Classic Saxon Math (homeschool edition, which is the original) works well for nearly all kids.

There is a newer CC-aligned version, but so many changes that it is Saxon Math in name only.

Educational establishment hated Saxon for telling the truth that "new math" of 1980s/1990s did not work.

I think the whole equity push and dumbing down curriculum/teaching to yhe lowest common denominator has had an impact. The rich kids will always reach their full potential due to out of school tutoring and supplementation, while everyone else just circles the drain with excessive screentime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both PISA and NAEP results have reported poor math results for the US for many years.

Various forms of "new math" curricula have been tried without improvement. What we do not do is teach math effectively. Many students, probably most students, do not get enough math practice. If we were good at teaching then the after school math centers would not be spread from coast to coast.

Other countries with high math scores in PISA teach students math methods that always work and only teach one method per topic (e.g., Multiplication, division, algebra) so the students get enough practice to memorize that one method.

This times 1000. Bright students can handle being taught multiple methods to solve problems. Slower kids need to be taught one way until they master it. Imagine if your new neighbor asked you directions for how to get to Target and knowing that they were new to the area, you told them the simplest, most direct way. After time and many trips using that way, they might start trying other ways or not but they would know how to get to Target. Instead we teach kids all of the ways to get to Target in fairly quick succession. The result is some kids getting most or all of the ways correct and many kids having no idea how to get there. That's math education in public schools.
-a teacher

+ 1 million. I have a friend whose kid was way behind in math. Pulled that kid to homeschool and used a drill-and-kill math curriculum where there was just one way to do it that was drilled to death, and the kid caught up.

My very fast-at-math kid hated the multiple methods because it slowed down learning the easy and efficient way to do it (whatever the standard algorithm is). She easily intuited what all the other methods were trying to teach and didn't need it. The "math workshop" model is just as bad as the "readers and writer's workshop" (aka Lucy Calkins) for kids on all ends of the math spectrum.

Which one?

A lot of homeschool families use Saxon Math as a traditional spiral math program. Here is a sample lesson for 4th grade.
Warm UP
Math facts Fluency -Power Up B

Count aloud - Count by fours from 4 to 60 and then back down to 4.

Mental math
Count by fours from 4 to 60 and then back down to 4.

Problem Solving
In problems a–c, practice splitting the second number to add.
a. Number Sense: 57 + 8
b. Number Sense: 78 + 6
c. Number Sense: 49 + 4
d. Number Sense: 63 + 19 + 200
e. Time: The Johnsons are driving to Yosemite National Park. They expect that the drive will take 6 hours. If the Johnsons left their house at 6:50 a.m., at what time would they expect to arrive at the park?
f. Measurement: Many adults are about 2 yards tall. Two yards is how many feet?
g. Geometry: True or False: Parallel lines intersect.
h. Estimation: Madison has $18.47. Round this amount to the
nearest 25 cents.
Choose an appropriate problem-solving strategy to solve this problem. Here we show four squares. The first is made up of
1 small square. The second, third, and fourth squares are made up of 4, 9, and 16 small squares. Describe the pattern that you see. How many small squares would make up the sixth square of the pattern? Explain how you arrived at your answer.
1 4 9 16 [picture is given of the squares]

Introduce New Concept
There are 43 apples in the large basket. There are 19 apples in the small basket.
[Picture of baskets are shown]

The difference tells us “how many more” and “how many fewer.” There are 24 more apples in the large basket than in the small basket. There are 24 fewer apples in the small basket than in the large basket.
When we compare the number of apples in the two baskets, we see that 43 is greater than 19. To find how much greater 43 is than 19, we subtract.

Larger amount − Smaller amount = Difference
43 − 19 24

Reading Math
We translate the problem using
a larger-smaller = difference formula.
Larger: 43 apples - Smaller: 19 apples = Difference:24 apples

As we think about this story, we realize that it is not a “some went away” story because nothing went away. This is a different kind of story. In this story we are comparing two numbers. One way to compare two numbers is to subtract to find their difference. We subtract the smaller number from the larger number.

Here we show two ways to write the formula:
the Formula is shown in a graphic but the formatting doesn't work so I didn't include it.
A diagram can help us understand a larger-smaller-difference plot. In the following diagram, we have used the numbers from the apple problem. There are two towers, a “larger” tower and a “smaller” tower. The “difference” is the difference in the heights of the two towers.
[graphic shown]

Three worked examples are shown, then 3 practice problems are given

Then students complete 30 mixed problems, some with new concept and many from previous chapters so the material is retained. Subtraction and addition with borrowing, square roots,

Example:

Multiply:
12. a. 5 × 8 b. 2 × 8 c. 5 × 9

13. a. How many quarters equal one dollar?
b. A quarter is what fraction of a dollar?
c. Three quarters are what fraction of a dollar?


14. Represent Use digits and symbols to write this comparison: Three hundred nine is less than three hundred ninety.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both PISA and NAEP results have reported poor math results for the US for many years.

Various forms of "new math" curricula have been tried without improvement. What we do not do is teach math effectively. Many students, probably most students, do not get enough math practice. If we were good at teaching then the after school math centers would not be spread from coast to coast.

Other countries with high math scores in PISA teach students math methods that always work and only teach one method per topic (e.g., Multiplication, division, algebra) so the students get enough practice to memorize that one method.

This times 1000. Bright students can handle being taught multiple methods to solve problems. Slower kids need to be taught one way until they master it. Imagine if your new neighbor asked you directions for how to get to Target and knowing that they were new to the area, you told them the simplest, most direct way. After time and many trips using that way, they might start trying other ways or not but they would know how to get to Target. Instead we teach kids all of the ways to get to Target in fairly quick succession. The result is some kids getting most or all of the ways correct and many kids having no idea how to get there. That's math education in public schools.
-a teacher

+ 1 million. I have a friend whose kid was way behind in math. Pulled that kid to homeschool and used a drill-and-kill math curriculum where there was just one way to do it that was drilled to death, and the kid caught up.

My very fast-at-math kid hated the multiple methods because it slowed down learning the easy and efficient way to do it (whatever the standard algorithm is). She easily intuited what all the other methods were trying to teach and didn't need it. The "math workshop" model is just as bad as the "readers and writer's workshop" (aka Lucy Calkins) for kids on all ends of the math spectrum.

Which one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both PISA and NAEP results have reported poor math results for the US for many years.

Various forms of "new math" curricula have been tried without improvement. What we do not do is teach math effectively. Many students, probably most students, do not get enough math practice. If we were good at teaching then the after school math centers would not be spread from coast to coast.

Other countries with high math scores in PISA teach students math methods that always work and only teach one method per topic (e.g., Multiplication, division, algebra) so the students get enough practice to memorize that one method.

This times 1000. Bright students can handle being taught multiple methods to solve problems. Slower kids need to be taught one way until they master it. Imagine if your new neighbor asked you directions for how to get to Target and knowing that they were new to the area, you told them the simplest, most direct way. After time and many trips using that way, they might start trying other ways or not but they would know how to get to Target. Instead we teach kids all of the ways to get to Target in fairly quick succession. The result is some kids getting most or all of the ways correct and many kids having no idea how to get there. That's math education in public schools.


-a teacher

I agree with this. I have high educational attainment and finished calculus in college but I never got enough drilling in math. I forgot a lot of what I learned K-12 because it was never drilled enough. I sent my kids to a math franchise in middle and high school just to do more practice and to get 1:1 help. My older one is similar to me in math intuition (not highly intuitive) but his skills are much more robust because he has better recall due to practice. He could "get himself to Target". I have to "Call an Uber".

I laugh bitterly when they talk about new "spiraling" math curriculums. I think boring old "drill and kill" works better at certain key points. Revisiting things briefly at random times isn't that much help.

I agree, teaching the standard algorithm (and explaining why it works) benefits most kids, especially the strugglers. Kids aren’t drilled enough with number sense and fact fluency in the younger grades and it makes everything so much harder as they try to progress.

I’ve worked with two different “spiral curriculum” programs. One felt random but one did a great job truly reviewing things in a timely way so teachers could track whether skills were being retained or needed to be remediated. However, because of the time it took to include that daily review in the math time, it was phased out. Kids who aren’t retaining critical math skills in ES really do need to continue to review them; the problem I observed was that it was tough to get the pacing right between struggling gen ed students and the rest of the class.

What was the name of the good spiral curriculum?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both PISA and NAEP results have reported poor math results for the US for many years.

Various forms of "new math" curricula have been tried without improvement. What we do not do is teach math effectively. Many students, probably most students, do not get enough math practice. If we were good at teaching then the after school math centers would not be spread from coast to coast.

Other countries with high math scores in PISA teach students math methods that always work and only teach one method per topic (e.g., Multiplication, division, algebra) so the students get enough practice to memorize that one method.

This times 1000. Bright students can handle being taught multiple methods to solve problems. Slower kids need to be taught one way until they master it. Imagine if your new neighbor asked you directions for how to get to Target and knowing that they were new to the area, you told them the simplest, most direct way. After time and many trips using that way, they might start trying other ways or not but they would know how to get to Target. Instead we teach kids all of the ways to get to Target in fairly quick succession. The result is some kids getting most or all of the ways correct and many kids having no idea how to get there. That's math education in public schools.
-a teacher

+ 1 million. I have a friend whose kid was way behind in math. Pulled that kid to homeschool and used a drill-and-kill math curriculum where there was just one way to do it that was drilled to death, and the kid caught up.

My very fast-at-math kid hated the multiple methods because it slowed down learning the easy and efficient way to do it (whatever the standard algorithm is). She easily intuited what all the other methods were trying to teach and didn't need it. The "math workshop" model is just as bad as the "readers and writer's workshop" (aka Lucy Calkins) for kids on all ends of the math spectrum.

Which curriculum?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both PISA and NAEP results have reported poor math results for the US for many years.

Various forms of "new math" curricula have been tried without improvement. What we do not do is teach math effectively. Many students, probably most students, do not get enough math practice. If we were good at teaching then the after school math centers would not be spread from coast to coast.

Other countries with high math scores in PISA teach students math methods that always work and only teach one method per topic (e.g., Multiplication, division, algebra) so the students get enough practice to memorize that one method.

This times 1000. Bright students can handle being taught multiple methods to solve problems. Slower kids need to be taught one way until they master it. Imagine if your new neighbor asked you directions for how to get to Target and knowing that they were new to the area, you told them the simplest, most direct way. After time and many trips using that way, they might start trying other ways or not but they would know how to get to Target. Instead we teach kids all of the ways to get to Target in fairly quick succession. The result is some kids getting most or all of the ways correct and many kids having no idea how to get there. That's math education in public schools.


-a teacher

I agree with this. I have high educational attainment and finished calculus in college but I never got enough drilling in math. I forgot a lot of what I learned K-12 because it was never drilled enough. I sent my kids to a math franchise in middle and high school just to do more practice and to get 1:1 help. My older one is similar to me in math intuition (not highly intuitive) but his skills are much more robust because he has better recall due to practice. He could "get himself to Target". I have to "Call an Uber".

I laugh bitterly when they talk about new "spiraling" math curriculums. I think boring old "drill and kill" works better at certain key points. Revisiting things briefly at random times isn't that much help.

I agree, teaching the standard algorithm (and explaining why it works) benefits most kids, especially the strugglers. Kids aren’t drilled enough with number sense and fact fluency in the younger grades and it makes everything so much harder as they try to progress.

I’ve worked with two different “spiral curriculum” programs. One felt random but one did a great job truly reviewing things in a timely way so teachers could track whether skills were being retained or needed to be remediated. However, because of the time it took to include that daily review in the math time, it was phased out. Kids who aren’t retaining critical math skills in ES really do need to continue to review them; the problem I observed was that it was tough to get the pacing right between struggling gen ed students and the rest of the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both PISA and NAEP results have reported poor math results for the US for many years.

Various forms of "new math" curricula have been tried without improvement. What we do not do is teach math effectively. Many students, probably most students, do not get enough math practice. If we were good at teaching then the after school math centers would not be spread from coast to coast.

Other countries with high math scores in PISA teach students math methods that always work and only teach one method per topic (e.g., Multiplication, division, algebra) so the students get enough practice to memorize that one method.

This times 1000. Bright students can handle being taught multiple methods to solve problems. Slower kids need to be taught one way until they master it. Imagine if your new neighbor asked you directions for how to get to Target and knowing that they were new to the area, you told them the simplest, most direct way. After time and many trips using that way, they might start trying other ways or not but they would know how to get to Target. Instead we teach kids all of the ways to get to Target in fairly quick succession. The result is some kids getting most or all of the ways correct and many kids having no idea how to get there. That's math education in public schools.


-a teacher

I agree with this. I have high educational attainment and finished calculus in college but I never got enough drilling in math. I forgot a lot of what I learned K-12 because it was never drilled enough. I sent my kids to a math franchise in middle and high school just to do more practice and to get 1:1 help. My older one is similar to me in math intuition (not highly intuitive) but his skills are much more robust because he has better recall due to practice. He could "get himself to Target". I have to "Call an Uber".

I laugh bitterly when they talk about new "spiraling" math curriculums. I think boring old "drill and kill" works better at certain key points. Revisiting things briefly at random times isn't that much help.

Anonymous wrote:Schools on average are getting worse over time, as op pointed out. The data is clear.

The reasons are also clear. Schools are failing at teaching our children in large part because school administrators keep changing the WAY they teach, instead of relying on time-proven methods.

For example:

- abandoning phonics and replacing it with the failed “whole language” approach, then later:

- abandoning whole language and also abandoning phonics and replacing it with the failed “Lucy Calkins” approach,

- trying to replace elementary math with Common Core math, which the common core author’s specifically stated they created to counter “unearned white privilege,”

- eliminating homework because it is not “equitable;” seen as racist,

- de-tracking because it is viewed as not inclusive enough,

- lowering standards in the name of equity,

- “equity grading,” including skills-based grading,

- abandoning direct instruction and overly relying on screen-based, canned curriculums bought high cost from software companies.


We are harming our children’s public education nationally. For decades, we as a nation have allowed the lowering of quality of American public education, compared to the rest of the world.

These trends are not happening in the rest of the world; it’s quite the opposite in Asia.

And these downward trends here do not bode well for our children’s future in America.

What's your evidence for that fake quote R.E. common core?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both PISA and NAEP results have reported poor math results for the US for many years.

Various forms of "new math" curricula have been tried without improvement. What we do not do is teach math effectively. Many students, probably most students, do not get enough math practice. If we were good at teaching then the after school math centers would not be spread from coast to coast.

Other countries with high math scores in PISA teach students math methods that always work and only teach one method per topic (e.g., Multiplication, division, algebra) so the students get enough practice to memorize that one method.

This times 1000. Bright students can handle being taught multiple methods to solve problems. Slower kids need to be taught one way until they master it. Imagine if your new neighbor asked you directions for how to get to Target and knowing that they were new to the area, you told them the simplest, most direct way. After time and many trips using that way, they might start trying other ways or not but they would know how to get to Target. Instead we teach kids all of the ways to get to Target in fairly quick succession. The result is some kids getting most or all of the ways correct and many kids having no idea how to get there. That's math education in public schools.
-a teacher

+ 1 million. I have a friend whose kid was way behind in math. Pulled that kid to homeschool and used a drill-and-kill math curriculum where there was just one way to do it that was drilled to death, and the kid caught up.

My very fast-at-math kid hated the multiple methods because it slowed down learning the easy and efficient way to do it (whatever the standard algorithm is). She easily intuited what all the other methods were trying to teach and didn't need it. The "math workshop" model is just as bad as the "readers and writer's workshop" (aka Lucy Calkins) for kids on all ends of the math spectrum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only moderate to liberal educator who believes we can't really close the gap? Some kids are just not going to excel academically, and some are just never going to be able to read past a 4th or 5th grade level, no matter how much money or curriculum or tech we throw at the problem. I do think all kids going through the public school system should graduate being able to read at this 4th/5th grade level, barring significance differences or disability.

You're missing the point. According to the data, the gap has widened, and is now at its widest ever. The question is, why has the gap widened so much in just two decades? "Some kids just can't" doesn't suffice to explain why more kids can't in 2025 than in 2005.

Equity and the lowering of standards due to equity. Taking away tracking because of equity.

Families with money and options supplement or go private. Poor families can’t and those with the smart kids lose out the most.

+1 and having homework that IS corrected, but does NOT have a significant impact on the grade is how disadvantaged smart kids get the practice their family cannot provide via tutors or commercial after-school supplements.

Eliminating homework seriously harms bright disadvantaged students.

We should lose term homework for “self practice.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only moderate to liberal educator who believes we can't really close the gap? Some kids are just not going to excel academically, and some are just never going to be able to read past a 4th or 5th grade level, no matter how much money or curriculum or tech we throw at the problem. I do think all kids going through the public school system should graduate being able to read at this 4th/5th grade level, barring significance differences or disability.

You're missing the point. According to the data, the gap has widened, and is now at its widest ever. The question is, why has the gap widened so much in just two decades? "Some kids just can't" doesn't suffice to explain why more kids can't in 2025 than in 2005.

Equity and the lowering of standards due to equity. Taking away tracking because of equity.

Families with money and options supplement or go private. Poor families can’t and those with the smart kids lose out the most.

+1 and having homework that IS corrected, but does NOT have a significant impact on the grade is how disadvantaged smart kids get the practice their family cannot provide via tutors or commercial after-school supplements.

Eliminating homework seriously harms bright disadvantaged students.

Schools on average are getting worse over time, as op pointed out. The data is clear.

The reasons are also clear. Schools are failing at teaching our children in large part because school administrators keep changing the WAY they teach, instead of relying on time-proven methods.

For example:

- abandoning phonics and replacing it with the failed “whole language” approach, then later:

- abandoning whole language and also abandoning phonics and replacing it with the failed “Lucy Calkins” approach,

- trying to replace elementary math with Common Core math, which the common core author’s specifically stated they created to counter “unearned white privilege,”

- eliminating homework because it is not “equitable;” seen as racist,

- de-tracking because it is viewed as not inclusive enough,

- lowering standards in the name of equity,

- “equity grading,” including skills-based grading,

- abandoning direct instruction and overly relying on screen-based, canned curriculums bought high cost from software companies.


We are harming our children’s public education nationally. For decades, we as a nation have allowed the lowering of quality of American public education, compared to the rest of the world.

These trends are not happening in the rest of the world; it’s quite the opposite in Asia.

And these downward trends here do not bode well for our children’s future in America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only moderate to liberal educator who believes we can't really close the gap? Some kids are just not going to excel academically, and some are just never going to be able to read past a 4th or 5th grade level, no matter how much money or curriculum or tech we throw at the problem. I do think all kids going through the public school system should graduate being able to read at this 4th/5th grade level, barring significance differences or disability.

You're missing the point. According to the data, the gap has widened, and is now at its widest ever. The question is, why has the gap widened so much in just two decades? "Some kids just can't" doesn't suffice to explain why more kids can't in 2025 than in 2005.

Equity and the lowering of standards due to equity. Taking away tracking because of equity.

Families with money and options supplement or go private. Poor families can’t and those with the smart kids lose out the most.

+1

This is the dark and unfortunate result of DEI in public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only moderate to liberal educator who believes we can't really close the gap? Some kids are just not going to excel academically, and some are just never going to be able to read past a 4th or 5th grade level, no matter how much money or curriculum or tech we throw at the problem. I do think all kids going through the public school system should graduate being able to read at this 4th/5th grade level, barring significance differences or disability.

You're missing the point. According to the data, the gap has widened, and is now at its widest ever. The question is, why has the gap widened so much in just two decades? "Some kids just can't" doesn't suffice to explain why more kids can't in 2025 than in 2005.

Equity and the lowering of standards due to equity. Taking away tracking because of equity.

Families with money and options supplement or go private. Poor families can’t and those with the smart kids lose out the most.