>12:52, I found an informative presentation on Saxon math via a web search using keywords “Saxon math” and “mastery”.
https://www.pattan.k12.pa.us/files/AYP/Saxon.pdf
Saxon appears to make full use of manipulatives and other similar techniques to enhance understanding. This has traditionally been a hallmark of reform math. So the question would be, shall Saxon be considered a “reform math” program.
I looked a little deeper, and found that in the Saxon program, these activities don’t appear to be at the center of the instructional process (at least not for long, and certainly never exclusively). Rather, these activities are only one among many means to an end. And this is where Saxon appears to distinguish itself from TERC/Investigations and Everyday Math.
Saxon appears to push hard toward the goal of subject matter mastery, and automaticity with respect to the recall of basic math facts, and the performance of efficient mathematical algorithms. It also has a heavy emphasis on regular and meaningful assessment. Finally, Saxon is definitely being sold as a “building block” or foundation-building program that prepares students for future achievement in higher level math subjects, a concept that has particular relevance with parents whose educational backgrounds and current jobs were/are very demanding from a mathematics perspective.
I can’t stress enough my dissatisfaction with any program that deliberately stops short of subject matter mastery or math facts automaticity. For example, both TERC/Investigations and Everyday Math are openly and unapologetically based on the assumption that it is a waste of time for teachers to push students towards the goal of achieving subject matter mastery, or demonstrating fluency and automaticity with respect to basic math facts, since most students either are incapable of doing so, or will be unwilling to do necessary work. This is one big reason why such programs are completely unacceptable to Ridgewood parents.
So the question becomes, why have such programs have survived as long as they have in Ridgewood?
After many months of mulling this question over, and carefully observing all the activities of the BOE and the district’s administrators, I have to conclude the following: Regina Botsford has a vested interest in keeping these programs in Ridgewood. Having had plenty of time to take the temperature of local taxpayers and parents, she knows that if she has any hope of cementing an ideologically pure version of reform math in place in Ridgewood, it is now or never. So she’s using every last bit of her power and bureaucratic force as the assistant superintendent of math instruction to bring about the result she favors. It is literally a one-man (woman) wrecking crew doing its work in real time, right in front of our eyes.