Our school switched from Saxon to Chicago Math in our Upper School this year. After reading site after site online, none of which have anything good to say about the program, I remain extremely suspicious about its usefulness. These reservations were confirmed and even magnified after watching this video from Barlow Farms.
The elementary school program is called Everyday Math, and is absolutely unacceptable (but we are not currently using it at this level). I am open to the possibility that the program might be beneficial once students reach the logic stage...but only if they have been taught math according to the grammar stage - which means they have memorized and drilled math facts and have attained mastery in the basic, most-efficient computational algorithms.
Besides Chicago's claim that the point of math is to "understand the process" rather than get the right answer, it is nearly impossible to determine the underlying philosophy behind the method. In my mind, education is all about philosophy...that is the starting point from which the approach, methods, form and content are determined. It appears, based on my examination of the textbooks, as well as others' comments regarding their experience with them, that they proceed from an "outcomes-based" philosophy, and certainly from a standpoint of pragmatism. Efficient calculator use seems to be their primary goal!
Now, I have no problem with wanting students to understand the process or with math being applicable to everyday life. That is part of the goal. However, many more educated and experienced than I, would contend that students best understand the process by first learning terminology, memorizing definitions and practicing with standard algorithms. Over time, this develops logical structures in their minds which, in turn, allow them to learn more advanced mathematical realities and applications. (Even then, we might do well to have our students study Euclid instead of the University of Chicago.)
We might also do well to understand why, in the classical and medieval models of education, the advanced formal study of both math and science are excluded from the Trivium and relegated to the Quadrivium which follows it. A certain maturity of mind is necessary to throughly grasp and appreciate these studies.
Anyway, our students are the subjects of an "experiment" which we hope will not negatively influence their future success in math. And if I am proven wrong, it won't be the first time...!
In the meantime, on a lighter note, check out this take on "Fuzzy Math." Don't watch the guy's mouth, it'll drive you nuts because it's so out-of-sync, but the very real point is made in hilarious fashion!
6 comments:
I watched the first few minutes of that video (the first one you linked), and yeah, that's idiotic. I cluster like that sometimes if I have to do math in my head (usually when I'm guesstimating), but it's way more complicated than the classic way.
Apropos of nothing, I hated Saxon math. It almost sent me into hysterics a few times when I was in elementary school.
The Everyday Math Program is terrible. They use it at my boys' school and I'm really concerned that it doesn't give the foundation that they will need later on. We actually ordered a Saxon math text for the 9 year old and are going to get him a present when he works through it. There was a big meeting about all of the controversy at Wash. U. early in September. Here is the link to the Stltoday.com article.
-- annie b
I don't know anything about Chicago math. However, while Saxon gets the job done, I found it difficult to use in a home school setting. My kids are using Abeka and Bob Jones math, and I really think they are effective without some of the headaches of the repetitiveness of Saxon.
Lori, has anyone at your school said anything about MathUSee? It's a program that several Christian schools have switched to from Saxon because of its practical application aspect.
All - I am not a huge fan of Saxon. I think it lays a pretty good foundation, but at times deals more with the logic of math than many young ones (4th-6th grades) are ready for. I found it frustrating to teach; because of the nature of the lessons, it was difficult to determine if a child was making consistent mistakes. Maybe a more experienced math teacher would pick up on it more easily than I did, I don't know.
I have come to believe that the way the math is taught by the teacher is as important as the curriculum itself. A poor math teacher can botch the teaching of Saxon as well as any other curriculum.
Yeah, Annie, just after the decision was made at our school, I found your husband's old post on it. I have resisted showing the video to the powers that be, but I did submit a number of articles outlining the potential problems with the program. That didn't go very far. Oh, well...I'm glad my children are past the Grammar Stage. Thanks for the link to the article...I'll check it out.
Jenn - Math-U-See was one of 2 or 3 I recommended for consideration. I'm not sure they ever looked at it, though.
All of the curricula that concerns you that falls into a "New Math" category throws up big RED FLAGS for me. I'm having to deal with this bogus stuff coming out of my kids' schools, too. Scarrrrry stuff! Should be reserved for Halloween candy-counting sessions only: some of the kids have to solve their candy counting/distribution problems with "new math' before other kids using traditional algorithyms. First one finished with the correct answers gets the candy! (Guess who wins?!!)
This whole "New Math" thing was a typical reactionary move because U.S. students were falling so far behind other countries in math and science. Instead of returning to the tried and true and beefing the programs back to what they USED to be, we tried to re-invent the wheel.
Admittedly, sometimes wonderful new ideas can emerge from a situation like this...and the "old" way is not always the best way...but in this case, I don't think we've done ourselves any favors.
Post a Comment