If your school uses Everyday Math, you should be extremely watchful. Everyday Math is problematic because it is a language-intensive-based program that

- stresses the use of calculators,
- wants the kids to come up with their own ways to solve the problems
- doesn't teach the traditional algorithms (the multiplication and division methods that they teach break down when using large numbers, but there is absolutely no reason to be able to compute large numbers nowadays, is there?),
- and does not advocate drill in any form.

Now, this means that some kids lose out:

- Kids who might have a language problem but would be really good at mathematics,
- kids who need the "rules" first and then they can come to the concepts (think phonics versus whole language),
- and kids who need drill in order to retain concepts.

Furthermore, if your child is mathematically gifted and is good in language, this program is just not advanced enough.

My town uses this and it is a disaster for both my kids. My daughter falls into the categories of needing the rule, then the concept and needing more drill. I am drilling my daughter in math concepts using a computer program, and she has improved dramatically. On the other hand, my son is so bored it is frightening. Particularly frightening is that I have read that it leaves out concepts that you need in order to go on to math at the highest levels. I’m doing more research on that now.

How did I find out about this and come to these conclusions? The state standardized tests; literally, thank God for the state standardized tests, the only test that allows a glimpse of what might be happening within the schools before it is too late. My daughter received a “needs improvement” on her 4th grade math scores. Meanwhile, her math grades were all fine -- nothing that showed she should have received a needs improvement.

Of course, on receiving the score, I immediately contacted the school and asked for a copy of the test and her answers, which I received. I had her take the test in my kitchen to make sure that the results were valid. They were. Only one question off. I asked for a teacher conference, which I received. Her teacher didn’t seem concerned and said that she wasn’t a candidate for remedial math, and I can see why. My daughter gets concepts pretty quickly, but if she doesn’t drill to retain them, then they aren’t retained.

Furthermore, I found out at a school committee meeting that my daughter’s elementary school didn’t implement the curriculum correctly in comparison to the other schools in town. Everyday Math is based on a spiral – keep teaching the same concept in small doses each year. If you don’t get it that year, you will get it the next. Well, the teachers at my daughter’s school slowed down the curriculum so most children got it the first time. They didn’t go ahead as fast as they should have. As a result, they didn’t finish the program each year, and my daughter never was exposed to some key concepts at all. (This has since been fixed, but the parents who didn't listen to that school committee meeting were not informed.)

Fast forward to the end of 5th grade. It turns out that they give a pretest and a posttest for the curriculum. In other words, they give the final at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year to track the learning. My daughter received a 25 at the beginning of her 5th grade year in math, but she only received a 69 at the end of the year. Obviously, one year didn’t make up for what she was missing.

Clearly, intervention was needed. In the summer at the end of 5th grade, I had her try the Aleks computer program in math, www.aleks.com. The Charter School in my town uses it, and I decided to try it for my own daughter. A tutor would have been expensive and less than optimal in this situation because my daughter does get concepts, she just needs more drill (how can most kids hone their number sense if they aren’t ever asked to multiply and divide numbers continuously), and she needs algorithms that have fewer steps so there is less possibility of error (everything that Everyday Math does not provide.)

According to Aleks, my daughter only knew 21% of a traditional 5th grade curriculum – and this was at the end of 5th grade. Talk about having a heart attack! This was soon remedied. My daughter is now in the 6th grade and she has completed the 5th and 6th grade curriculum according to Aleks. I’m looking forward to the tests at the end of the year to see if my intervention worked.

All of the things that apply to my daughter don’t apply to my son. He gets everything the first time, including figuring out the multiplication tables, etc. He doesn’t need drill. He just needs to spend more than 60 seconds doing his math homework – something that is a bit more challenging. He isn’t going to get it from this program or the town’s teaching methods. When teaching reading there is more sophistication in the teaching methods, kids are broken out by ability and then brought back together. In math, every kid is the same. And every kid SHOULD learn math the same way; it doesn’t matter what their learning style is or what their strengths are – it doesn’t matter what IS.

So, bottom line? Kids in upper income communities will probably do OK despite the Everyday Math curriculum. Why? Because there are parents like me to pick up the pieces. If it isn’t Aleks, then it is high-priced tutors or mom or dad working with the kids each night. If there are concepts that are missing that are needed to become a mathematician, we’ll find out what they are and make sure they learn them.

Where Everyday Math will do real damage is in the communities who don’t have the knowledge or the resources to overcome the shortcomings.

And, sadly, who really gets shortchanged here? The kid who might be mathematically gifted but who has a language disability. All kids should have the opportunity to be good at something; these kids can’t even have that.

To find out what it could do if parents don't pay attention, read this: How Not to Teach Math, New York's chancellor Klein's plan doesn't compute, by Matthew Clavel (City Journal, Mar 7, 2003).

To find out what concepts are missing, read this: Review of the Everyday Mathematics Curriculum and its Missing Topics and Skills, by Tsewei Wang (April 9, 2001).

And for lots more criticism, go to this page: Reviews of UCSMP Everyday Mathematics.

Update: And for lots of contrarian views, read the comment section.

Update:

BTW, I'll be writing more about this, but my daughter made it into the "accelerated" math class for next year based on three things: her test score, her grades, and her teacher's recommendation. What a difference working with a traditional curriculum makes! Of course, her success will be attributed to the Everyday Math curriculum. But helping my daughter is much more important than "proving" a curriculum is broken for a lot of kids. And more math help here.

Additional posts here:

- More on How to Help Kids with Math: Math Tutoring (second post)
- More on Math... Math Sense: Stage 3 Help (third post)
- More Parents Find Out About EveryDay Math (fourth post)

I live in PA and our school district uses EM. Unfortunately, our district not only uses this program in the general ed curriculum but also for those students who are in Special Ed and have an IEP. I have recently been successful in removing my child from the EM curriculum and have her now in a Saxon book. I believe this is because I am very vocal and insistant on the Spec Ed children in math being given their own math textbook which they do not have. Although I have been successful with my own daughter, I have not been successful with the other children who need to be taken out of this program but I have not given up!

Our daughter is in 6th grade (the last year in the elementary school). She had a year of Investigations (a total waste of a school year) in 2nd grade as a pilot program. In third grade, she was put into EM. We knew she had a LD, had her diagnosed, had the school district deny our diagnosis, and was given accommodations by the school district for her. (It wasn't until the end of fourth grade and our threat to go to due process was our daughter given an IEP - another story for another time) Because we have two other children who are older than she is, we knew that she had to master her times tables by the end of third grade. I had a meeting with her third grade teacher, who luckily agreed with me and started to institute the times tables again (for her class). However, the matter is more difficult with a LD student, particularly our daughter who is diagnosed with short term memory difficulty among other things. We were informed that our daughter would never master the times tables (by school personnel) and was not expected to do so. We insisted and she now has mastery of her tables up to ten. It took many hours of repetition and review and hard work on her part.

For children who have LDs, and to expose them to many different ways to solve problems and then expect these same children to know what way is best for them is absurb! I know from my own experience that our daughter needed to be shown one way to solve a problem and then build on that. Add to that a reading disability, and EM is disastorous!

I agree with your comments about parents who can afford to have tudors for their children and those who cannot. Our school district encompasses different social areas and this is a factor.

I have been very vocal about the times tables being posted on the desks and around the classrooms and how this is a practice that should be discontinued. I am labled as a parent who does not like EM.

I would really like to know how much money a school district is spending on the EM program once any grants for implementing it are finished.

Posted by: Trish | January 30, 2005 at 05:37 PM

Thank you for your comments concerning Everyday Math. You mentioned that the state standardized tests revealed the problem your child was having with EM. What state do you live in?

Posted by: Ellen | January 30, 2005 at 11:06 PM

MPG: Dear "Parent Pundit,"

PP: Parent Pundit Blog http://www.parentpundit.com/

PP: January 25, 2005

PP: If your school has Everyday Math

PP: If your school uses Everyday Math, you should be

extremely watchful.

MPG: On the other hand, if your school is using the same

failed approach to math that didn't work for most of

your peers or most of your parents' peers, or most of

your GRANDPARENTS' peers, and won't work for most of

your kids' peers, no need to be watchful at all: you

KNOW what's going to happen for most kids: hatred and

fear of mathematics, some degree of procedural

knowledge, but not much, and very little conceptual or

problem solving knowledge whatsoever. Math for them

will be what it was for you, your parents, and your

grandparents: a bunch of steps to memorize and follow

blindly; something that you have to be born "smart" to

be able to do; irrelevant to everyday life; a torture;

a subject in which teachers get to humiliate students

with impunity; a class where you'd better know the

single right answer or keep your hand down and mouth

shut; something only the elite can do; an enigma

wrapped inside a riddle wrapped inside a mystery.

Nope. No need for concern there at all.

PP: Everyday Math is problematic because it

is a language-intensive-based program that

MPG: Gods forbid kids should connect mathematical

competency with literacy, that math should require

reading skills, that math should occur in contexts

(thus requiring some reading)!

PP: * stresses the use of calculators,

MPG: I'm working in approximately 20 4th & 5th grade

classrooms where EM is currently used, in a primarily

black, Latino, and Asian poor semi-urban community

near Detroit. In the now-daily visits I make to five

elementary schools there, I've seen calculators used

exactly once, and not by all students, since I began

my work in the winter.

PP: * wants the kids to come up with their own ways

to solve the problems

MPG: Again, Gods forbid that kids should think about how to

do math, rather than have math poured in one ear which

for the majority isn't understood, and which can be

reliably predicted to flow out the other ear in short

order regardless. Of course, in the real world, every

problem we encounter will be clearly defined, will

have a clear-cut and STATED procedure for solving it,

and will result in nice, clean integers (or at least

friendly fractions) for its answers. No thinking

whatsoever will be required.

PP: * doesn't teach the traditional algorithms (the

multiplication

MPG: Haven't reached the material on division yet, but the

above statement is a bald-faced lie. EM teaches three

approaches to multiplication: the so-called standard

algorithm, partial products, and the lattice method. I

have yet to see a single teacher out of the 20 or so I

work with who did NOT teach the traditional algorithm

in addition to those others. And the others were

taught later, not sooner.

PP: and division methods that they teach break down when

using large numbers, but there is absolutely no reason to be able to compute

large numbers nowadays, is there?),

MPG: Not by hand. But that's not something that is at the

heart of EM or any other book of which I'm aware. I'll

check out EM on division and report back, likely with

a lot more accuracy than you've offered.

PP: * and does not advocate drill in any form.

MPG: Again, teachers are free to use any methods they like,

and the ones I'm working with do. There most certainly

is drill. But the point is that EM doesn't advocate

AGAINST drill. Your statement is like saying, that I

must be against feeding children because I haven't

said in this e-mail that you SHOULD feed them.

PP: Now, this means that some kids lose out:

* Kids who might have a language problem but

would be really good at

mathematics,

MPG: The lie here is two-fold, at least: first all the

teachers I work with try very hard to make

accomodations for all kinds of special needs kids,

including ELL students. The book comes in a Spanish

language edition which some of the students use.

Unfortunately, it is not yet available in Hmong, the

third most widely spoken language in some of these

classrooms. Tutors are sometimes available, and those

Spanish- and Hmong-speaking students who are more

fluent in English translate for their more monolingual

classmates. It's not ideal, but how is it worse than

using a tradtional book? You need to make the case

that: A) math isn't grounded in natural language

(lot's of luck; see, for example, WHERE MATHEMATICS

COMES FROM by George Lakoff & Raf Nunez) and B) that

traditional texts better address problems of slow

readers and ELL students. Good luck, again.

PP: * kids who need the "rules" first and then they

can come to the

concepts (think phonics versus whole language),

MPG: Ah, the old "whole language" bogeyman is tossed in for

good measure. But again, traditional texts are

generally biased in the other direction and

shortchange those kids who need alternatives. So

you're hoist by your own petard here. Moreover, my

observations suggest that EM mixes its approaches so

that in one lesson a more conceptual approach might

precede a more procedural one, and in others, the

reverse. The geometry chapter in the 5th grade book,

for example, teaches a lot of the names needed for

working with 2 and 3 dimensional figures in 3.3 (the

previous sections are on another thing entirely)

before students do any exploring or problem-solving

with angles, polygons, etc. It sruck me as pretty

traditional. Of course, if you've a political axe to

grind, it's easy to ignore that chapter, for some

reason.

PP: * and kids who need drill in order to retain

concepts.

MPG: Addressed above, thank you.

PP: Furthermore, if your child is mathematically gifted

and is good in

language, this program is just not advanced enough.

MPG: Ah, so which one SHOULD ALL SCHOOLS USE TO SOLVE ALL

PROBLEMS FOR ALL KIDS IN ALL SETTINGS AT ALL TIMES?

Sounds like EM is damned regardless. Must not be good

for anyone. Whereas the magic book you're going to

tell us about is all things to all people.

PP: My town uses this and it is a disaster for both my

kids. My daughter falls

into the categories of needing the rule, then the

concept and needing more

drill. I am drilling my daughter in math concepts

using a computer program,

and she has improved dramatically. On the other

hand, my son is so bored it

is frightening. Particularly frightening is that I

have read that it leaves

out concepts that you need in order to go on to math

at the highest levels.

I'm doing more research on that now.

MPG: Yes, and I've read that it causes AIDS, too. Your kids

are just that: yours. They aren't a large research

base. You're obviously very opposed to EM. My guess is

that you were very opposed to it and anything like it

beforehand. (Think: phonics-only vs. whole-language

;^), and that your report on EM, which is, frankly,

mostly a thin tissue of lies and distortions, was

fueled by your political/educational biases.

PP: How did I find out about this and come to these

conclusions? The state

standardized tests; literally, thank God for the

state standardized tests,

the only test that allows a glimpse of what might be

happening within the

schools before it is too late. My daughter received

a "needs improvement"

on her 4th grade math scores. Meanwhile, her math

grades were all fine --

nothing that showed she should have received a needs

improvement.

MPG: And of course, your state tests for which you're

thanking a deity, have been proved to align perfectly

with your state's math curriculum standards? To

measure everything the state wants kids to be able to

know and do, accurately and reliably, and to leave out

nothing of value, and to not in fact introduce its own

artifacts into the data base by the format it uses?

Your state standards no doubt read that the goal of

math teaching is that kids can correctly answer

multiple-guess questions, decontextualized from

real-world applications or placed in completely

aritifical ones added just for show? That real math

means calculation?

MPG: Could it just possibly be that the test isn't enough

information? Especially when testing experts

universally declare that no one test or one kind of

test should be used as the sole or even primary basis

for evaluating something. And that a test cannot be

validly used to measure something it was not designed

to measure, so that a test meant to evaluate student

achievment in mathematics should NOT be used to

evaluate the effectiveness of teachers, schools, or

textbooks?

PP: Of course, on receiving the score, I immediately

contacted the school and

asked for a copy of the test and her answers, which

I received. I had her

take the test in my kitchen to make sure that the

results were valid.

MPG: Oops. Isn't that a test of reliability, not of

validity? Maybe your math education is lacking a bit.

Try EM, CPM, and perhaps MMOW as an effective sequence

that would plug some gaps your traditional schooling

seems to have left.

PP: They

were. Only one question off. I asked for a teacher

conference, which I

received. Her teacher didn't seem concerned and said

that she wasn't a

candidate for remedial math, and I can see why. My

daughter gets concepts

pretty quickly, but if she doesn't drill to retain

them, then they aren't

retained.

MPG: Hmm. If she doesn't drill to retain CONCEPTS, the

CONCEPTS aren't retained? That seems odd to me. I

find, personally, that if I own a bit of mathematical

knowledge conceptually, I need relatively little

repetition to be able to reconstruct formulas,

procedures, etc., but that no amount of drill on

equation solving or calculation will automatically

result in my getting a deep conceptual understanding

of what I'm doing. Takes THINKING and exploration for

that.

PP: Furthermore, I found out at a school committee

meeting that my daughter's

elementary school didn't implement the curriculum

correctly in comparison

to the other schools in town. Everyday Math is based

on a spiral - keep

teaching the same concept in small doses each year.

If you don't get it

that year, you will get it the next. Well, the

teachers at my daughter's

school slowed down the curriculum so most children

got it the first time.

They didn't go ahead as fast as they should have. As

a result, they didn't

finish the program each year, and my daughter never

was exposed to some key

concepts at all. (This has since been fixed, but the

parents who didn't

listen to that school committee meeting were not

informed.)

MPG: So this is the fault of whom, exactly, assuming that

it's really a fault at all? Switching targets without

mentioning the fact is rather dirty rhetorical pool.

PP: Fast forward to the end of 5th grade. It turns out

that they give a pretest

and a posttest for the curriculum. In other words,

they give the final at

the beginning of the year and at the end of the year

to track the learning.

My daughter received a 25 at the beginning of her

5th grade year in math,

but she only received a 69 at the end of the year.

Obviously, one year

didn't make up for what she was missing.

MPG: Gosh, it seems like she improved rather dramatically.

But I'm sure that you think she should have gotten

100. Of course, if you advocate for the usual

mile-wide, inch-deep approach to math teaching, that's

no surprise. Would it surprise you to read that, based

on the TIMSS data, while US and Japanese curricula

have nearly the same number of topics in 8th grade (26

in Japan, 27 in the US), "fewer than 25% of Japanese

teachers teach 50% or more topics, while approximately

98% of U.S. teachers do." And in a significantly

shorter school year. (MATHEMATICS METHODS AND MODELING

FOR TODAY'S MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM: Dossey, Giordano,

et al., p. 35)

PP: Clearly, intervention was needed. In the summer at

the end of 5th grade, I

had her try the Aleks computer program in math,

www.aleks.com. The Charter

School in my town uses it, and I decided to try it

for my own daughter. A

tutor would have been expensive and less than

optimal in this situation

because my daughter does get concepts, she just

needs more drill (how can

most kids hone their number sense if they aren't

ever asked to multiply and

divide numbers continuously), and she needs

algorithms that have fewer

steps so there is less possibility of error

(everything that Everyday Math

does not provide.)

MPG: Stated, again, by you without proof. Given that I have

evidence that you're misrepresenting what goes on with

this program, I'm not impressed with your analysis

above.

PP: According to Aleks, my daughter only knew 21% of a

traditional 5th grade

curriculum - and this was at the end of 5th grade.

Talk about having a

heart attack! This was soon remedied. My daughter is

now in the 6th grade

and she has completed the 5th and 6th grade

curriculum according to Aleks.

I'm looking forward to the tests at the end of the

year to see if my

intervention worked.

MPG: If "Aleks" is so reliable, maybe it should be made

Czar of US Mathematics Education. We can have colored

alerts for the current state of danger our kids are

in. Would fit both the Bush political agenda of

fear-mongering and your attempts to scare the pants,

quite dishonestly, off any parent who doesn't bother

to do a lot of checking into what actually is and

isn't in EM or in EM classrooms.

PP: All of the things that apply to my daughter don't

apply to my son. He gets

everything the first time, including figuring out

the multiplication

tables, etc. He doesn't need drill. He just needs to

spend more than 60

seconds doing his math homework - something that is

a bit more challenging.

He isn't going to get it from this program or the

town's teaching methods.

When teaching reading there is more sophistication

in the teaching methods,

kids are broken out by ability and then brought back

together. In math,

every kid is the same. And every kid SHOULD learn

math the same way; it

doesn't matter what their learning style is or what

their strengths are -

it doesn't matter what IS.

MPG: That's amusing. Professor Wayne Bishop, the fellow who forwarded your piece to the math-teach list where I read it is always saying exactly that all kids

should learn math the same way. Anyone who suggests

otherwise is a racist, etc. Must mean he didn't read

your piece so carefully. Just recognized you as

another EM hater, and didn't much care about any

contradictions.

PP: So, bottom line? Kids in upper income communities

will probably do OK

despite the Everyday Math curriculum. Why? Because

there are parents like

me to pick up the pieces. If it isn't Aleks, then it

is high-priced tutors

or mom or dad working with the kids each night. If

there are concepts that

are missing that are needed to become a

mathematician, we'll find out what

they are and make sure they learn them.

MPG: Gosh, what a complex web of bologna you weave for us.

What would I be willing to bet that neither of your

kids becomes a professional mathematician and that you

wouldn't be happy if s/he did, given what most of

those folks make in salary? And you've "proved"

through no data whatsoever that EM is simultaneously

too hard AND too easy. What a feat of

prestidigitation!

PP: Where Everyday Math will do real damage is in the

communities who don't

have the knowledge or the resources to overcome the

shortcomings.

MPG: Interesting. So what WOULD work for those kids? What

should YOUR genius son and not-so-genius (on YOUR

view) daughter be using in your not-so-deprived

community? Why are the vast majority of teachers I'm

working with generally pleased with EM, despite the

fact that they're under enormous pressure from our

state test and working with generally poor students

with low reading skills who come to school underfed,

under-rested, and generally without much of a support

network at home? These aren't, for the most part,

recent products of Schools of Education. They've

mostly taught more traditional programs. Most say they

prefer EM, so far. Some don't, yet even those seem to

be teaching less traditionally, but using some of

their own ideas.

PP: And, sadly, who really gets shortchanged here? The

kid who might be

mathematically gifted but who has a language

disability. All kids should

have the opportunity to be good at something; these

kids can't even have that.

MPG: Again, this is grossly inaccurate.

PP: To find out what it could do if parents don't pay

attention, read this: How

Not to Teach Math, New York's chancellor Klein's

plan doesn't compute, by

Matthew Clavel (City Journal, Mar 7, 2003).

To find out what concepts are missing, read this:

Review of the Everyday

Mathematics Curriculum and its Missing Topics and

Skills, by Tsewei Wang

(April 9, 2001)

http://www.lit.net/orschools/critique5_too.pdf.

And for lots more criticism, go to this page:

Reviews of UCSMP Everyday

Mathematics http://www.nychold.com/em.html.

MPG: Right and go to for

MORE bullshit.

MPG: Then try going to for

alternative views on this and other Math Wars issues.

Unlike you, I offer links to both opposing views and

views with which I agree. Which of us is more likely

being fair-minded? Which of us has the more reliable

take on EM? (or should I have said 'valid'? ;^)

=====

Michael Paul Goldenberg, Director

RationalMath, LLC

1604 Saunders Crescent

Ann Arbor, MI 48103

734 644-0975

mikegold@rationalmath.com

Posted by: Michael Paul Goldenberg | February 03, 2005 at 08:09 PM

I just want to tell everyone that I have responded to Trish and Ellen via email.

Michael, thank you for posting your comments yourself since I had asked your permission if I could post it on my blog.

Here is my original response to your slightly edited original response above:

Michael,

I talked about my experiences with the Everyday Math Curriculum in factual terms about what I have observed with my own children and their difficulties. Our town is smart enough to not even attempt to teach the Everyday Math as written to students with language disabilities -- so I am not the only one to come to that conclusion.

I have to say that I am writing this to parents so they can be on the lookout with their own children so they don't fully accept what the school tells them in terms of what their children have actually learned. I don't have either the authority, power or the influence to change how math is taught in the US, but I do have all three in terms of my own household, and I have the right to invoke those when what I see is demonstrably not working for my children. I also have the right to dissemenate what I have learned.

The day when the the mainstream media controls the agenda is over with the advent of the Internet, warts and all -- and right behind that will be the educational institutions. They will be forced into a dialogue, hopefully with people a lot more knowledgable than I am, but this is a start.

I hope you enjoy my next post on this subject!

http://www.parentpundit.com/2005/02/more_on_how_to_.html

And would it be OK to post your email commenting on my post on my blog? I'm happy to give people both sides, and you are much more eloquent than I am expressing the pro EM side.

Katherine

Posted by: Parent Pundit | February 04, 2005 at 03:31 AM

I am a math teacher who has taught a number of the 'reform curriculums' like Everyday Math, although I have taught mostly at middle and high school. I have also had 3 kids who went through traditional math courses.

I think that some of the criticisms of Everyday Math are valid, but it is more often due to teachers who have not been adequately trained in how to use this curriculum. This is most often the problem when students seem to not be learning necessary facts and skills. In Everyday Math, the repetition is mostly provided in the games which are part of the curriculum. But many teachers without training assume that these are used to 'reward' students once in a while, so students never get the concentrated practice to learn the basic facts. In secondary classes, teachers DO expect students to have memorized the basic facts. Elementary teachers need to be able to use various strategies, adapted to their students, to mkae sure their students know them.

Compounding this, some teachers - AND some district math trainers - have misinterpreted the math standards. There is value in having students 'explore' how to do standard operations such as addition, but in the end the teacher must bring the students back and show how the 'standard algorithm' (what we all learned) is the most efficient method. The teacher also needs to understand 'why' the standard method works. Students in other countries may have a different 'standard method', but the math behind it is still the same.

The key weakness is teachers who have limited understanding of the concepts of mathematics. The real solution to the problems noted by Katherine Prouty is insuring that ALL our teachers are competent in the subjects they teach - from K to 16. The weakness in our education system is that teachers have almost no time to sit down and talk with their colleagues about what and how to teach the content. Teachers in other countries have much more time to do this which probably explains in great part why their students do better on international comparisons.

Posted by: Mary Moreira | February 04, 2005 at 01:58 PM

Andy Isaacs, one of the main folks at the project at University of Chicago that developed Everyday Mathematics and its revisions posted the following today. It's lengthy, but provides a thorough list of research articles, etc. on EM:

____________

It turns out that I have just done a minor update to a list of

peer-reviewed research about EM, which I have copied below. I'm sorry

that it's a bit long, but there is after all a lot of research about

the program. Those of you who are interested in EM might want to look

at some of this research.

Andy Isaacs

UCSMP

Everyday Mathematics Research Summary

University of Chicago School Mathematics Project

2/4/05

The research evidence about Everyday Mathematics (EM) almost all

points in the same direction: Children who use EM tend to learn more

mathematics and like it better than children who use other programs.

This finding has been supported by research carried out by the

University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP), by

independent researchers at other universities, and by many school

districts across the nation. The absolute amount of this research is

large - the reports fill several large binders - but, compared to

what is available for other curricula, it is enormous. As a recent

report from the National Academy of Sciences (NRC, 2004) makes clear,

no other currently available elementary school mathematics program

has been subjected to so much scrutiny by so many researchers. The

agreement about the curriculum across so many research studies is,

itself, perhaps the strongest evidence that EM is effective.

Attached to this memo is an annotated bibliography of research about

EM. One of the articles in this bibliography, the chapter by Carroll

and Isaacs in Standards-Based School Mathematics Curriculum: What Are

They? What Do Students Learn? (2003), summarizes research about EM

before roughly 1998. Here we briefly summarize some of the more

important studies that have been completed since then. Note that all

but one of these studies has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal; the

one that has not (Sconiers, Isaacs, Higgins, McBride, & Kelso, 2003)

is currently under review at the Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education.

Please contact the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Center at

em-center@uchicago.edu with any questions or comments about this

research summary or visit our website at everydaymath.uchicago.edu.

National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular

effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations.

Committee for a Review of the Evaluation Data on the Effectiveness of

NSF-Supported and Commercially Generated Mathematics Curriculum

Materials. Confrey, J. & Stohl, V. (Eds.), Mathematics Science

Education Board, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and

Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press.

*****

Carroll, W. M. (2001). Students in a Standards-based mathematics

curriculum: Performance on the 1999 Illinois State Achievement Test.

Illinois Mathematics Teacher, 52(1), 3-7.

* This paper reports a study of the performance of Chicago-area

EM students on the 1999 Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT).

The study compared 12,880 third-grade EM students and 11,213

fifth-grade EM students with 47,742 third-grade non-EM students and

50,023 fifth-grade non-EM students.

* The study found that EM students significantly outperformed

comparison students, even after controlling for all other significant

variables such as percent low-income and per-pupil expenditure.

* The study also found that, "the differences favoring the EM

curriculum were largest in schools with a higher percentage of

low-income students" (p. 5).

Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two

standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in

Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4),

368-398.

* This paper reports results of a quasi-experimental study of

the performance of fourth grade EM and eight grade Connected

Mathematics students on the 1999 Massachusetts state test. The study

included the entire population of EM students. "Results attest to the

effect of these curriculum programs as actually implemented under

ordinary prevailing conditions in unselected schools, without regard

to whether the programs were implemented optimally" (p. 390).

* 67 EM schools were included, 48 of which had implemented the

program for four or more years. Comparison schools were chosen to

match the EM schools on math scores from the year before the

introduction of EM and the percentage of low-income students.

* The results "indicate that Everyday Mathematics schools

outperformed comparison schools in all question types and all

reporting categories, except that there was no difference in

statistics for early implementers and in geometry for later

implementers" (p. 389).

* "The positive impact of the standards-based programs on

student performance was remarkably consistent across students of

different gender, race, and economic status. Students at the top,

bottom, and middle of their classes all did better with the

standards-based programs than did their counterparts using

traditional programs. Š For schools that had adopted these programs

at least four years ago, early gains were sustained or increased

further over time" (p. 390).

* "These findings suggest a progressive achievement gain for

Everyday Mathematics, that is, a positive longitudinal effect of the

program on achievement" (p. 387).

Carroll, W. M., Fuson, K. C., & Diamond, A. (2000). Use of

student-constructed number stories in a reform-based curriculum.

Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 49-62.

Carroll, W. M. (2000). Invented computational procedures of students

in a Standards-based Curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,

18(2), 111-121.

Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W., & Drueck, J. (2000). Achievement results

for second and third graders using the Standards-based curriculum

Everyday Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,

31(3), 277-295.

* These papers report results from a five-year longitudinal

study of EM funded by the National Science Foundation and carried out

by Karen Fuson's group at Northwestern University.

* The project followed several hundred children using the first

edition of EM in Grades 1-5 from 1992 through 1997. The project

produced two dissertations, many articles in peer-reviewed journals,

and a series of reports about strengths and weaknesses of EM that

were used in the revisions that led to the second edition.

* The project found that EM students outperformed comparison

students across all grades and raised achievement to levels

approaching that of high-performing Asian countries. "On traditional

vertical symbolic multi-digit addition and subtraction, EM students

performed as well as students using traditional approaches. On a wide

range of other mathematically and conceptually demanding tasks, EM

students outperformed other groups" (Fuson, Carroll, & Drueck, 2000,

p. 292).

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children:

Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31

(1), pp. 13-25.

* Alan H. Schoenfeld is past president of the American

Educational Research Association, Vice President of the National

Academy of Education, and a Fellow of the American Association for

the Advancement of Science. Schoenfeld has a PhD in mathematics from

Stanford and is a professor in the Graduate School of Education at UC

Berkeley.

* This paper, available at

http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol31_01/AERA310104.pdf, summarizes

several research studies that have to do with EM, including Riordan

and Noyce (2001), Briars and Resnick (2000), Carroll and Isaacs

(2003), and a study from the Michigan Invitational Group, a coalition

of school districts, many of whom use EM.

* "To briefly summarize the current state [of research on

large-scale implementation of reform curricula], a converging body of

data indicates the following:

"1. On test of basic skills, there are no significant performance

differences between students who learn from traditional or reform

curricula.

"2. On tests of conceptual understanding and problem solving,

students who learn from reform curricula consistently outperform

students who learn from traditional curricula by a wide margin.

"3. There is some encouraging evidence that reform curricula can

narrow the performance gap between Whites and under-represented

minorities.

Š "In short, the fears of anti-reform groups that reform curricula

would cause a decrease in student skill levels appear to be

unwarranted.

"Data such as these indicate that coherent approaches to teaching

mathematics for conceptual understanding produce significant

improvements across the board - not only in concepts and problem

solving, but in skills as well" (p. 16).

* Concludes from the research that, "The bottom line is that

standards-based reform appears to work when it is implemented as part

of a coherent systemic effort in which curriculum, assessment, and

professional development are aligned. Not only do many more students

do well, but the racial performance gap diminishes substantially" (p.

17).

* "Š the Michigan data indicate that when standards,

assessment, curriculum, and professional development are

appropriately aligned, low-SES districts can perform as well on

meaningful assessments as other much more wealthy districts" (p. 21).

Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of

reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five

third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529-547.

* This paper extends an earlier study of learning disabled

children using the first edition of third grade EM (Woodward &

Baxter, 1997). The earlier study used the Iowa Test of Basic Skills

and the Informal Mathematics Assessment, a test of problem solving

abilities, and found that EM was effective for average- and

high-ability students, but less effective for lower-ability students.

* The study used surveys, interviews, and classroom

observations to examine the difficulties low-achieving students face

when working with curricula such as EM, and identified the formation

of a community of learners and the cognitive load as key features of

the curriculum that need to be considered in relation to low

achievers.

* The article concludes, "We strongly believe that it is

unwarranted to conclude from our work that reform-based mathematics

should be abandoned when teaching low achievers; however, our work

does suggest that many of these students may be struggling and need

additional support."

Sconiers, S., Isaacs, A., Higgins, T., McBride, J., & Kelso, K. R.

(2003) The ARC Center tri-state student achievement study. Lexington,

MA: The Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications. (Currently

under review at the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.)

* This paper reports results of a large-scale study of 100,000

children in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington State using

standards-based elementary mathematics curricula. The study was

funded by the National Science Foundation.

* The study included 39,701 students who had studied with EM

for at least two years and 38,481 students from non-using comparison

schools carefully matched by reading level, socioeconomic status, and

other variables.

* Student performance was measured by the state-mandated tests

in the three states: the fourth-grade MCAS in Massachusetts, the

third- and fifth-grade ISATs in Illinois, and the third-grade Iowa

Test of Basic Skills and fourth-grade WASL in Washington.

* The results show that the average scores of the EM students

are significantly higher than the average scores of students in their

matched comparison schools. The results hold across the different

state-mandated tests, and across all topics, including computation,

measurement, geometry, algebra, problem solving, and making

connections.

* The study compared the scores on all the topics tested at all

the grade levels tested (Grades 3-5) in each of the three states. Of

34 comparisons across five state-grade combinations, 29 favor the EM

students, five show no statistically significant difference, and none

favor the comparison students. The results also hold across all

income and racial subgroups - except for Hispanic students, where

Everyday Mathematics students have higher (but not statistically

significantly higher) average scores.

Waite, R. D. (2000). A study of the effects of Everyday Mathematics

on student achievement of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students

in a large North Texas Urban School District. Ann Arbor, Michigan:

UMI.

* This is a doctoral dissertation, which was directed by Hoyt

Watson, from the University of North Texas.

* The study compared the performance of students in a large

North Texas school district who were taught with two different

mathematics curricula. One curriculum, used in six schools, was

Everyday Mathematics; the other curriculum, used in 12 schools, was a

more traditional, district-approved textbook from a large publisher.

The schools were matched by SES, ethnic makeup, and prior ITBS

mathematics scores.

* After one year of Everyday Mathematics usage, "almost all

comparisons showed that the experimental group taught with the

Everyday Mathematics curriculum had higher scores on the 1999 Texas

Assessment of Academic Skills mathematics test. When compared to

children with similar mathematics ability at the beginning of the

1998-99 school year, the students in this study who were taught using

Everyday Mathematics showed greater achievement gains than students

in classes that used the district-approved curriculum" (p. 2).

Everyday Mathematics Research Bibliography

This bibliography is divided into five sections:

* Research studies that form the basis of the curriculum

* Formative studies conducted during the development of the curriculum

* Reports from Northwestern University's five-year longitudinal study

* Summative studies by UCSMP and non-UCSMP researchers

* School and district studies

1. The Research Basis

The Everyday Mathematics curriculum is based on the authors' own

academic research into young children's mathematical abilities, as

well as on systematic surveys of the mathematics education research

literature for effective classroom practices. The papers in this

section provide an overview of the research foundations of the

curriculum.

Bell, M. S. (1994). What does "Everyman" really need from school

mathematics? (Reprint of 1974 article). Mathematics Teacher, 87(7),

546-551.

Isaacs, A., Carroll, W., & Bell, M. (1998). A research-based

curriculum: The research foundations of the UCSMP Everyday

Mathematics curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago School

Mathematics Project Elementary Component.

Usiskin, Z. (1988). The beliefs underlying UCSMP. UCSMP Newsletter,

Winter, 9-15.

2. Formative Studies

Each grade level of the Everyday Mathematics program went through a

three-year development cycle that included a year of writing, a year

of extensive field-testing in a cross-section of classrooms, and a

year of revising. During the field-test phase, implementation and

achievement data were gathered and analyzed, and the resulting

findings were used as a basis for the revisions. This section

includes unpublished papers that summarize some of the field-test

research.

Carroll, W. M. (1995). Report on the field test of Fifth Grade

Everyday Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago School

Mathematics Project Elementary Component.

Carroll, W. M. (1996). A follow-up to the fifth-grade field test of

Everyday Mathematics: Geometry and mental and written computation.

Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Elementary

Component.

Carroll, W. M., & Porter, D. (1994). Summary report: A field test of

fourth grade Everyday Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago

School Mathematics Project Elementary Component.

Hedges, L. V., Stodolsky, S. S., & Mathison, S. (1987). A formative

evaluation of Kindergarten Everyday Mathematics (Evaluation report

#86/87-KEM-1). Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics

Project.

Hedges, L. V., Stodolsky, S. S., & Mathison, S. (1988). A follow-up

of Kindergarten Everyday Mathematics Users (Evaluation report

#87/88-KEM-2). Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics

Project.

Northwestern University Longitudinal Study of Everyday Mathematics.

(1998a). Suggestions for the revision of Fourth Grade Everyday

Mathematics: Findings from the Northwestern University Longitudinal

Study.

Northwestern University Longitudinal Study of Everyday Mathematics.

(1998b). Fourth-grade feedback on specific lessons.

Northwestern University Longitudinal Study. (undated-a). Suggestions

for the revision of Fifth-Grade Everyday Mathematics: Findings from

the Northwestern University Longitudinal Study.

Northwestern University Longitudinal Study. (undated-b). Summary

report: Recommendations for revisions of Everyday Mathematics:

Lessons learned from observations (Report from the Northwestern

University Longitudinal Study).

Northwestern University Longitudinal Study. (undated-c). Draft 4EM

results, received 3-25-99 (Report from the Northwestern University

Longitudinal Study).

3. Northwestern's Longitudinal Study

Researchers at Northwestern University conducted a five-year

longitudinal study of the Everyday Mathematics curriculum. The study

used student and teacher interviews, classroom observations, written

tests and surveys, and collected artifacts. These papers summarize

the findings of the Northwestern study. Carroll (2001) provides the

most comprehensive overview of this research.

Carroll, W. M. (2001). A longitudinal study of children in the

Everyday Mathematics curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago

School Mathematics Project.

Drueck, J. V., Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Bell, M. S. (1995).

Performance of U.S. first graders in a reform math curriculum

compared to Japanese, Chinese, and traditionally taught U.S.

students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Fuson, K. C. (1997). What do we see in Everyday Mathematics

classrooms? TeacherLink, 5(2), 1-2. Chicago: Everyday Learning

Corporation.

Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W., & Drueck, J. (2000). Achievement results

for second and third graders using the Standards-based curriculum

Everyday Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,

31(3), 277-295.

See also Northwestern University Longitudinal Study of Everyday

Mathematics (1998a, 1998b, undated-a, undated-b, undated-c) in the

"Formative Studies" section.

4. Summative Studies

Most of the reports in this section have been published in

peer-reviewed journals. Three doctoral dissertations (Fraivillig,

2001; Murphy, 1999; Waite, 2000) are also included. Important papers

in this section include Baxter, Woodward, & Olson (2001); Noyce &

Riordan (2001); Woodward & Baxter (1997); and Sconiers, Isaacs,

Higgins, McBride, & Kelso (2003). The last is a report of a

wide-scale study of the effects of reform curricula on student

achievement. The study included over 100,000 students in three

states. Approximately 75% of the students in the experimental group

of this study used Everyday Mathematics.

Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of

reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five

third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529-547.

Carroll, W. M. (1996). Mental computation of students in a

reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics,

96(6), 305-311.

Carroll, W. M. (1996). Use of invented algorithms by second graders

in a reform mathematics curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,

15(2), 137-150.

Carroll, W. M. (1997). Results of third-grade students in a reform

curriculum on the Illinois state mathematics test. Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 237-242.

Carroll, W. M. (1998a). Geometric knowledge of middle school students

in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and

Mathematics, 98(4), 188-195.

Carroll, W. M. (1998b). Middle school students' reasoning about

geometric situations. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,

3(6), 398-403.

Carroll, W. M. (2000). Invented computational procedures of students

in a Standards-based Curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,

18(2), 111-121.

Carroll, W. M. (2001). Students in a Standards-based mathematics

curriculum: Performance on the 1999 Illinois State Achievement Test.

Illinois Mathematics Teacher, 52(1), 3-7.

Carroll, W. M., Fuson, K. C., & Diamond, A. (2000). Use of

student-constructed number stories in a reform-based curriculum.

Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 49-62.

Carroll, W. M., Isaacs, A. (2003). Achievement of Students Using the

University of Chicago School Mathematics Project's Everyday

Mathematics. In S. L Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.) Standards-Based

School Mathematics Curriculum: What Are They? What Do Students Learn?

(pp. 79-108). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Drueck, J. V. (1996). Progression of multidigit addition and

subtraction solution methods in high-, average-, and

low-math-achieving second graders experiencing a reform curriculum.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New York.

Fraivillig, J. L. (1996). Case studies and instructional frameworks

of expert reform mathematics teaching (Doctoral dissertation,

Northwestern University). Dissertation Abstracts International,

57(06), 2400.

Fraivillig, J. L. (2001). Strategies for advancing children's

mathematical thinking. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(8), 454-459.

Fraivillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing

children's mathematical thinking in Everyday Mathematics classrooms.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 148-170.

Hawkes, M., Kimmelman, P., & Kroeze, D. (1997). Becoming 'first in

the world' in math and science. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 30-33.

Kroeze, D. J., Johnson, D. P., & Zalewski, E. (1997). Achieving

excellence: A report of initial findings of eighth grade performance

from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study: First in

the World Consortium. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional

Educational Laboratory.

Murphy, L. A. (1999). Learning and affective issues among higher- and

lower-achieving third-graders in math reform classrooms: perspectives

of children, parents, and teachers (Doctoral disseration,

Northwestern University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International,

59(12), 4358.

Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two

standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in

Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4),

368-398.

Sconiers, S., Isaacs, A., Higgins, T., McBride, J., & Kelso, C. R.

(2003) The ARC center tri-state student achievement study. Lexington,

MA: The Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications.

Waite, R. D. (2000). A study of the effects of Everyday Mathematics

on student achievement of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students

in a large North Texas Urban School District. Ann Arbor, Michigan:

UMI.

Woodward, J., & Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of an innovative

approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in

inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 373-389.

5. School and District Reports

These reports summarize research conducted by individual schools and

districts. The most important of these studies is Briars and Resnick

(2000). Many of the studies in the Student Achievement Studies

booklets are not particularly "scientific," but they do have high

"face validity" and provide evidence that Everyday Mathematics has a

positive effect on student achievement. (Note: Some of the studies in

the Student Achievement Studies booklets, particularly in Volumes 1

and 4, are not school or district studies. These studies are also

represented in reports in other sections of this bibliography.)

Briars, D. J., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Standards, assessment-and

what else? The essential elements of standards-based school

improvement [CSE Technical Report 528]. Los Angeles: Center for the

Study of Evaluation, UCLA.

(http://www.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Reports/TECH528.pdf)

Carroll, W. M., & Fuson, K. C. (1998). A comparison of Everyday Math

(EM) and McMillan (MC) on Evanston student performance on whole-class

tests: Recommendations for revision of Everyday Mathematics Grades 1,

2, 3, and 4. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996). Everyday Mathematics: Student

achievement studies. Chicago: Author.

Everyday Learning Corporation. (1998). Everyday Mathematics gets

results: Student achievement studies: Volume 2. Chicago: Author.

Mathematics Evaluation Committee of the Hopewell Valley Regional

School District. (1997). Mathematics evaluation report: Year two.

Pennington, NJ: Hopewell Valley Regional School District.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001). Everyday Mathematics student achievement

studies: Volume 3. Chicago: Author.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2003). Everyday Mathematics student achievement

studies: Volume 4. Chicago: Author.

Posted by: Michael Paul Goldenberg | February 04, 2005 at 03:32 PM

I skimmed and realize you have two children who have struggled with their math experiences and I noted some of your references. However, the eight bullets are so far in left field, I will wait to read a more informed article in the future. Read on, if you will.

I have taught the Everyday Math program for six years in K-4 among students who come with narrow language bases and little experiential background (62% free/reduced lunch FY'05). What I have seen all along has been a growth in language when staff expects the usage with understanding, as well as a love for math among almost every single student, with little exception. Of course, if no one expects the language, we will never have mathematical communications necessary for the future of our students, possible inventions, and problem solving beyond computation and word problems or word stories. Thank goodness, we have raised our expectations since I was a child.

I am delighted so many people are so interested in math. I just wish there were some way of making sure everyone had the facts lined up. Please find a teacher who loves visitors and who uses a program before assuming you understand enough about any program to tear it down. Also, some of your sources are way off base, so I guess that is how you have been misled.

In the final analysis, the individual teacher is the key to the success or failure of any program she/he uses as a guide to train students or adults to think mathematically: the teacher's assessment of students and how each young mind learns must be an integral part of reaching those students; the teacher's training for any math program must be more intense than ever before in order to assess and use the assessment results for the student's benefit rather than just a grade; the teacher's pursuit of his/her own growth in understanding all of the ways students can approach problem solving and computations must go beyond what the district does or does not offer. The teacher is the key.

Visit my school and we will show you what we love about math and how we have grown as professionals over the past six years. Whether we use Everyday Math another six years doesn't matter. We are better teachers because of our experience with the high expectations found in the Everyday Math program now being emulated by publishers hoping to get our textbook funds. Our students will reap the rewards of our improved ability to understand, teach, and guide for understanding.

My e-mail: bbrewer@ortn.edu

Posted by: Brenda Brewer | February 06, 2005 at 06:28 AM

Here is a question about those Everyday Math studies... if my daughter improves on her 6th grade state tests, will the improvement be attributed to the Everyday Math curriculum? Yes.

Schools don't run like businesses. They don't have baselines. They don't ask how many hours of work or tutoring and in what subjects is done outside of the regular schoolwork.

Parents aren't stupid. Especially parents who have eyes to see when their kids aren't "getting it." Parents act if they have the resources to do so and the knowledge of what to do. Parents are not a herd to be driven by what is best for all if their kids are experiencing less than optimal results.

I'm sharing my personal experiences so other parents can learn and judge for themselves. There are relatively inexpensive fixes out there because the Internet allows us to have so much at our fingertips that it would have been impossible to get at before.

We must be lifelong learners in order to compete in society... and this includes parenting.

Katherine

Posted by: Parent Pundit | February 11, 2005 at 01:00 PM

We've linked this post at The Carnival Of Education. It can be seen here:

http://educationwonk.blogspot.com/2005/02/carnival-of-education-week-3.html

Posted by: EdWonk | February 23, 2005 at 04:57 AM

Everyday Math can be a wonderful curriculum. But two things must be present as well. First, teachers must know A LOT about math. EM requires an incredible amount of teacher knowledge, and if your district does not offer excellent professional development, EM will bomb.

Second, our district supplments with computation drills. Mad minutes, 30 problems in 60 seconds.

Both my kids score better in math than ELA. Both are girls.

Posted by: JennyD | February 23, 2005 at 10:48 AM