their results.
Point 5) first editions do not have it printed on the book.
Why oh why did I not think of that sooner! I have 2 first editions and couldn’t figure out what they were. I assumed since it was printed as recently as 1997 that it would be a newer one and was considering another purchase. Feeling very blonde right now! :ohmy:
Thanks again Robert