I would have liked to hear the presentation.

On the other hand, when was the last time I used Geometry proofs or the Calculus I learned?

Um......never.

I know some people are going to have to learn advanced math for their careers but at least 90% won't.

Homeschoolers have been using it for several years. You can go to their site and check it out. Besides having good results, it is one of the less expensive programs out there.

Duh! All they needed to do was go back to how math was taught in the 50's and 60's where the basic system of math were taught and used. No calculators, no computers, just pencil and paper and your brain. Let the brain practice the numbers is the only way to learn what functions are required to get the results. Not knowing how an answer was achieved does not make for learning and knowing how math works. The same goes for the english language reading and writing skills. Computers in schools should be reserved for the teachers record keeping and administration use. Although pencils and paper are much cheaper than computers and the high cost programming, there is nothing like the slow process of hand writen calculating to learn. Calculators are not needed in basic math learning but infact impair the understanding and learning of the 3 basics, reading, writing, and math.

Geometry proofs teaches you critical thinking skills and deductive reasoning skills. There is a push to eliminate such important skills from Geometry, but as a parent and math tutor, it would be detrimental to high school students.
You cannot assume that kids will not use these valuable skills in life or when attending college. In fact, we need to assume that kids will go on and benefit from the excellent foundation a good geometry or algebra class would offer them.
I suppose we can continue relying upon immigrants to do some of these top paying jobs in this country, or we can prepare our own students to move into these high paying jobs.

I wasn't impressed with Singapore Math. It is very visual which is a positive, but the overall program isn't as solid as I like Math programs to be. Saxon is still my top choice because of its emphasis on all three aspects of math education, not just one. Students need to master factual knowledge, vocabulary and have a firm grasp on why and how we use mathematical concepts.

Almost no one uses Geometry proofs after high school. But that is not the point. Studying math helps people learn to think critically.

A lot of people are uniformed about how math can help prepare them for the future. About 75% of the K-12 students in Utah study at a college/university, and the amount of math they have in high school is the best indicator of how successful that student will be in college/university no matter what their major is. If you want to be a lawyer you have to take the LSAT in order to get into Law School. Of all the college majors, students who major in math have one of the highest score on the LSAT and one of the highest acceptance rates into Law School. The same is true for acceptance into Medical School and an MBA program. This is not because these exams require Geometry Proofs, but because they require critical thinking.

And then there are a lot of other careers for which math is a great training, such as computer programming, internet security, code breaking, engineering, economics, actuary, statistics, etc.

We are not learning math to assist us in our careers most of the time. We study math to teach us how to think logically, develop a problem solving model and challenge our minds to memorize and apply that knowledge.

Most of the students I tutor in Junior High School still cannot multiply or combine fractions, third and fourth grade level math.

One problem I see with Utah's approach to teaching math is that most elementary teachers are very poor in their own mathematical skills. They choose elementary ed as a college major because they like children and want to be an influence for good in their lives. Consequently, math is poorly taught and poorly received by students.

Lucky is the student who enjoys math lessons from a teacher who loves the subject and is creative in presenting it to the class. Lucky is the student who understands the concepts and memorizes the basic elements of computation, addition, subtraction, multiplying and division, along with fractions, percent, money and measurement.

Is anyone else disturbed that a member of our state board of education thinks Singapore is part of China?

As to the previous comment: We aren't talking about advanced math here. It is shocking how many kids are leaving the grade schools not knowing how to do long division. I assume you would admit to using that in your daily life.

We have wasted time with constructionist math programs that don't give kids basic math skills. I am thrilled that the state board is looking at a program that actually teaches kids math.

Anonymous said: "On the other hand, when was the last time I used Geometry proofs or the Calculus I learned?
Um......never.
I know some people are going to have to learn advanced math for their careers but at least 90% won't."

Where are you getting your figures? 90% won't? And by the way, the last I heard, school was about opening doors for students, not shutting them. If that's too abstract a concept, consider that math helps with "critical thinking skills" which most people in ed schools seem to hold in high regard. Why be against geometric proofs which help develop such skills, even if the actual subject matter of geometry may not be used. Do you not logic in your arguments? Or do you simply rely on figures such as '90%' and hope that no one challenges you.

Don't be too quick to abandon all other programs and choose just one. Don't we need a variety of methods.

It is indeed scary that a board member thinks Singapore is in China. Not just any member either: the until-recently chair of the state board of education and lead opponent of vouchers.

I wish I had the source for this, but I believe it was Lincoln (who became a self-taught lawyer) who studied Euclid's geometry proofs well into the night by candlelight.

People fail all the time to understand the benefits of a mathematics education.

I got a masters degree in math and then entered law school. I think I'm on par with any of my classmates. I do okay on the exams, even though they are skewed toward those with better writing and English skills (as they probably should be). But I suspect whether in law school those better English and writing skills aren't sometimes compensating for a lack of reasoning and analytic skills.

You don't need to get a math degree just to go into math or teaching. I feel I could have successfully entered most any post-graduate subject and done well.

I have been using the full curriculum of the US Edition of Singapore's Primary (Elementary School) Math to tutor teenagers and adults for over 3 years. I am the primary proofreader for the US-published Home Instructor's Guide for the curriculum.

Taking some of the "concepts of" Singapore Math will be nowhere near adopting the full curriculum in our schools. The state of California has recently been instrumental in working with the Singapore Ministry of Education to create the Standards Edition, which is based on the new California mathematics standards for Elementary Schools. These standards are significantly higher than Utah's current standards.

As Anonymous mentioned above, Singapore is NOT a part of China. It is an independent country. Students in Singapore have ranked first in the world in an exam known as "Trends in International Mathematics and Sciences" for the last 15 years.

I would also like to point out to those readers who have stated that formal Geometric proofs are not used outside of school that formal Geometric proofs are not taught as part of the Elementary School curriculum. Nor are they taught in the Secondary Schools (Junior High and High Schools.

The idea of a variety of methods being needed in teaching basic math is not based upon research or outcomes. We have evolved to this idea in the US because many teachers are not comfortable with math themselves and it is for the teahers that we accept "a variety" of methods.

Math is a relatively easy subject to "know what works" because mastery is quite easily evaluated through data. If we evaluate the data of students in Saxon and Singapore math it becomes clear that to offer other methods without hard data to prove their effectiveness is an abuse of the taxpayer dollar and a dis-service to students.

Our school's fifth graders have outscored our district and state by at least 25 percentile points each year in math. We teach the whole range of students, yes even those in special education. And we use Saxon math (with Connecting Math Concepts in the very early grades -another program with great data supporting it).

I'm sure this is one of the reasons we have 2500 students on our wait list each year. It's not rocket science - you just have to be willing to do what is proven to work.

The part they left out? Singapore is a highly regimented society and the kids do not sit in class with cell phones in one ear and iPods in the other. If they act up in class or sass the teacher, they are severely punished. In Singapore, the kids actually pay attention in class.

I was about to make the same comment about our Board of Education about not knowing Singapore is its own soverign country and not part of China. They are only separated by about 1000 km!!!!

Perhaps we need "Singapore/China Geography" too

How about a choice? Some students would do better with this kind of math. Others not so good. But choice is not something Public Education is good at doing. They pick the pattern from on high, then push it down to everyone. My heck, most teachers cannot even understand the math they are teaching! They can tell you the steps, but get them outside of the steps, and they are clueless (generally).

Let those teachers who want to learn this process learn it. They can become the Singapore Math teachers. Other teachers will continue what they have been doing. Then, when it comes time to enroll your kids in Math classes, you not only get to choose what level of Math, but what method!
My hunch is that over time, you will see which method is better, and parents can make informed decisions, instead of administrators from on high.

It is not total choice, but it is a step in the right direction.

Monticello Academy, a K-9 charter school in West Valley City, has successfully used Singapore Math for the past few years. It works, and the kids have a better love for math using it.

Having attended the afternoon session, one of the most impressive things is that out of half a million students in the country, only about 100 need remediation help after 6th grade and are unable to pass a high-stakes test to get into the secondary school system. Their test is very challenging but they have instilled strong thinking skills into their students so they are able to grasp very difficult concepts much earlier than we do. This method works. It doesn't leave out any of the basics either. Singapore math is the very best program in the world and if we could bring it into Utah for K-8, we would be the top state in math and lead America into getting out of our technical drought.

I've used it successfully for years as a home school parent. However, I'm very comfortable with my math skills, and my kids are pretty good at math. If they are going to use it in the public schools, they HAVE to invest in training the teachers to use it. School districts who don't soon find that it doesn't deliver what they had hoped it would.

The textbooks use a lot of visual explanations to show the child how the math works, as opposed to written explanations. There isn't enough practice for someone who is struggling or average in math, they will need to supplement. It is extremely strong in teaching mathmatical reasoning, word problems and in approaching a given concept from several angles. Kids who use it really understand the concepts and actually understand word problems.

The basics are covered very well, in greater depth than American books. American books tend to cover everything shallowly, it might be necessary to supplement some peripheral topics to meet state standards in the same grades as now, such as negative numbers and coordinate graphing. Those are done in later years than we generally do.

As an elementary teacher who KNOWS math, I would love to have us adopt Singapore Math. It is superior to the feel-good, constructivist junk that has been forced on us to teach.

Unfortunately the Math Ed. college professors (not to be confused with Math professors who really know math) are so propagandized against any memorization and algorithms that they don't understand that math is NOT an art. It is a discipline that trains the mind to think logically. Long division can be done with calculators if that is all we need. But that is not all we need. We need students' minds trained to think. Doing long division, memorization, and learning algorithms are essential components for "thinking mathematically". The constructivist philosophy doesn't allow for that reality.

We need a big change in Math Ed. professors.

And crazy people in the US are still buying into this new age math and stuff, it's sickening.

Math the old fashioned way is best. Of course we can't have the kids sitting in rows or the teacher as the authority now can we like they do in China? No we have a better way... the inmates run the asylum.

Do we even need Math Ed. professors? Perhaps we would be better off eliminating that discipline and replacing them with Math professors.

I'm a lawyer and I was in court the other day when the judge asked me to tell him what each beneficiary of a $101,778.50 life insurance policy would get if one beneficiary got 50% of the policy and two beneficiaries each got 25%. Unfortunately, I didn't have a calculator. Luckily I had been forced to undergo rote memorization of mathematical algorithms in school. I still remembered how to do it on paper.

I'm disturbed by the loathing that so many professional educators show towards memorization and practice. They are shortchanging students.

I bought several of the Singapore Math books for use in teaching my own kids. I did this because I heard how Singapore beats everyone in worldwide math scores and how Singapore math gives kids problems that require them to reason and think, not just memorize

I think the state is on the right course and I pray and hope Utah will be successful for the benefit of our kids and our state.

The argument that Singapore Math would not work Utah because of cultural differences is not based on reason or fact. There are many schools who are successfully using Singapore Math in the United States. Some of them are here in Utah. We see those students taking pre-algebra in the 6th grade, instead of 7th or 8th grade. By the time they they are seniors in high school we see them taking calculus.

I'm a professor at Utah Valley University. I believe it is critical for Math standards and instruction in Utah to be changed so our children can be competitive with the rest of the industrialized world. Right now they are not competitive. 67% of all incoming Utah Valley University students do not have the skills to take college algebra. It is costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for us to teach them jr. high and high school math over again. Singapore Math would solve that problem the disastrous problems that has been caused by Utah's flirtation with Constructivist (FUZZY).

I've researched Singapore math. It's not the program that makes the kids do so well, it's the fact that students in Singapore spend their afternoons in practice, practice, practice for hours, AFTER school is already out. Guess what folks, that's ROTE MEMORIZATION!

Consider these quotes from the article:

"Burningham said he is impressed with the idea of getting students to think and analyze — not just memorize or learn by rote — when it comes to math."

Sounds familiar...I know! It's exactly like the sales pitch for Investigations Math, a collossal failure of a math program (if it even deserves to be called that).

"David Wright, a Brigham Young University math professor, said he would like to see the program adopted in Utah but it would be important to teach educators how to implement it, not just put the books in the classrooms."

That's the excuse they used for Investigations failure - it wasn't implemented correctly...

I am always wary of any program that requires the teachers (and of course the parents too if they have any hope of helping their kids through)to go back to school to learn the "new" way.

fuzz fuzz fuzz When will people learn?

I satisfied my BYU general education linguistics requirement with my AP Calculus credit and a year of college Calculus. At first, I thought it odd that math would be considered a language, since it's so much more logical than any language I'm familiar with. It's not an organic mess of fudge factors, it's a construct with precise definitions and consistent rules. Math is an elegant expression of logical thought and intellectual rigor.

Math is a foundation upon which to build comprehension of a vast array of topics. It is simple and clean. The constructivist movement has muddied the waters, and created a class of people who are intellectually incompetent. It's no wonder that the national debt, finance and science are so poorly understood.

Singapore Math is a good step in the right direction, but it must be only a component of a larger reform in education. It's an introduction to logical thinking, but that thinking needs to be reinforced and exercised. We can't afford to be as stupid as we have been.

Singapore is anything but fuzzy. I know, I'm a homeschooler and I use it with my kids. You are right about how Singapore (the country) uses it, as far as all the after school practice. However, it is direct instruction, not "discovery" learning. It moves step by step from the concrete to the abstract, with a lot of emphasis on understanding the concepts and practice attacking the same kinds of problems from different approaches. It truly does teach solid mathmatical thinking. It's one of the 3 most popular homeschool choices, and homeschoolers are the last ones to choose a "fuzzy" curriculum.

Please adopt Singapore math in public schools! Homeschoolers have been using it for years with tremendous results. If you need a few homeschoolers to sit on these boards and help draft new cirriculum, I'm sure I can find a couple dozen right now who could show you what works.

Singapore is not expensive. It is straightforward and concise. Saxon is also a great program. Why don't we divide the state in half and let one side use Saxon for 3 years and one side use Singapore for 3 years and then have a competition to see which districts are the strongest in math. I predict a stalemate. Both programs would take our kids into the stratosphere of mathematics!

I prefer Singapore to Saxon, but you can't go wrong with either.

Kudos to the school board for even considering this program and may they make the best decision for the kids and the future of Utah.

And then let's start considering some critical thinking and logic courses at the junior high and high school levels. Heaven knows we could use more of it. With a good elementary math foundation it only makes sense to build on it.

Dear "to fuzzy math,"

I can understand why so many parents are frustrated by the math confusion. Singapore and Saxon are not Fuzzy Math. As in all disciplines, they both require students to memorize core foundational concepts such as multiplication tables and so forth. Does it work? Please examine the schools in Utah using Singapore or Saxon. Both programs are working well.

Although I favor Singapore, my son had Saxon through grade five. In grade six he was placed in pre-algebra. Next year, 7th grade, he will be in honors algebra. The only glitch in his math experience so far was a two month stint with Investigations Math (Fuzzy Math) in the third grade. When it became evident the program was both confusing and non-rigorous, it was right back to Saxon.

To: same fuzzy math, new package

You are completely wrong. As someone who has (partly) dedicated the last 3 years of my life to this issue, there's nothing fuzzy about Singapore math. The students do not go home and spend hours studying. The professor from Singapore said elementary students have at most 1 to 1 1/2 hours of homework a day for all subjects. He said that would include math, writing, reading, etc... A decade ago, most of their teachers weren't even college graduates. They trained teachers with a very solid program and they continue to hone it.

California's acceptance of Singapore math is great, but they've introduced statistics in elementary schools due to math educators wanting it there, and it shouldn't be so if Utah uses the program (which would be an incredible opportunity for us) we should use the 2001 edition called Primary Math. I've used it at home with my kids to supplement what they've received in school and it's been fantastic.

As for Burningham's quote, I expect that from the people that don't understand Saxon's benefits. Dr. Wright is correct though and teaching the Singapore method would require new training.

Majority of my students always score 100% in math on the State Core Testing for many years. I don't have a miracle method to teach math. I just make them work and think hard in math. I found my high math students do very well on the investigations math. However, many of the students are average students who need a lot of guided thinking in math. I like the guided thinking part of the Singapore math. That's a difference between guided thinking and direct instructions. But, it is not the only tool to teach math. The Asians always score high in math because they can focus better in class and do a lot more math practices after school on their own. In U.S., many students can't focus well and when I give a little more math homework, it considers as "kill and drill". Without a lot of practices, it will not sink into the kids' long term memory. It is not the program that make the difference. It is the attitude and the work habits of the students, parents, and teachers that makes the difference.

I agree with logic. We should adopt both programs fully at the state level and run with the data. The Charter school initiative has already provided great results for both school programs.

CMC also is fairly strong in creating a solid math foundation for young children.

I have taught with both programs, but only the first level of Singapore (most levels of Saxon). These programs have great strengths but need educators who embrace every portion of the program for the maximized benefit of the program to be achieved.

Congratulations to Utah for taking the plunge, not that it hasn't been tested for many successful years now, and not just in Singapore. Ask Oak Norton, or David Wright.

To answer one of the questions in the Comments, i.e., when did I last use a theorem of plane geometry, well, I could answer it with an example but I'd rather answer it with a question for the questioner: When did you use *Hamlet*? When did you use the Gettysburg Address? When did you last use the Mona Lisa?

Kim Burningham, Chair of the State School Board, says he is impressed with the idea of getting students to think and analyze! Well now there's a novel idea,Kim. You act as if you'd never thought of that before. Comforting coming from a leader in education for the State. And Patti Harrington said she'd like us to be the best in the world. Good luck with that. Current stats from the National Center for Education Statistics list U.S. Students 28th among the 41 major industrial nations. The establishment is adverse to change, that's why our country can't compete with other nations. It's clear they don't get it. Burningham said we may be able to implement some of the elements. Singapore's math program works because of ALL the elements. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Singapore Math certainly started out fine but the more I read about the latest editions the more alarmed I am becoming. To the person who called Singapore "direct instruction" I'd sure love to know where that came from. All the websites I have visited, including Singapore Math's own website, describe the program as it exists today with very constructivist-like language, including the fact they have systematically reduced skill content for increased "conceptual understanding" and "real world practice" (uggh). I am especially alarmed at the use of calculators; the 2007 edition pushes them very young. If the state mandated Singapore, or worse yet if my child's school abandoned Saxon for Singapore, I'd be very upset.

One of the things I love and could not imagine my child learning without is the sequential and incremental approach of Saxon. With the introduction of new concepts, old concepts are constantly reviewed and, consequently, retained. By contrast, there is a long lag time between the introduction of Singapore concepts and their review, and, in fact, their content reduction eliminates any overlap so there probably isn't ever any review.

Comparing Saxon to Singapore is like comparing apples to roast beef.

I heard the 2007 edition of Singapore is standards-based math. That equals fuzzy math.

Saxon and Singapore are two very different programs, it's true. Both are excellent, and both very popular with homeschoolers - just not usually the same homeschoolers <grin>... The ones who love the one tend to hate the other, although there are a few on the fringe who supplement one with the other to combine their strengths. The version I own is about 4 years old. It is still for sale, there are at least two different versions on the market. From friends who've used both, Singapore is much better at teaching mathmatical reasoning, while Saxon's spiral approach and constant review works better for some. For some kids, Saxon is overkill, while not developing a deep understanding of concepts. Singapore does a better job of approaching word problems from a variety of approaches, instead of rote formulas.

In this state (and country) we are famous for looking for that silver bullet, immediate fix. We continually go to one extreme to another, over reacting to emotion. I was at the presentation and enjoyed it very much. I was very impressed with Singapore Math; however, one is making a mistake if he/she think it will have the same results here in Utah. (I do think that it will help) There are too many difference between Singapore and Utah, and I don't think we would choose to switch even to be number one in the world in math. Are we ready to send all special needs students to a separate school and not include them in our everyday schools? Are we ready to test our 12 year olds and base their post educational opportunites and directions on their score? Are we ready to pay teachers equal to that of other four-year degree professions?

Think of the motivation (ne it probably negative) the system would generate if parents knew their sixth grader would be tested and his/her educational course would be set as dictated by the score.

Do we really want to be number one in the world in math?

I was a Jr. High/High School Special Ed. teacher's aide in Nevada for about 5 years, and the last year I was there we were using Singapore Math. Many of our teachers from the elementary school and the high school went to New York, I think, to attend workshops to learn how to implement it. It was very interesting to watch the students who struggled with math begin to understand it better, and to have tools to use. I moved from Nevada 3 years ago, so I don't know if the school district where I worked is still using it, but I was impressed with it at that time. I believe it is well worth making an honest effort to LEARN how to use it (the teachers, that is), and then learn how to teach it in a way that will be understandable by the students. And yes, Singapore may be in the "Far East", but it is a long ways from China!

On calculator use: Being at the meeting the rep said they have introduced the calculator now in 5th grade for only tedious calculations. They did this because once you understand the concept you don't need to do pages of homework on triple digit division.

To the person who said the Singapore site is fully of fuzzy terms, that's true. The same can be said of Saxon using the terms. Some fuzzy programs now have "spiraling", a term Saxon used but they use it with different meaning. The terms themselves have become fuzzy because everyone is trying to market their products to everyone.

Here's a real world example. My fourth grader just finished Saxon 5th grade math. It was very challenging for her. I bought the Singapore 5th grade word problem book for her summer review and this is the first problem in the book:

1) Each box had two dozen shirts. A man bought 14 such boxes of shirts at $120/box. He sold 149 of the shirts at $8/each and the rest at $12/each. How much profit did he make?

Vastly different from Investigations/fuzzy math. They expect more from children but in a very logical progression.

Some of you "experts" might believe Singapore is the best program out there but frankly that's your opinion. Please don't force the rest of us to use a program we don't believe in. If you do you're no better than the other "experts" who tried to force us to use Investigations. I'm sure you believe you are right, but they believed they were right too. I believe in Saxon, but I would never mandate it for you. Don't mandate Singapore for me. Thanks.

Whatever reference to China several commenters are responding to is no longer in the article, so I don't what exactly was said. If the two leading presidential candidates can talk about campaigning in "58" states and vetoing "beers", maybe we can cut the person who mentioned "China" some slack. (Especially since over 3/4 of Singapore's population is Chinese, and Mandarin is the most common language spoken in Singaporean homes.)

I'm the poster of most of the homeschooling posts. I use Singapore because I like it, both for teaching it and because it's a good fit for my kids. Some of the posts attacking it came from people who don't have experience with it, so I tried to address their concerns. That's all. I would no more try to mandate it for anyone than I would want you to mandate my kids attend public school.