The Imani school also uses the program “Reasoning Mind”… I looked it up and it looked like it was only $20 a month for one student. Does anyone else have any info on this program? Maybe this is also part of their “secret”. Sorry I don’t know how to create a link to the web site “Reasoning Mind”, but If anyone takes a look at it I would love to know what you think. Thanks (I am not as good as everyone on here that knows how to evaluate programs… they said a couple fancy words and I was sold lol)
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
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:
Interesting!
My wife’s school uses an online based math program for remediation, and that particular program is good for review purposes but will leave a student with huge holes if it’s all they did. I will show her this site for future reference.
I doubt they were using this program back in David’s day and am guessing they now use it to supplement or augment what they were already doing. I also doubt that photo is their actual classroom - my guess is it’s the computer lab for working with Reasoning Mind. If all their classrooms look like that, then they are one well funded school. I’d be curious to talk with one of their longer tenured teachers there to get their opinion on all of this (and what they attribute to their long standing success)
EDIT:
Then I read this snippet and have to admit I was wrong. They did have this back in David’s day.
In 2003, the program's pilot year
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 so much for taking the time to look that up and tell me about it. I really appreciate it!! I think I will also do the reasoning minds program with him also. I just ordered the Saxon 65 (1995), and I ordered a bunch of Kumon math books. I also got Professor phonics gives sound advice from the library. I think we are set. Thanks again Robert Levy and PokerD!!!
My son is 6 and he should be finished with Saxon 4/5 by the end of this year or early next year. I have all the books up to 7/6. I plan to end with Saxon here though. I like Harold Jacobs books for high school level math and I was also able to pick up Elementary Algebra (It’s like 3 books in one: pre-Algebra, Algebra 1 and 2) and Mathematics: A Human Endeavor plus workbook for $20 all together. I felt like I robbed a bank. I am still on the hunt for Jacobs’ Geometry but I think I have a couple of years to find it for a great deal. Harold Jacobs does a wonderful job drawing a person into math in a fun and real way without being hokey like other textbooks. Saxon is great for getting the rote memorization down and even number sense. I am really seeing the benefits. It does fall short in making math exciting sometimes. Fortunately, my son finds what he has accomplished enough satisfaction, but I want the world of math to continue being exciting. I hope it will be an easy transition from Saxon to Jacobs.
Has anyone compared Jacobs to Saxon? There are a few engineers who homeschool their kids in my area and they all seem to favor Jacobs over Saxon for high school math. I would definitely be interested, Robert, to know if you have an opinion on Jacobs’ math books.
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.
I learn a lot from this thread. Instructions and Information is really important. Our goal is to help you find a starting point in the Math curriculum that is challenging, but not too difficult.
Very enlightening thread. Thank you poker dad for starting it and thanks RobertK levy for all your contributions. I am now seriously considering Saxon math for my children. Will let you all know how it works out.
Hi.
I just thought that I would share an interesting link that I came across. Author Stephen Hake of the Saxon series writes about which editions to use
http://homeschoolingodyssey.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/saxon-math-author-stephen-hake-part-3/
he specifically advices people to stick to the older editions from algebra1/2 through advanced math
You can read his responses about his association with Saxon, Everyday math
John Saxon’s philosophy
“John Saxon had a starkly different philosophy, which he clearly stated. Our job to teach students what we know until they can stand on our shoulders. Most students do not care why; they care how. We will teach them how, and they will gradually learn why along the way. We are teaching concepts. We are giving them a bag of tools that they will know how to use to solve problems. And my favorite: Creatively springs unsolicited from a well-prepared mind.”
http://homeschoolingodyssey.wordpress.com/
and also his latest Grammar series
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.
A new study came out of Canada about discovery methods verses memorization and higher mathematical thinking.
The shocking conclusion was that memorization led to more higher mathematical thinking after the year-long study.
Rote Memorization Plays Crucial Role in Complex Calculations
If that link doesn’t work try this one.
hat tip to Waterdreamer for finding the article.
Some Quotes from the article:
Memorizing the answers to simple math problems, such as basic addition or the multiplication tables, marks a key shift in a child’s cognitive development, because it helps bridge the gap from counting on fingers to complex calculation, according to the new brain scanning research.
By illustrating the benefit of repetition and memory (*ie, Saxon Style), and showing how it serves as a stepping stone to mature calculation* my addition
One critic of the government’s adoption of “discovery-based learning,†Ken Porteous, a retired engineering professor, put it bluntly: “There is nothing to discover. The tried and true methods of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division work just fine as they have for centuries.
This looks eerily similar to Robert’s review where he says, " When I went through my education, we learned the great names in math, like Pythagoras, Newton, and Euler, who had made great discoveries contributing to the field. I noted that my kid’s name was not among them, so I decided that it was probably best to leave the discoveries to those people, while my kid simply took advantage of the discoveries and had the material taught to him."
You’ve got to love Robert’s keen sense of humor :heh:
Now, on a different note and address the recent links above:
The Stephen Hake emails (blog post/interview) are definitely worth the read. I will point out that he does disagree with Robert some regarding the newer Saxon textbooks and in opinion about Saxon Algrebra 1/2 (the pre-algebra book). In Robert’s Amazon review of it, he felt it was perhaps the best book in the entire series. Hake thinks it’s the one book in the series that can be skipped. It was interesting to get a slightly different viewpoint.
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.
@Korrale4kq
I just realised that you had already posted the links regarding Stephen Hake’s opinions on Saxon math, in March.
My apologies for the oversight :unsure:
My elder dd has started saxon 76. She was having problems with math at school, but seems to be fine with saxon …Keeping my fingers crossed
When do you stop skipping the initial revision chapters? Which level books?
I am receiving the Saxon algebra books this week. " I "feel excited about it 
Waiting to start my younger one on Saxon 54. She has just started doing addition equations and subtraction. Just the white board, marker pen and number line as Robert suggested 
(she also finger counts though)
Has anyone read “John Saxon’s Story, a genius of common sense in math education”? I heard some good things about it on another forum I frequent. For those like me who use (or are planning to use) Saxon with their children I think it may offer some important insight. The poster on the other forum said that there is “a ton of information including philosophies, his purposes for each specific book which books should be taught when and why, how he fought to reform education in America and what he saw as the deficiencies in the educational system”.
Anyway I’ll probably get it, but also thought it might be interesting to some of you as well.
Thanks for sharing, linzy. I’ve found this website where excerpts of the book can be read -http://saxonmathwarrior.com/. Click “print excerpt” to read a pdf excerpt of the book. There is a lot more on the website, e.g., videos by John Saxon, etc.
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!
Linzy,
Did you ever get and or read the book you mentioned? I have been wondering.
I have just finished the John Saxon’s Story book this morning. I doubt I’ll do a very lengthy write-up on it, but will certainly opine here.
It’s a good book. I’ll give it 4 of 5 stars with a break down as follows: writing and cohesion = 3, interesting subject = 5, story telling, etc = 3 (at best), and content/information = 4.
There’s a lot in the book. It starts out with John’s early life and goes from there. I didn’t find his early life all that interesting (though it is, being a military pilot in two wars) - nothing spectacular though from a narrative standpoint. Then, as the book progresses, we get to see how he came up with the textbooks, and I found that very interesting. He was teaching algebra at the community college and was trying to square math instruction with how he felt the Air Force trained pilots. His life reference was through that Air Force filter.
One night, he was trying to understand why his students KEPT FORGETTING the things they were taught.
I will stand back a moment and point out that I’ve read all about this “forgetting” from modern day math teachers. One teacher in particular that I have in mind, attributes this to IQ and genetics; certainly that is part of the issue (debatable how high a percentage it is though).
John realized what Hermann Ebbinghaus had formally realized a full century earlier: people forget things at a predictable rate of decay, and their memory needs refreshing to keep the skills sharp! (Hermann Ebbinghaus’ name appears NO WHERE in the book, which is one of its small flaws, IMO).
If you’ve followed some of the more popular threads here on BK, you might recall the thread Memorization Method where us parents eventually come around to discussing Spaced Repetition.
Spaced Repetition was John Saxon’s “Aha!” moment. You don’t need to understand or be familiar with the technical jargon to notice it’s use in real life, as Saxon did. He knew that acquiring a new skill took practice, and not just practice in a single day, but practice OVER TIME, to acquire and become expert at it. Think of learning a musical instrument, riding a bicycle, learning to drive a car, or any other skill you’ve acquired in your lifetime.
John Saxon then started to create his own worksheets for his class where he attempted to institute this concept of Space Repetition. It seemed to work well in his classroom. He noticed that his students were remembering and mastering the material far better than they were before. This initial success is what propelled his belief that he was onto something… BIG.
From there, he took his worksheets and shopped them around to some publishers. He had no takers.
He didn’t give up, however. He did what I would advise NO ONE to ever do… he mortgaged his house and borrowed on all his kids’ credit (to their max) to get enough money together to self-publish his text book, Saxon Algebra.
With his ONE TEXTBOOK, he went on the road in an attempt to sell it. He was staring at a mountain of debt… something like $70,000 in an era (and area) where average home prices where about $55,000! Further complicating matters was that his textbook was not on anyone’s “approved” list.
Anyway, the whole story is in the book. I found it the most interesting part of the book. The remaining portions of the book where big picture educational stuff, most of which I had already read (though not the Saxon research stuff). For instance, in the text book approval areas of the story, I kept thinking of Richard Feynman’s experience of being on the textbook committee in California… and then, of course, the author actually started mentioning Feynman and his notorious disagreements with it, right there in the book.
This is why I think the content of the book is excellent. The author touched on many different areas. It’s a good overview of many of the issues in education (in general); but, I have a predilection for the topic, whereas a typical reader might not.
I also enjoyed reading about the different people that worked with John Saxon at Saxon Math. Their little vignettes in the book were quite enjoyable.
The book also discusses how these other people are influencing what Saxon books are published these days. Hake, who wrote the 54, 65, 76, and 87 books BY HIMSELF with Saxon’s approval, still has to approve of any alterations (which, of course, are subject to standards such as common core if he’s to continue selling books). Similarly, with Nancy Larson who authored the K - 3 series with Saxon’s approval.
The books that are allowed to be altered without any veto privilege are the flagship books themselves; the ones authored by John Saxon. He’s not around to veto any changes, and therefore, those are the ones subject to the most alterations.
The book on the whole is quite a laborious undertaking. I’d recommend it if you think the parts I’ve mentioned really resonate with you.
If you’re still not sure, read the wikipedia on John Saxon and if it seems interesting to you, go ahead and order the book.