Quick Search
Advertise Here?
One Step Ahead of the Train Wreck
- 15-5-09
One Step Ahead of the Train Wreck
Barry Garelick - May 15, 2009
Columnist EducationNews.org
The first math tutoring session with my daughter and her friend Laura had ended. I sat in the dining room, slumped in my chair. "You look sick," my wife said.
 "I am," I said.
Â
My daughter—subjected to the vagaries of Everyday Mathematics[1][1][1], a math program her school had selected and put in effect when she was in the third grade—was having difficulty with key concepts and computations. She was now in 6th grade, and with fractional division, percentages and decimals on the agenda, I wanted to make sure she mastered these things. So, near the beginning of 6th grade, I decided to start tutoring her using the textbooks used in Singapore’s schools. I was familiar with the books to know they are effective.[2][2][2] To make the prospect more palatable, I suggested tutoring her friend at the same time, since Laura’s mother had mentioned to me that her daughter was also having problems in math.
Â
I figured I would start with the fourth grade unit on fractions which was all about adding and subtracting fractions, which they had already done, and then move rapidly into fifth grade, and start on the rudiments of multiplication. "This'll be easy," I thought. "They've had all this before in 4th and 5th grades.â€Â
Â
We only made it into two pages of text in the fourth grade book. I came to find out that despite their being in 6th grade, the concept of equivalent fractions (1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 and so on) was new to them. This was the beginning of my attempt to teach my daughter what she needed to know about fractions while trying to stay one step ahead of the train wreck of Everyday Math (EM).         Â
Â
Train Wreck Defined
Â
To understand why I refer to Everyday Math as a train wreck, I need to provide some context. First of all, some information about me: I majored in mathematics and have been working in the field of environmental protection for 36 years. I not only use mathematics myself, but I work with engineers and scientists which requires a fairly good proficiency in it.
[1][1]        Everyday Mathematics was developed at the University of Chicago through a grant from the Education and Human Resources Division of the National Science Foundation in the early 90’s. It has been implemented in many public schools in the U.S.  Parents have often protested its adoption and in some cases have prevented it from being used, or succeeded in getting the program halted. For example, after a local parent group put pressure on the Bridgewater-Raritan Schools in New Jersey, a very comprehensive program evaluation was conducted (http://www.brrsd.k12.nj.us/files/filesystem/Math%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf) which resulted in a 9-0 school Board vote to replace Everyday Mathematics with a more balanced and traditional program, HSP Math by Harcourt School Publishers.  In other cases (such as in Palo Alto, California most recently), it has been adopted despite protests from parents.Â
Â
[2][2] The Singapore math texts are part of the Primary Mathematics curriculum, developed in 1981 by Curriculum Planning & Development Institute of Singapore. Singapore’s math texts have been distributed in the U.S. by a private venture in Oregon, singaporemath.com, formed after the results of the international test TIMSS spurred the curiosity of homeschoolers and prominent mathematicians alike.
Â
As I mentioned, my daughter’s school in Fairfax County, Virginia started using the program when she was in third grade. By fourth grade, I was seeing some of the confusion caused by EM’s alternative algorithms. This aspect of EM has been written about extensively so I won’t dwell on it here[i][i],[ii][ii],[iii][iii] except to say I wanted to make sure my daughter understood the standard algorithms for two-digit multiplication and for long division. Her teacher insisted they use the alternative algorithms offered by EM; she did not teach the standard algorithm for long division. Some of the teachers at her school offered tutoring services, so we hired one of them to teach her the standard algorithms.Â
Â
The teacher/tutor did as we instructed and after four sessions, my daughter was excited to show me how she could do long division. She wrote out a long division problem but got stuck along the way when she didn’t know the answer to 28 divided by 7. Long division is predicated on students knowing their multiplication facts. My daughter was not alone in this; many of the students in her class did not know them. Perhaps her tutor had discussed what to do in such instances. It was apparent that whatever she told her was not to brush up on her facts, but rather go back to first principles, since my daughter was now drawing 28 little lines on the sheet of paper and grouping them by 7’s. I decided to inquire.
Â
           “WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU DOING?†I asked. My daughter began to cry.
Â
I felt bad about yelling. Later, my wife, daughter and I sat down and reached an
 agreement. It was too expensive to keep on having her tutored-- I had spent $200 so far on tutoring and really could not afford any more. We would therefore halt her tutoring and I would take over provided that I would not yell.
Â
I helped her on an ad hoc basis. If she needed help, I would step in. The problem is that when she needed help, it was generally too late, and I would end up having to do damage control. One problem I was having was that EM does not use a textbook. Students do worksheets every day from their “math journal†a paperbound book that they bring home. Without a textbook, however, it is not always apparent what was taught—particularly when the student doesn’t remember. Any explanation that a student has received about how to solve such problems is done in class. The technique is contained in the Teacher’s Manual, but that is something neither students nor parents have. There is a student’s reference manual, a hardbound book containing topics in alphabetical order and which can provide some guidance, but does not necessarily cover what was said in class. Thus, there is no textbook a student (or parent) can refer to go over a worked example of the type of problem being worked. Worse, sometimes problems are given for which students have no prior knowledge or preparation. They appear to be reasonable problems—it is just not evident to the parent who steps in to help the struggling child that they have had little or no preparation for such problems. Then there is the issue of sequencing, or lack thereof—which I will discuss later.
Â
By the time my daughter was in fifth grade, she would get a problem like 8÷0.3. They had not had fractional division, and limited work with decimals—certainly nothing like this problem before. A typical dialogue would then proceed as follows:
Â
Me: What did the teacher say about how to solve this?
Â
Daughter: I don’t know.
Me: Whattya mean you don’t know? You were there weren’t you?
Â
Daughter: I don’t know what he said; he just said do the problems.
Â
Me: Well, how do they expect you to do this? You’ve never had anything like this before. SO OF COURSE THEY GIVE YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN’T DO AND YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO FIGURE IT OUT?
Â
Wife: (offstage) what’s the yelling about?
Â
Daughter: It’s OK, he’s not yelling at me.
Â
Me: I’m not yelling at her.
Â
Wife: (offstage) I heard yelling. Are you getting mad at her?
Â
Daughter: He’s not getting mad at me; he’s mad at the book.
Â
My daughter’s fifth grade teacher shared my disdain for EM and supplemented it heavily with photocopies of pages from an older textbook. I told him once in an email that I was not happy with EM and asked him his opinion. I’ve asked other teachers this question and they usually chose not to answer—perhaps out of fear for their jobs. I was surprised therefore when he responded: “I totally agree with you on everything you said about Everyday Math. It has been very difficult for me to use the book.â€
Â
Despite his knowledge and good teaching, there was still lack of a textbook and he was still consigned to the pacing and sequence of EM. I believe these factors contributed to the lack of knowledge about fractions exhibited by my daughter and Laura.
Â
The Long March to Fractional Division
Â
Knowing that in 6th grade, they would learn fractional division, as well as decimals and percents, I feared a train wreck if I didn’t get to my daughter first. Given how little they knew about fractions during the first lesson, I felt that my fears were justified.
Â
Fortunately, things progressed nicely with the two girls after that first lesson. But I only had about four weeks before they hit fractional division—not a lot of time. Therefore, I decided to teach each chapter on fraction in the Singapore Math, from 4th grade to 6th grade textbooks in a concentrated burst. Although I really should have started all this back in 4th grade, doing it this way had an unexpected benefit: they saw almost immediately the connections between multiplication and division of fractions. This was no coincidence—the curriculum is very carefully sequenced. And while fractional division isn’t presented formally until the 6th grade, students are working on aspects of fraction division long before they reach the 6th grade. By the time students reach the 6th grade unit on fraction division, they have done hundreds of these problems leading to an understanding of the meaning of and connection between fraction multiplication and division.
Â
The heavy lifting with Singapore worked well; when they got to EM, it was a review. It was almost anticlimactic. It was a one page worksheet asking questions such as “How many ¾ inch segments are there in 3 inches?â€Â After four such questions, the text presented a formula in a box in the middle of the page, titled “Division of Fractions Algorithmâ€. The algorithm was stated as a/b÷ c/d = a/b * d/c. Unlike in Singapore Math, there was nothing to connect any invert and multiply relationships to previous material. In fact there was nothing that appeared to lead up to this—just a rule to be memorized despite EM’s pledge to teach “deep understandingâ€. As I and many other parents I’ve spoken with have found, EM lacks the sequencing to pull it off; and that is the crux of the train wrecks that were to come.
Â
The Spiraling Train Wreck
Â
Numbers with Points in Them
Â
Despite the victory with fractional division, the following week’s tutoring session left me slouched in my chair with my hand over my eyes.
Â
“You look sick,†my wife said.
Â
“I am,†I said. “Just when you think everything is going great, it isn’t.â€
I had planned to focus on word problems in fractional division to cement in the concept, but apparently the day’s math lesson at school had confused Laura, and before my lesson could begin, she asked me the following question:
Â
"I'm confused about something," she said. "How do you get from a number on top and number on the bottom of a line into a number that has a point in it?"Â
Â
I had her repeat the question a few times before I understood she was asking how you convert a fraction to a decimal. Now, Laura was bright and she knew what a numerator and denominator were, and what a fraction was, but apparently the EM lesson they were working on sprung this on them without warning
Â
I wasn’t planning on teaching decimals that day, but seeing that the train wreck of conversion of fraction to decimal was upon us, I took this as a cue. Singapore presents conversions for the first time in the 4th grade text[iv][iv], showing 6 dimes divided into 3 groups yielding 2 dimes per group, which is expressed first as 6 “tenths†divided by 3 is 2 “tenthsâ€.  They then take it to the next step: 0.6÷3 = 0.2.  After a few more similar problems, Singapore then introduces 2÷ 4 and shows a boy thinking "2 is 20 tenths."Â
Â
At the end of the unit they are solving problems like 2.4÷ 6, 3 ÷ 5 and 4.2 ÷7 as well as  non-terminating decimals such as 7 divided by 3. What is striking about this lesson is that while its focus is decimal division, the lesson implicitly teaches how to convert fractions into decimal form by virtue of students having learned earlier that fractions are the same as division. That is, they have learned earlier that 1÷ 4 is the same as ¼. The lesson on dividing decimals was situated in the context of fractions—and treating fractions (i.e., tenths) as units—a unifying theme that extends throughout the Singapore series.
Â
I’ve thought about why Laura could not understand the lesson at school, to the extent she could no longer recognize what a fraction was. I believe it is because while Singapore situates decimals in the context of fractions, EM situates decimals in the context of the unfamiliar. The EM program is predicated on the theory known as the “spiral approachâ€:
Â
“The Everyday Mathematics curriculum incorporates the belief that people rarely learn new concepts or skills the first time they experience them, but fully understand them only after repeated exposures. Students in the program study important concepts over consecutive years; each grade level builds on and extends conceptual understanding.†[v][v]
Â
This does in fact make sense considering that for most people a particular concept or task starts to make more sense after they have moved on to the next level. But this phenomenon occurs when there is mastery at each previous level. For example, I became fairly good at arithmetic and developed a deeper understanding of it after I took algebra; I fully understood analytic geometry after calculus and so on. Each previous bit of learning seems that much more apparent at the next level of understanding.
In EM, however, students are exposed to topics repeatedly, but mastery does not necessarily occur. Topics jump around from day to day. Singapore Math’s very strong and effective sequencing of topics is missing in Everyday Math. While Singapore develops decimals by building on previous knowledge of fractions, in Everyday Math, students are presented with fractions and decimals at the same time. The topic of conversion of fractions to decimals occurs in the fourth grade in the context of equivalent fractions, and is called “renaming a fraction as a decimalâ€. The “Student Reference Manual presents fractions that can easily be expressed as an equivalent fraction with a denominator of a power of 10 such as ½, or ¾. For fractions that cannot be directly expressed with power of 10 in the denominator, the Student Reference Manual provides the following instruction: “Another way to rename a fraction as a decimal is to divide the numerator by the denominator. You can use a calculator for this division. … For 5/8 key in: 5 ÷ 8; “enterâ€; Answer: 0.625.†[vi][vi]
Â
It is not surprising then that Laura would fail to see what was going on. Without knowing what the connection was between fractions and decimals, the fraction ceased being a fraction in her mind and was just a number on top and a number on the bottom with a line in between. And somehow that strange looking number got transformed into a number with a point in it.
Â
What the Casual Observer Doesn’t Know
Â
A casual glance at Everyday Math’s workbook pages does not reveal that there is anything amiss. The problems seem reasonable, and in some cases they are exactly the same type given in Singapore Math. What the casual observer doesn’t know is what sequencing has preceded that particular lesson, nor how that lesson is conducted in class. What is supposed to happen is that students are given a series of problems to work (in small groups). The Teacher’s Manual advises teachers to monitor students as they work through the worksheet and look to see if students can answer certain key questions. If a student cannot, it is an indication that the student needs more help. This means “reteachingâ€. Reteaching amounts to having students read about the particular topic of concern in the Student Reference Manual.
Â
If the lack of proper sequencing, lack of direct instruction, lack of textbook and lack of mastery of foundational material prevents a student from making the necessary discoveries, he or she can be “pulled aside†and given material to read. So teachers are left with a three ring circus of kids getting it, kids not getting it, and are expected to “adjust the activity†as needed.
Â
By the time EM gets to 6th grade, the workbooks are loaded with Math Boxes—the term for worksheet review sessions that come in the midst of a particular unit and consist of a mixture of problems from past years in the hope that the kids will finally master the material. Students get ever increasing amounts of Math Boxes. The expectation is that the nth time through the spiral is the charm. With EM, every day is a new train wreck of repeated partial learning.
Â
Connecting Home with School
Â
The danger of an “after schooling†program such as I was conducting is a tendency for the students to think of the math learned at home to be different or unconnected with the math learned at school. My goal of staying one step ahead of train wrecks worked to get to the topics first, so that by the time they got to it in school, they had seen it before. This was difficult since I was held hostage to EM’s topsy turvy sequencing and occasionally was forced to tackle things like geometry that came out of nowhere. All in all, the crash course that I cobbled together on fractions provided the proper framework to then work with Singapore Math’s lessons on percents, ratios, proportions and rates. The rest of the semester came without undue problems and both girls got A’s in the class I’m happy to say.
Â
I’ve told this story to many people since it happened—mostly people who have asked me what to do when their school has a problematic math program. My last retelling was to my wife; it’s a recurrent theme in our house. We were reminiscing about when I had our daughter’s toy blackboard set up in the dining room, and I was teaching her and Laura the math they weren’t learning at school.
Â
There was no need for me to finish the conversation, because the conclusion is always the same: Poorly structured math programs are not fair to students, parents or teachers. It is unfair to students because they are essentially attending another class after a fully day in addition to finishing their homework for school. It is unfair to parents who have to either teach their kids or hire tutors—and are held hostage to the school’s math program whether they like it or not. And it is not fair to teachers who are expected to teach students based on an ineffective and ill-structured program. Through no fault of the teachers, math taught via EM is math taught poorly. It is by no means easy to teach math correctly. But it is even harder to undo the damage by math taught poorly.
Â
Many teachers do not realize that they have been given an unenviable and impossible task. In fact, I have spoken with new teachers who speak of EM and other poorly conceived programs in glowing terms, speaking of them as leading to “deeper understandings of math.â€Â Some have said “I never understood math until I had this program.â€Â But it is their adult insight and experience that is talking and creating the illusion that the math is deep. Children cannot make the connections the adults are making who already have the experience and knowledge of mathematics.Â
Â
Through my experience teaching my daughter and her friend, I have come to believe that an essential requirement of textbooks is that they teach the teachers. This may happen to some degree with EM, but based on my experience with the program, not much gets transferred to the students. With Singapore Math or any well structured and authentic mathematics program, both teachers and students greatly benefit.
Â
Shortly after this experience, I began taking evening classes at a local university to obtain certification to teach math when I retire. I have no illusions—I’m told that it isn’t easy. I’m not out to save the world—just to educate one child at a time. That said, I will remain forever grateful to my daughter and Laura for having taught me so much about fractions.
[i][i] Braams, B. (2003). The many ways of arithmetic in UCSMP Everyday Mathematics. NYC HOLD website. February. http://www.nychold.com/em-arith.html
[ii][ii] Braams, B. (2003). Spiraling through UCSMP Everyday Mathematics. NYC HOLD website, March. http://www.nychold.com/em-spiral.html
[iii][iii] Clavel, M. (2003). How not to teach math. City Journal, March 7. http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_3_7_03mc.html
[iv][iv] Singapore Math 4A
[v][v] Everyday math; Education Development Center; Newton MA; 2001. Available at http://www2.edc.org/mcc/PDF/perspeverydaymath.pdf
[vi][vi] University of Chicago School Mathematics Project; 2004. Everyday mathematics. Student reference book. 2002. SRA/McGraw-Hill; Chicago (p. 59)
Â
Editor's Choice
Sign up for our Free Daily Email Newsletter
> Haberman Foundation/National Louis University Masters Degree - Who will benefit when classroom teachers take this Action Research and Assessment masters degree?
> Healthcare Education Information 
> Learn a foreign language
> All You Need To Know About Visa to Learn French France
> Online College Degree - Information and tips on online degrees
> do-it-all-janitorialservices.com
> Haberman Foundation and Harvard Graduate School of Education complete a Collaborative Effort
> CampusExplorer.com Search for colleges
> NACAC.net National Association for Admissions Counseling
> Students.gov Link resources for students
> Review and compare the best trade schools in your area.
I think it really helps to have parent's give their perspective on the destruction from these fuzzy math programs. Sometimes you think something is wrong with your child and their ability to understand. Many parents do not realize it's the program itself. This leads to kids feeling something is wrong with them. How do kids with neglectful parents deal with this program? Or parents who lack math skills themselves? They are doomed.
Thank you for sharing your experiences with Everyday Math.  Your daughter is very fortunate that you were able to assess her deficiencies and teach her appropriately at home. Â
Parents should not be fooled by good grades in school or proficiency on mediocre state exams. If your school uses this program, consider having your child independently tested to find out if they are really learning essential content for future success.
American Mathematical Society President speaks:
http://groups.google.com/group/parents-for-quality-math-education/browse_thread/thread/f0fc3d235ff65b3a?pli=1
As the mother of a profoundly gifted son, I have first hand experience with how damaging EM can be. When my son started school he was well versed in multiplication. After the segment on multiplication was taught, he could no longer multiply! Why? Because he was told to use "lattice boxes" and "partial products" and assorted other methods. Instead of leaving well enough alone, with a concept that he had, he was forced to use all of these other methods. Because of his perfectionist tendencies he tried to do them all at once. I had to go back and reteach regular multiplication (the kind we learned) and have a conference with his teacher regarding messing up concepts that he has already mastered.
I am experiencing this now. That made me say EM is damaging!
I would like to know what types of schools do not use EM.Â
Not everyone uses those math programs. Our Charter School uses Singapore math. I taught 3rd and 4th grade math (our kids are on a block schedule and have specialists beginning in third grade, so I had 75 third graders and 75 fourth graders) and the kids love it, the parents usually gripe at the beginning because of hw (20-30 minutes is recommended at these grade levels) and then they get frustrated because they can't do third grade word problems and then they have A-HA! moments around Thanksgiving and wonder why they were not taught math that way!! (I have had many come and sit in class) It is not the "singapore" part that is what makes it so wonderful, it is HOW they teach-kids can "see" how math works, they teach fewer topics each year (the inch wide-mile deep idea) and they teach to mastery.
As a teacher it requires extra time and effort, some kids need extra time and you need to provide them supplements, and some get it in a second and fortunately there are supplemental books (Singapore Math-same series) for them. You also must integrate the Singapore with the state core, which at least in Utah, does not mesh well, but certainly can be done.
BTW, my students (we are a title 1 type school in a poorer section of town) got some of the highest scores on standardized sate testing. It is the teaching fewer concepts each year and teaching them to mastery that is so beneficial. There is great emphasis on mental math also. They also do a lot of fact practice early on- all my 3rd graders knew their multiplication tables (and by "know"-I mean they have mastered) by the end of third grade-
There is an "Americanized" version called "Math in Focus" by an American textbook publisher. Of course it is more expensive and I'm sure they will republish it every two years to make money, but that is the nature of US textbook companies. I have been exposed to Saxon, have never taught it, started with Singapore in first grade with my son after hours of research and have never turned back or regretted it. He is now in 9th grade, in a Charter High School and they were doing an algebra review and he went to the board and drew a bar model to help the class. The teacher's jaw dropped. He will continue at home with New Syllabus Math as a supplement.
Â
As for the poster who said "all teachers should have to learn how to teach math in college" or whatever...the BEST I have seen DID not learn it that way. They have been people that use math in everyday life that have chosen to teach math as a secondary career.
Â
Cindy Dale
Â
I am 56 and as a child was part of the "alpha" testing group for all the new math concepts. We began with set theory. Then moved on to multiplication and division.
To this day I cannot do long division. And I have what we jokingly call a "floating decimal point." All I can say, is thank goodness they invented the calculator, or I'd be screwed in surviving every day challenges.
Does California Preparatory Mathematics for high school students have a similar quality? Is it better than EM, same, worse?
Â
Â
My name is Louise--I am American-but live in Australia. My daughter's name is Sarah and at the end of ninth grade (2007)--I "discovered" Sarah knew single digit addition, subtraction and multiplication well and basically that was about it. When I uncovered this problem--- I just couldn't believe it. Oh, yes- the Australians had adopted the American "Math Model:-
The bottom line---yes, she is "creative"---(I kept hearing she was "right-brained" but that doesn't mean she doesn't have a functioning left side of the brain.) Left to "discover" math---she reassigned new properties values to 0 and 1 which left her with a system that worked about 20% of the time. And unfortunately for her---she developed some pretty sophisticated methods of "covering up" (guessing according to "clues", etc) that compensated another 10% of the time.
I remediated her in one year up through Year 10 ----First, Years 3-7 with Elementary Math Mastery by Dr. Rhonda Farkota (McGraw, Hill)--- a direct, explicit, sequential, math program--- then Years 7-10 with a direct explicit sequential math program that I gave up a year of my life to write based on EMM. 1/2- 1 hour a night----5 days a week and no other math. --In her first foray back into the school 'system", she got a B in Year 10 Final exam---having never before passed a math test.
A basically bright kid.....she is doing the IB programme now-- I am supplementing the inhouse lesson plans.---on her fourth chapter test-she got a 4 out of 7... the highest mark in the class was a 5 out of 7. These kids were literally 6 years ahead of her in math 1 and 1/2 years ago.
The school is shocked at her level of improvement--I don't blame them--- they don't know what they don't know.
I have saved one child from being math illiterate----(I am working on "where to from here"--) I don't think it will be my last.
I
Â
Bravo!  You hit the nail on the head! I have been frustrated for years not recognizing why I had the same issues with my child. Thank Goodness there are still people who can spot subtle details and bring light to what ails us, in interest of change. If there is no book with instructions at which to learn, view, touch, flip through, refer to, then how can one learn except by example? Many of todays' jobs in America require workers to use a training manual, as law provides we obtain training in the trade, least the company face legal reprecussions for safety reasons, etc. I recommend you broadcast this article on CNN.Com, etc. so that a wider audience can read it and can be aware of this too. Not every parent finds his/her way to ednews.org. Thanks!
Here is an interview with my cousin, whose public school adopted Everyday Math.Â
"CatholicMomOf3" is right: parents need first-person testimony about the misery of trying to get a child through these curricula.
Parents need a vote and a veto.
It's not right for establishment educators to force these curricula onto unwilling parents (and taxpayers).
Speaking of taxpayers, my district, I am told, spent $1.5 million dollars on Math Trailblazers.
Now that the first wave of children who had Trailblazers from the get-go has reached middle school, we are also funding a brand-new remedial math teacher. We had 5 math teachers in the middle school last year; this year we have 6 - with significantly declining enrollment.
It's probably time for homeowners to start telling their districts that they want curricula that work.
Thank you for your comment. Just as an interesting aside, Andy Isaacs, one of the principal players at Everyday Math got his beginnings in the business working on Math Trailblazers. From his bio at <a href="http://cemse.uchicago.edu/node/50">the Everyday Math website.</a>
"Beginning in 1986, Isaacs worked closely with Wagreich and Howard Goldberg on the NSF-funded Teaching Integrated Mathematics and Science Project (TIMS). In 1989 and 1990, he worked with Wagreich and David Page on UIC’s Maneuvers with Mathematics Project, another NSF-funded curriculum development effort. From 1990 to 1995, he was a full time writer for Math Trailblazers, a comprehensive mathematics curriculum for grades K–5 based on TIMS and funded by NSF."
Please pass the word, <a href="http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/05/homeschooling-carnival.html">the Carnival of Homeschooling</a> is up (and this post is in it).
Thanks for participating!
 In my area where Everyday Math is used in the schools, parents are told explicitly NOT to help their children. When they do attempt to try to teach their confused children using traditional methods, the kids look at them as if they are crazy, having never seen the material presented that way before. If they then do a math problem using parent taught traditional methods in school, they get the problem marked wrong, even if the answer is correct.
  Taking parents out of the equation and making them seem as a result, 'dumb and outdated' to their kids is a major BAD idea imo. -------
As a co-creator of Everyday Mathematics, I would like to share that the program is the most researched and trusted elementary math curriculum in the United States. It is the program of choice for nearly four million students nationwide. No other program has been developed as thoroughly and carefully over time, with full field testing prior to publication. In addition, no other program has the extensive verification that it works. To read my full response, see www.ednews.org/articles/the-case-for-everyday-math...
Mr. Isaacs has told four whoppers in three sentences that must be confronted: 1) Being the "most researched" of anything says NOTHING-NOTHING about the positive results for the users of the product. 2) Saying anything is the "most trusted" within its field is such a gigantic opinion that must be verified with a massive survey of all real users. Does Mr. Isaacs have such a survey? 3) Saying it is the program of "choice" for students is totally inaccurate, since textbook decisions are made by curriculum directors and, maybe, a textbook committee handpicked to support the reform materials. Parents are rarely listened to about the selection. 4) Saying EM has had full field testing prior to publication is a blatant lie. If it had, there wouldn't be so many parent groups against this product across the U.S. because there would be proof that the product works effectively. That means there wouldn't be the exponential growth in private tutoring businesses to try and help students get through high school and college. This huge remediation problem starts in the elementary years--home of Everyday Math. That's the fact, not the spin.
Everyday Math is our everyday disaster. Â There are established protocols for completing basic math operations...why do the kids need to "discover" this? Â They do not have to "discover" other subjects. Â Â Introducing competing operating methods at the same time is very confusing. Â (Lattice AND partial sums?) Â
The lack of focus is extremely distracting for my otherwise bright children. Â No time to master any of the basic tools before the spiral moves on. Â And very limited links from week to week.
I basically needed to re-teach 3 years of math when my oldest reached middle school (which does NOT use the program -- teachers there seem to like to teach math). Â Â
Not sure who benefits from this ill-conceived program. Â I know there is little stress on the teachers as the students never have to master anything. Â I know the private tutors love it...good for business. Â I guess the school administrator get some financial incentive to use it, as it is difficult to get them to discuss removing it.
Â
The fact that so many schools are using it just means the publisher did good job marketing it.  It is shame that so many districts are using EM because it uses hands on approach.   Hands on approach within an ill structured curriculum can only cause more damage.  It is time for the whole country to use a better math curriculum now.
I strongly agree with what Barry wrote on this article. It is a very honest observation, true experience, and systemic analysis. We can argument all we want about what methods work for what students. But the bottom line is that the students need to solve the problem and come up with the unique answer. I have seen my Calculus III students who understood the concepts 100% and yet can not perform the basic algebra to come up with the answer. How can I award them with a good grade? Do we want our engineers can only talk about MATH and design a bridge without a soild foundation? Would you drive on that bridge?
Now, it is the time to go back to the basic! Everyday Math has been on the "market" for so many years. If it is working, we will not having this conversation now!
Terry Y. Fung, Ph.D. in Mathematics
It is interesting to look at the issue with an historical perspective. Back in the day... all 3rd graders were expected to know their times tables to nines. In 4th grade, students were expected to know their times tables to twelve. They also learned long division. In 5th grade students mastered fraction skills and in 6th grade they learned decimals and percents.
We did a LOT of DRILL.
But then, the 'educrats' (not my word, but I like it) decided that teachers were having students do too much drill. They decided that students weren't being asked to develop their problem solving skills. The 'educrats' even came up with a clever, demeaning term for drill: 'Drill-N-Kill'.
At the same time that arithmetic education went soft, there was another significant, really huge event that affected student learning:Â The invention of the micro chip, and hence, the hand held calculator.
So, even if today's students don't use EM, they still, as a group, don't know how to multiply, don't know their addition and subtraction facts, and forget about long division.
A 6th grade teacher at my school told me, when I complained that 95% of my 7th grade students failed an old-fashioned 6th grade level basic skills test, said that she didn't teach fraction divsion because "the kids can't do it". I still shudder thinking about that statement.Â
The California curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep and the kids aren't learning their skills.
Karen Carter, Math Educator
One thing that we are forgetting in this whole discussion is that programs don't teach students, teachers teach students. I am a teacher in a school system that is considering adopting Everyday Math. I have seem mixed reviews of this program online. But this program will only be as good as the teachers that are implementing it and using it creatively.Â
As far as math instruction goes (math specifically), the problem with traditional math instruction is that most students learned a series of steps to solve problems with no basis or understanding as to why those steps worked or how to apply math to their everyday lives. I was in a college course for teaching math before I understood the concept of base 10.Â
There are students out there that make the connection with math to their real-life applications. But let's face it, a lot of us had no idea why we were solving all those math problems except that our teacher told us to. We had no idea why we had to carry or borrow, just that we had to in order to get the right answer. And most of us had no idea why those algebraic equations worked except that if we worked the problems out in the correct order, we would get the right answer. The answer meant nothing to us other than to get us a good grade.
One major thing I have learned since I have become a teacher is that there is no program out there that will teach it all.  Every program must be supplemented and tweaked in order for it to be effective. This goes for programs of any subject.
I am in no way defending Everyday Math. I have honestly never used it. But I can speak for Math Investigations, Harcourt Math, and Saxon Math. All of these stink by themselves. They all leave gaps in math instruction and need to be supplemented with other programs or just good old fashioned instruction from the teacher.Â
"The California curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep and the kids aren't learning their skills."
More accurately, the Everyday Math curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep, and CA Dept of Education should be ashamed for approving it for use in 2007 after rejecting it twice before.Â
Children today aren't learning math skills for two reasons:
#1 poor curriculum, and #2 teachers with limited math abilities, as indicated by evidence presented in post (#31) which stated the following:
"programs don't teach students, teachers teach students. I am a teacher ...the problem with traditional math instruction... students learned a series of steps to solve problems with no basis or understanding...I was in a college course for teaching math before I understood the concept of base 10."
****
It amazes me that many an educator will publicly admit they are enumerate (as if this is a badge of honor). The failure of our public school teachers to grasp the fundamental basics of mathematics should be shocking to all of us who are concerned about public education, not brushed aside as acceptable.
Â
"But I can speak for Math Investigations, Harcourt Math, and Saxon Math. All of these stink by themselves. They all leave gaps"
While I would agree with the need to supplement most math programs, I would loudly disagree with your negative assesment of Saxon Math.Â
Saxon is by far one of the best performing programs of the lot. When Saxon is supplemented with Singapore Math's Challenging Word Problems (soon to be out of print), which teaches a highly effective method of bar graphing to solve algebraic type problems, the results are outstanding.
Here is a link to a study which compares the results of students taught using Saxon vs Everyday Math.Â
http://www.nychold.com/report-wbwh-040619.pdf
The improvement of the low SES students in the study who used Saxon math is precisely what you want to see, huge growth in every direction at every grade level.
Mr. Isacs, there are findings that indicate that EM's research is not valid.
See the conclusion of "On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 Mathematics evaluations"
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092426&...
The conclusion states:
"The corpus of evaluation studies as a whole across the 19 programs studied does not permit one to determine the effectiveness of individual programs with high degree of certainty, due to the restricted number of studies for any particular curriculum, limitations in the array of methods used, and the uneven quality of the studies."
I would like to know why you continue to avoid commenting on what the experts have pointed out regarding your so called research.
I don't understand why, after all these years, our children are still being used as guinea pigs for education experiments.Â
They only go trough school once and when the experiments fail - time and time again - they are left without important skills.Â
If the public education establishment must experiment on the students, you would think they would limit their experiments and not force them nationwide for complete failure.Â
Â
After our own experience with math as taught by the schools, we took our children out one by one and homeschooled them with Saxon Math. Our third grader went from 2nd grade math to 7th grade math in one year. Our older son qualified for College Int Algebra when 1/2 way through the Algebra 1 book. Our third child had 6 years of Saxon math and many years later, is beginning her PhD in BioChemistry.Â
Trying to tutor your children while they are working with these programs is counter productive since math must be taught incrementally. Truly, many of the ways math concepts are taught in the schools is "Educational malpractice". I cannot stress this enough...Please save your children.
One of my daughters is two years older than your daughter, the oldest is now a college freshman, both were products(guinea pigs) of our school districts experiment with EDM instituted in 1995 thru 2007. The first group of HS students that had EDM had horrendously low SAT scores graduating class of 2006, were unable to do higher level math. The average district SAT scores went from 590 down to 490 in the space of ONE year.My oldest who was a math whiz still had a hard time in Calculus AP as a senior. Guess what she said she had the most difficulty with was the concept of  DECIMALS and FRACTIONS.
The Head of the HS math department said the kids coming into 7th grade were so unprepared for pre Algebra in those years that it was criminal the elementary school district allowed EDM to be taught.
To avoid the train wreck with daughter number 2 in sixth grade I did exactly as the author did. I was horrified on her lack of understanding of decimals and fractions. Two years ago I purchased Singapore 3A thru 6A/6B to reteach her during the summer of 6th grade going into 7th grade. It was the best thing I did for her. She aced Algebra I in 7th grade, unlike her peers who barely passed the course, most had to attend summer school, or dropped down to the slower math program.Â
I have a 2nd grader whose school uses Everyday Math program, and he is learning equivalent fractions now (1/2 = 2/4 = 4/8). So maybe your children didn't learn it, even though it was taught. I don't think that you can blame a program for what could just as easily be a series of ineffective teachers.
Try the Seattle results after one year of Everyday Math:
<a href="http://mathunderground.blogspot.com/2009/05/discrimination-of-disadvantaged.html"> http://mathunderground.blogspot.com/2009/05/discri... </a>
This should be required reading for every school administrator and math coordinator that have inflicted this program on their students. I have 3 kids, now in college, who were poorly prepared in math thanks to Everyday Math, Connected Math, and Integrated Math. If Doctors used experimental fads such as this on their patients, they'd be sued for malpractice!
For 20 years, I have had the pleasure of building support for Project SEED, a supplemental program that brings math specialists with degrees in math, science, technology and engineering, into 3rd through 7th grade classes in low-income elementary and middle schools. They teach abstract math in an energetic, interactive manner that keeps students intensely involved and learning. Doubters ask, "How does that help students learn the Standard math?" "And why bother students with abstract math before they've mastered the Standard topics?"Â
Project SEED students outperform matched-comparison students after one year (14 weeks of instruction). After three years they outperform their matches by up to a full year.
There is compelling research that shows why:
<!--StartFragment-->
University of Illinois at Chicago Professor David Page studied the similarities between learning the language of advanced mathematics and learning a foreign language, and found that both are best achieved at an early age.[1].
Page, David, University of Illinois, Department of Mathematics, personal communication, 1996.
A study reported in the scientific journal, Nature, showed that when children learn second languages by age eleven, they use a different part of the brain than that which is used after age eleven. Apparently, language learning is more effective at this location, “the original language learning center,†than at other parts of the brain.[2] This may be why young children, in comparison to older children and adults, learn new languages readily, and it underscores the importance of teaching the “language of [advanced] mathematics†to children at an early age.
There is also strong research evidence to show why our professional development for the classroom teachers is effective.
[1] Page, David, University of Illinois, Department of Mathematics, personal communication, 1996.
5 Kim, K, Joy Hirsch, et al., “Distinct Cortical Areas Associated with Native and Second Languages,†Nature, vol. 388 (July 10): 171, 1997.
Please see Project SEED in action at:
http://www.projectseed.org
Click on Video Room, then on the top box to view a 12-minute video.
Joanne L. Blum
Director of Development
Project SEED
"Learning Algebra is better than selling your body or drugs on the street." 5th-grade student
<!--EndFragment-->
We need to educate the teachers better in this country. Every teacher who wants to teach math should be required to at least have a math minor in college. This should be true for all subjects....that the potential teacher should major or at least minor in what they want to teach.But it should be very true for teachers who want to teach math & science.
Math is a quantitative subject and an "almost correct" answer, shouldn't be in the same category with the "correct" answer, as fuzzy math would have you believe.
Jay
 THIS is how we are educating our kids in math!? Since I had boys, who mostly understood math, I didn't get the blow by blow account, but they used this everyday math & connected math. They hated connected math with a passion. ALL PARENTS who have been through this with our kids should get together and BLAST these ed schools and tell them what a lousy job they are doing educating the very people who are teaching the next generation of leaders in this country.
The instructional clock is striking 13.
Here's what the federal government's "What Works Clearinghouse" has to say about Singapore Math and Everyday Math:
Â
<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
<![endif]-->
“. . . the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Singapore Math.â€
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/middle_math/singaporemath/index.asp
Â
“Everyday Mathematics was found to have potentially positive effects on students' math achievement.â€
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/elementary_math/eday_math
The "probem" is not with teachers, kids, and parents. It's with the unaccountables at the top of the EdChain.
Sorry for all the html gibberish that somehow got inserted into the post. I was agreeing with you, Barry.
In earlier commentary I left an important point out of my statement about Project SEED students outperforming matched-comparison students. I said: "Project SEED students outperform matched-comparison students after one year (14 weeks of instruction). After three years they outperform their matches by up to a full year." I should have added that those tests are the Standardized tests of math performance on topics from the Standard curricula, not the abstract topics Project SEED students learn.Â
Regarding What Works Clearinghouse's evaluation of EM, please note:Â
The Deparment of Education’s “What Works Clearinghouse†which evaluates research on the various math programs, reviewed 61 Everyday Math studies. The findings: Of those 61 studies, none met evidence standards, 4 met evidence standards with reservations and 57 did not meet evidence screens. Of the remaining four, the WWC found Everyday Mathematics to have potentially positive effects on math achievement based on one study alone: the 2001 Riordan & Noyce study. Just so everyone is on the same page, Pendred Noyce has a vested interest in Everyday Math in that she has formed associations with several reform math initiatives, at least one dedicated to implementation of Everyday Math: COMAP, for which she serves on the Board of Directors
Thus, we have an allowable sample size of just one, from what range of data? And this allows them to make any conclusion?
Barry, not that there would be any reason to think you're a little bit biased or would offer up half-truths, insinuations without foundation, or outright lies and distortions, but for the record: what direct evidence do you have to support the potentially libelous claim that "Pendred Noyce has a vested interest in Everyday Math in that she has formed associations with several reform math initiatives, at least one dedicated to implementation of Everyday Math: COMAP, for which she serves on the Board of Directors"?
Specifically, what is the alleged link between COMAP, which to the best of my knowledge is not connected to UCSMP or "dedicated to the implementation of Everyday Math" in any way, shape or form. Of course, since you have cited no evidence and in what I quoted offered up what appears to be a low-level smear founded on some of the vaguest use of "guilt by association" tactics I've ever seen, I don't expect you to have more solid evidence. If you had, you'd have posted it. Instead, you resort to the same old anti-reform, anti-progressive propaganda the informs so much of the rest of your attack pieces on EM and other programs that don't happen to fit your model of education.Â
Anyone keeping score at home will note that you have nothing but total skepticism for studies that support the effectiveness of EM and other student-centered programs, and zero skepticism for SINGAPORE MATH (and I'm not criticizing that program by pointing out your utter credulity when it comes to those books; just highlighting your biases for the record and your lack of even-handedness in your presentation).
One of the biggest holes in your lovely tale above is the role of that teacher your daughter has. As you state, the teacher loathed EM. Does it occur to you for a nanosecond that this might not have resulted in the most effective possible implementation of that curriculum? Or are the books so tarred by Satanic evil that the viewpoint of the teacher is irrelevant?
I continue to wonder, nearly two decades into the Math Wars, why Ann Arbor, MI, a community not unlike Palo Alto in the number of mathematically-knowledgable citizens/parents it contains, has used EM and Connected Math as the K-8 math books since the early '90s without controversy. How come Mathematically Correct and HOLD haven't gained traction here? Maybe your viewpoint just fails to tell the whole story, and what you do tell is severely colored by remarkable biases?
One last point: I feel deeply for your daughter. You must be a delightful instructor. Be sure to find someone to teach her to drive with fewer anger management problems, unless you want her to become another rageoholic behind the wheel. Or are you able to contain your ire while driving? Somehow, I doubt that very much indeed.
Â
My daughter's 4th and 6th grade teachers liked EM. Her 5th grade teacher tried to supplement it, but again, there was no textbook to take home, and it became difficult to not have a textbook to refer to.
I have spoken to people I know in Ann Arbor. EM and CMP have been in place for a number of years. I wouldn't say that all parents in Ann Arbor are enamored with it. It has been around so long that various parents supplement at home as I did, or enroll their kids in Kumon, Sylvan, etc. The parent protests you speak of generally occur at the very beginning during the adoption process, and again, not always.