everyday math. . .

[freetobeme]

i am asking this for my brother. . .does anyone here afterschool math because their school district uses Everyday Math? my niece and nephew are in 3rd and 5th grades and my bro and sil are not pleased and asked me for suggestions. tia!

[Sue G in PA]

EM should be banned from all schools. It is horrible and has turned my confident, capable, mathy 4th grader into quite the opposite. We tried to afterschool math with him, but his teacher had him so brainwashed into thinking that HER way (the em way) was the ONLY way to do the problems. Ugh. We fought and fought and contacted the teacher and told her to tell him it was okay to do it any way he wanted as long as he came to the right answer. No go. We used Singapore before sending him to ps and it is like he has forgotten all the mental math and Singapore way of doing math. Nice. Good luck to them b/c EM is evil.

[BabyBre]

Well, our school uses TERC Investigations which might be worse..... Same idea though.

 

I after-school math with Singapore and MUS. Neither take very long and we do the bulk of the work in the Summer. Dd loves math so this works fine for us. We are not trying to hit the same concepts as her math at school. She has actually gone further than anything she will do at school this year but that is fine because I would rather teach it properly at home first.

 

 

:iagree: Our school also uses TERC, a program I've heard is equally as terrible as Everyday Math. We afterschool with Saxon and Singapore (before school, actually). My dc are both ahead of their grade level in Saxon and Singapre, which are both more advanced than TERC.

 

Teaching them solid concepts before they learn the fluffy TERC methods has proven invaluable. Many of their classmates struggle and fail their district assessments, while my dc need more advanced classroom work.

 

Here's an excellent video about Everyday Math to show your brother:

[BabyBre]

EM should be banned from all schools. It is horrible and has turned my confident, capable, mathy 4th grader into quite the opposite. We tried to afterschool math with him, but his teacher had him so brainwashed into thinking that HER way (the em way) was the ONLY way to do the problems. Ugh. We fought and fought and contacted the teacher and told her to tell him it was okay to do it any way he wanted as long as he came to the right answer. No go. We used Singapore before sending him to ps and it is like he has forgotten all the mental math and Singapore way of doing math. Nice. Good luck to them b/c EM is evil.

 

 

I'm so sorry, Sue.

[freetobeme]

i'm sorry,too, sue. your insight will probably be VERY helpful to my db.

[freetobeme]

thanks for the video link, breann!

[Carmen_and_Company]

Before pulling Taz out of school way back in 2000, he used Every Day Mathematics, and we also supplemented with Singapore Primary Maths.

 

We tried Saxon & Horizon programs, first, but Taz disliked the incremental/spiral methodology.

[Sue G in PA]

I came back b/c I realized I sounded a bit, um, negative. Maybe too negative. I am sorry. I've never liked EM, even when my dd was in ps 4 years ago and I don't now. My husband told me I was just being negative b/c I didn't want the kids to go back to ps. Well, let's just say he has "come around". My 6th grader is in the last year of the evil EM curriculum and he is actually doing well with it. We used MUS with him up until sending him back and he is often "teaching" his peers how to do certain problem using the MUS method. So I guess he isn't really using the EM methods. I do think that the teacher makes all the difference. His teacher is very good. I would love to afterschool concepts before they get to them in EM, but the whole curriculum is just so bass-ackwards that you never know WHAT concept will follow another!

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

We do Math U See and just straight out practicing math facts with our kids, who also have to endure Everyday Math in school.

[freetobeme]

thanks, everyone! your input has been helpful!

:001_smile:

[Ohdanigirl]

I just watched that youtube video and my head hurts. I feel your pain.:grouphug: Is there any way the stop doing math at school all together and get credit for doing it independently with a tutor/parent? It would seem that being exposed to this type of method could really mess any child up.

[WiseOwlKnits]

:iagree: Our school also uses TERC, a program I've heard is equally as terrible as Everyday Math. We afterschool with Saxon and Singapore (before school, actually). My dc are both ahead of their grade level in Saxon and Singapre, which are both more advanced than TERC.

 

Teaching them solid concepts before they learn the fluffy TERC methods has proven invaluable. Many of their classmates struggle and fail their district assessments, while my dc need more advanced classroom work.

 

Here's an excellent video about Everyday Math to show your brother:

 

Thank you for posting that video. That is really scary....

[brightside]

Yes, thank you so much for the video. My son came over while I was watching it and said, Hey that's how Mrs. <blank> told us we HAD to do math, when I was in school. Now I know why we have some lingering math issues.

[BabyBre]

Yes, thank you so much for the video. My son came over while I was watching it and said, Hey that's how Mrs. <blank> told us we HAD to do math, when I was in school. Now I know why we have some lingering math issues.

 

 

Ugh! I'm glad the video's been so helpful to so many. Every time I catch myself thinking maybe these reform math programs aren't as bad as everyone says, I watch that video.

 

I especially love the part where MJ points out in the teacher's manual that the long division algorithm isn't taught because quotients can be more efficiently found with a calculator!!! :eek:

[DawnL]

Yes, thank you for posting that video. That video makes me very angry. I posted it on my Facebook page. I am in Washington, too, and that video really hit home for several of my friends here.

[sleepymommy]

:iagree: Our school also uses TERC, a program I've heard is equally as terrible as Everyday Math. We afterschool with Saxon and Singapore (before school, actually). My dc are both ahead of their grade level in Saxon and Singapre, which are both more advanced than TERC.

 

Teaching them solid concepts before they learn the fluffy TERC methods has proven invaluable. Many of their classmates struggle and fail their district assessments, while my dc need more advanced classroom work.

 

Here's an excellent video about Everyday Math to show your brother:

 

 

Thank you for posting the video, dh even joined me to watch. He and I were both just so dumbfounded on what looked to us like such obscure math methods. He was shocked when I informed him that Everyday Math is what our public schools and even some of the best private schools around us use.

[LexiR]

Just keep in mind that nothing is "that bad", and everything in moderation. My children all used EM at school, and while it is...how shall we say it...unusual...it does have a very strong application, problem solving aspect. Using EM at just a few years up, my son was able to outscore the average high school student on the SAT at just 9. The curriculum is most problematic for non-advanced students. But for average and above, with a little supplementation in its weaker areas, it can really broaden a child's conceptual understanding of math.

 

I am not really a proponent of EM...I am finding that all math curriculums have weak areas, but there is a fair amount of good in EM, and it's been an asset to my three children. Compared to some of the more lock step curriculums, I found that EM had a better abilty to differentiate between kids of varying levels. My kids would have been bored to tears with a more straight forward curriculum.

[Carmen_and_Company]

Just keep in mind that nothing is "that bad", and everything in moderation. My children all used EM at school, and while it is...how shall we say it...unusual...it does have a very strong application, problem solving aspect. Using EM at just a few years up, my son was able to outscore the average high school student on the SAT at just 9. The curriculum is most problematic for non-advanced students. But for average and above, with a little supplementation in its weaker areas, it can really broaden a child's conceptual understanding of math.

 

I am not really a proponent of EM...I am finding that all math curriculums have weak areas, but there is a fair amount of good in EM, and it's been an asset to my three children. Compared to some of the more lock step curriculums, I found that EM had a better abilty to differentiate between kids of varying levels. My kids would have been bored to tears with a more straight forward curriculum.

 

 

What about children not afforded the opportunity at school to use several levels higher of EM?

 

Additionally, the scores do not mean your son did better than 9th graders on the test, but he tested at the level that the 50th percentile of 9th graders who took the same test scored across the country, which does not validate EM as a worthy program, especially if said 9th graders used EM from 1st grade through 6th grade.

 

The reason I'm so anti-EM is that my eldest ds struggled with the program because he understood mathematics intuitively, and the program requires one method of answering problems in order to be correct. For a child who understands mathematics and can answer a problem using a traditional method to fail mathematics, because they did not compute long division the way EM teaches is a travesty.

 

We ditched EM by homeschooling--yes, I pulled my math gifted child out of school, and the next year my son was accepted into the EPGY math program in 7th grade. He completed 3 levels of high school math in three semesters. EM almost ruined this child who completed calculus I-III and linear algebra before graduating high school.

 

I cannot claim the same outcome if Taz continued EM and it's middle school counterpart, CMP. Such programs actually hold gifted math children back as the child lacks the computational ability necessary to adequately understand algebra. Children working through algebra should know the 4 operations in their sleep, along with the traditional means of mathematical computation.

 

Taz and I tutor too many students who excelled at mathematics that used EM/CMP in the lower years that hit walls upon learning algebra, that it's literally Taz's part-time job for which the district pays us $30.00 an hour to rectify their mess.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Carmen_and_Company

[Perry]

Just keep in mind that nothing is "that bad",

 

Why?

 

 

I could not disagree more.

[LexiR]

No math program works well for advanced learners, if not done above level....but EM probably works better than most in that regard. The SAT I was referring to was not the Stanford...but the college board SAT, so he not only did better than 9th graders, but college bound seniors...at 9 years old...with just a few years of EM under his belt, and a little reinforcement of the areas not covered as well.

 

Again, I'm not saying it's the end all...far from it. I'm only saying that kids can thrive in it. We had a good experience. It sounds like your school was not using it properly too, as the reason behind the multiple methods is that the kids have a variety to choose from. No one method should ever be mandated.

 

I'm glad things worked out for your son. He sounds extremely gifted. My own son is well past the EM years now at 11, thanks to some school endorsed acceleration.

[LexiR]

Perry, I just meant that it's possible to work with less than ideal. We disagree about the merits, or lack there of for Everyday Math, but as a parent who read horror stories when our school first introduced it, and was TERRIFIED, I just hate to see that terror passed along without sharing some success stories. Math is my life, and in my opinion, Everyday Math is not "that bad".

[Red]

I have to say that Everyday Math is the worst math program I have ever encountered. It nearly destroyed my ds natural ability for math. All three of my older children who used it the longest had huge gaps and little mastery. They would spend hours on the homework and be unable to accept my help because I did it the "wrong" way. I have had friends just as frustrated by it as I.

[BabyBre]

They would spend hours on the homework and be unable to accept my help because I did it the "wrong" way.

 

 

Fuzzy math programs (also called "new math", "reform", "discovery", etc.) are designed this way. They block parental involvement, not by teaching different methods, but because the traditional methods we know are often not taught at all, nor are the new ones explained in the text books.

 

They also emphasize excessive classroom group work. When my high schooler came home with Core-Plus asking for my help, I asked to see his text book. He handed it over but said it wasn't going help because explanations aren't in the text book. (I said, "Yeah, right!") Sure enough, the book was full of word problems and very little else, certainly no step-by-step explanations because students are supposed to "discover" the methods with their peers. Having no other options, he's forced to call his peers for help. Parents are pushed out of the equation, students are taught that they can't do it on their own, and test scores suffer because kids can't use their friends on tests.

 

My ds16 is in pre-calculus this year using a more traditional book, and it's the first year he's actually loving high school math. Thank goodness our district is in the process of adopting a more traditional program.

Edited March 1, 2010 by BabyBre

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

From what I've seen of the EM program to which the public school system subjects my own kids and my cousin's kids (who are several years older than mine), I am literally ill over it. It is the most ridiculous way to teach math that I could ever imagine. I don't understand the point of it at all. We practice math facts and use MUS at home after school to compensate for the idiocy of EM.

[ocelotmom]

No math program works well for advanced learners, if not done above level....but EM probably works better than most in that regard. The SAT I was referring to was not the Stanford...but the college board SAT, so he not only did better than 9th graders, but college bound seniors...at 9 years old...with just a few years of EM under his belt, and a little reinforcement of the areas not covered as well.

I wonder about this, too.

 

After watching the video, I ended up having a discussion with a friend of mine with kids using EM in 2nd and 5th grade. He thinks it's great, and that his kids have a much better understanding of mathematical concepts than he did at their age.

 

Now, this particular person is an extremely intelligent cryptologist, and presumably his kids have inherited some portion of his math skill, so I doubt they're representative.

 

So, I sat down at DS's school today, and looked through the 3-5th grade curriculum. What I found didn't entirely support the video's assertations.

 

The hardcover "Resource book" isn't a standard textbook. However, it does include instructions on how to solve problems using the various methods... including the standard US method (It's possible that this is specific to the California edition). The maligned "World/US tour" section, as I suspected from watching the video, is filled with numerical data of all sorts, and has obvious practical application uses. We did a similar activity when I was in 6th grade, 20ish years ago. My friend complains that his kids aren't allowed to take this book home.

 

There are parent letters that are supposed to be sent home from time to time. Some of these do include instructions for the parents on how to do unfamiliar problems. In the 1st grade book, these are included in the Home Links workbook, so it would be simple for them to be sent home at the relevant time. For 4th-6th grade, all the parent letters are in one book (for all three grades, not a different book for each grade), separate from the student workbook, and I can easily see that just not happening. It would also be easy for a parent to overlook/throw away a letter, then end up needing it at a later time, and the instructions aren't repeated frequently (probably once a year). My friend stated that they rarely receive those letters anymore, and feels that this isn't a good thing.

 

Overall, I see a lot of potential for an increased understanding of mathematical concepts. I saw this in the video, and even moreso when looking through the materials. However, there's just so much included (three different methods of performing each type of calculation), and so much of it nonstandard, that I fully believe that, in the hands of a less capable teacher, it would turn into a confusing, tedious mess. I also see less math-capable students having trouble sorting through it all, especially without adequate guidance from their teacher.

 

I'm also aware that, while neither my friend nor I had any trouble picking up the nonstandard methods from the video, we're both well above average in math understanding, and average parents might have a much harder time learning the nonstandard methods well enough to help, even with written instructions.

 

And I'll be really curious to see if my friend's opinion changes at all as his kids get into higher math (we won't be doing EM ourselves past this year, and mainly use it for supplementation now, because I do think many of the activities are good).

Edited April 1, 2010 by ocelotmom

[EKS]

I homeschool because our district uses TERC Investigations (similar to Everyday Math). If I had to put my son in school, I'd afterschool with Singapore.

[LexiR]

Thanks Ocelet, I really enjoyed reading your post and reflecting on your observations.

 

I'm pretty OCD myself, and would probably after school to some extent no matter what curriculum my kids use. If there's a best curriculum out there for any large school setting, I've yet to see it. It's great that individually we can supplement with whatever is needed most. I think it's the best of both worlds.

[Mejane]

Agree with all the negative reviews above. My daughter could not do it, nor could I help her with it. If I tried to show her another way, she cried because she was afraid she would "get in trouble." Our local Sylvan center was overwhelmed with kids needing math tutoring. As a volunteer at the school, I saw the ill effects even after the program was discontinued. I wholeheartedly agree with Sue; if a math program can be described as evil, this one is. :glare:

[gandpsmommy]

I'm quite interested in this thread because we are considering putting at least one of our children into a public school next year which uses Everyday Mathematics. I'm somewhat appalled at the number of negative opinions expressed here and at the severity of that negativity.

 

When we spoke to the curriculum director at the local school district which we are contemplating using, and found out that EM was their curriculum, I googled it to find out information. Surprisingly, I thought it looked similar to the curriculum we use at home: Righstart. Perhaps I didn't get a complete picture from the limited information on the internet, though?

 

I would like to know from parents who have actually seen the curriculum and had children using it, do the children never have the opportunity to learn the traditional arithmetic algorithims (for multiple-digit addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) along with the other (perhaps more intuitive for some) ways of solving arithmetic problems? And, is the limitation of what methods they are allowed to use to solve problems coming from the individual teachers or from the program itself?

 

Most of the reason I love Righstart is that it leads children to think about mathematic concepts and to understand the reasoning behind the algorithims before it ever introduces the algorithims. But learning the traditional algorithim is the culmination of that process. By the time they are introduced to the traditional algorithim in Righstart, it makes so much sense that it is a very small, logical step. Then, the students are given ample opportunities to practice using the algorithim, which they now understand.

 

Also, Righstart teaches strategies for addition and subtraction and only expects students to begin memorizing facts when they understand the strategies. But they do memorize the facts. Similarly, they introduce multiplication conceptually using activities that require repeated addition and building arrays, etc., and also have the child learn the multiples for each numeral through 10 before they begin memorizing multiplication facts. But they do memorize multiplication facts.

 

Righstart uses a lot of word problems and real life applications to teach concepts, which has helped my children immensely to understand the concepts themselves and their relevance to real life. We started out using Singapore and Miquon math with dd (now 8 yo) when she was in kindergarten. At the end of first grade I decided that it something was missing and went looking for a better fit for us. We discovered Righstart, and it has made an amazing difference. I can't imagine how different dd's understanding of math would be if we had continued with only Singapore and Miquon.

 

I started using Righstart A with ds when he was five years old, in pre-k. He is now six years old, in kindergarten, and using B. I am constantly amazed at how keen his mathematical though processes are. The games (specifically one that teaches which numbers pair up to make ten) have cemented concepts in his mind that help him to learn higher-level concepts. But to him they're just fun games that he requests even when it's not math time.

 

I guess what I'm taking a huge amount of space and words to say is that I think kids need both. They need to understand the concepts behind the algorithims, and they need to do so before the algorithims are drilled into their minds. But they also need to memorize and be able to use those algorithims, once they are meaningful to them.

 

And my question is: Does EM accomplish this? If not, do you think we might be able to continue teaching our dc the algorithims to complement the EM approach, or do you think it would be ill-received by teachers, which would lead to frustration for the kids?

 

Also my dd (currently finishing up third grade) already knows the multiplication algorithim. She knows all of her multiplication facts through ten, and she does multi-digit multiplication problems daily. She is currently learning division and will be learning the algorithim for that soon. Would she still be allowed to use that knowledge to solve problems or would she be retaught according to EM strategem? Fortunately we live in a school district that believes in placing children by ability, so if she is ahead of her peers she would be able to go to a different grade level for that subject. Do you think she would be ahead? When I looked at the program online, it seemed to me that she would be right in line with what they are doing in her grade level. Thanks so much for any responses!

[Shay]

Terri,

I'm in a rush this a.m. and need to make this short but will try to come back to it later. It will be interesting to see replies....hopefully msjones will reply.

 

That is interesting, as I recall reading somewhere that RS is more similar to EM. Yet RS is embraced while EM is scorned. My kids have been doing EM for years now and I really don't worry about them anymore. They are more math intuitive, though, and easily get the concepts. However, I've added math fact drill until they know their facts (Flashmaster).

 

I think your kids will be fine, based on your detailed description of where they are mathematically. If you stated that your children struggled with math I would have a very different opinion.

 

The problem I've seen, as a tutor of struggling children (speaking here of kdg. and 1st grade children), is that the young children who are still in the concrete level cannot make the conceptual jump. They seem to always be at their "frustration level." If you are homeschooling, you can sort of "camp out" when your child doesn't understand something and not forge ahead. With the ps, they just have to go right on and it does leave these kids behind. The kids who are still in the concrete stage really suffer the most. Also, there is a large aversion to "drill and kill" with math facts, yet these children I see desperately need this.

 

Shay

[gandpsmommy]

Shay, thanks so much for your response. I look forward to hearing more from you and other posters! I also wondered why Righstart would be so revered, while EM would be scorned with such severity, when they seem similar to me. I haven't had any personal experience with EM, though, so my knowledge is very limited. I was wondering if the key might be that Righstart uses different strategies, games, activities, and word problems to help children understand a concept leading to understanding the algorithim and being able to apply it in now that they understand why it works, whereas maybe EM bypasses the traditional algorithim completely? Again, my knowledge of EM is admittedly very limited, so I"m guessing here. I would love to hear from more about it.

[gandpsmommy]

I'm wondering if anyone has seen this

to the earlier linked YouTube video? I found it insightful as well.

[LexiR]

I am now an EM graduate (from my own children) and I work at a private school that uses it for it's brighter elementary students (so I'm still in the throes). That said, the program itself does NOT use/teach traditional multiplication and division. And everyone is right to be a little concerned by this. When our public school adopted this in 2002, we had some growing pains. Over those first few years though, the district really learned its weak points. One others have already mentioned is the weak enforcement of math facts. Another truthfully is the lack of traditional algorithms.

 

Our school, and hopefully many others using the curriculum will supplement with both of these aspects, rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you are meeting with school staff, those are the questions I would ask. Ask about a rigidness to any one method, and about how they might supplement. For example, our school teaches every way of multiplication...including traditional, and then on tests, the kids can do whatever method they are most comfortable with. A curriculum that tests saying "using THIS method...." doesn't embrace the benefits of learning more than one method. The idea really is to show kids in enough different ways, hoping they'll see the big picture AND retain at least one way.

 

Overall my thoughts are a cautious thumbs up for Everyday Math....BUT, it really does depend on who is teaching it and how. In the hands of a clueless teacher who doesn't really get math, it could do more harm than good, :( . Our experience though has been fairly positive. If the school doesn't supplement....you can easily do that at home. Your biggest concern really though is probably rigidity. If they are insistent on using this method on this day, that's a warning sign.

 

When we get kids back into public from private schools that don't use EM, they really are weaker in math than the public students. If they are bright, they catch on quickly, but the test scores do show this program as somewhat successful here locally, in a day when virtually every tested math problem is a word problem to some extent.

 

HTH!

[gandpsmommy]

I am now an EM graduate (from my own children) and I work at a private school that uses it for it's brighter elementary students (so I'm still in the throes). That said, the program itself does NOT use/teach traditional multiplication and division. And everyone is right to be a little concerned by this. When our public school adopted this in 2002, we had some growing pains. Over those first few years though, the district really learned its weak points. One others have already mentioned is the weak enforcement of math facts. Another truthfully is the lack of traditional algorithms.

 

Our school, and hopefully many others using the curriculum will supplement with both of these aspects, rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you are meeting with school staff, those are the questions I would ask. Ask about a rigidness to any one method, and about how they might supplement. For example, our school teaches every way of multiplication...including traditional, and then on tests, the kids can do whatever method they are most comfortable with. A curriculum that tests saying "using THIS method...." doesn't embrace the benefits of learning more than one method. The idea really is to show kids in enough different ways, hoping they'll see the big picture AND retain at least one way.

 

Overall my thoughts are a cautious thumbs up for Everyday Math....BUT, it really does depend on who is teaching it and how. In the hands of a clueless teacher who doesn't really get math, it could do more harm than good, :( . Our experience though has been fairly positive. If the school doesn't supplement....you can easily do that at home. Your biggest concern really though is probably rigidity. If they are insistent on using this method on this day, that's a warning sign.

 

When we get kids back into public from private schools that don't use EM, they really are weaker in math than the public students. If they are bright, they catch on quickly, but the test scores do show this program as somewhat successful here locally, in a day when virtually every tested math problem is a word problem to some extent.

 

HTH!

 

Thanks for your response. It was very helpful.

[burleygirl]

My daughter's school started Everyday Math when she entered 2nd grade. The whole idea and concept of EM is wonderful in theory. I think the implementation of the curriculum, coupled with teachers who do not have a good understanding of math themselves is very ineffective. EM is dangerous in the hands of a teacher who does not understand math. Most people think it is very easy to teach elementary math but if you don't understand the concepts it's not that easy. EM assumes the teacher has a very good grasp of math. Well believe it or not most elementary school teachers do not. So when a school implements EM it does not bode well for most students and it frustrates the parents. As an Engineer, I understood the methods being used but my child did not & the teacher refused to help her. She literally stuck to the script and told her to work with her group and ask them. My child hated math and thought she was no good at it. It took 4 years to change her attitude. Now she loves math. We did take her out of the public school system. We also found out several years later that she was dyslexic. So now she attends a private school for students with dyslexia which have very small class sizes. She is now thriving in math.

 

I still do not like EM because it is just poorly implemented and is very costly which is why a lot of schools stick with it even if it is not working. Every school in my district uses it. However, I have seen it successfully implemented at one of our local private schools but they also supplement as well and train all the teachers extensively. They each are retrained every summer.

 

I also agree with the other poster about the school having to move on even if a child does not understand. That's what happened with my daughter. In 2nd grade, she took a math test and it had equivalent fractions on it. She had no idea what to do. The expect the child to get the abstract too soon and then don't give them enough time to understand it. It is also a spiral curriculum and not mastery. Her teacher said don't worry about her not understanding they would cover it again in 3rd and 4th. Anyway, the end result is that is when I started doing math with her at home and told her not to worry about the math at school.

Edited April 3, 2010 by burleygirl

[gandpsmommy]

My daughter's school started Everyday Math when she entered 2nd grade. The whole idea and concept of EM is wonderful in theory. I think the implementation of the curriculum, coupled with teachers who do not have a good understanding of math themselves is very ineffective. EM is dangerous in the hands of a teacher who does not understand math. Most people think it is very easy to teach elementary math but if you don't understand the concepts it's not that easy. EM assumes the teacher has a very good grasp of math. Well believe it or not most elementary school teachers do not. So when a school implements EM it does not bode well for most students and it frustrates the parents. As an Engineer, I understood the methods being used but my child did not & the teacher refused to help her. She literally stuck to the script and told her to work with her group and ask them. My child hated math and thought she was no good at it. It took 4 years to change her attitude. Now she loves math. We did take her out of the public school system. We also found out several years later that she was dyslexic. So now she attends a private school for students with dyslexia which have very small class sizes. She is now thriving in math.

 

I still do not like EM because it is just poorly implemented and is very costly which is why a lot of schools stick with it even if it is not working. Every school in my district uses it. However, I have seen it successfully implemented at one of our local private schools but they also supplement as well and train all the teachers extensively. They each are retrained every summer.

 

I also agree with the other poster about the school having to move on even if a child does not understand. That's what happened with my daughter. In 2nd grade, she took a math test and it had equivalent fractions on it. She had no idea what to do. The expect the child to get the abstract too soon and then don't give them enough time to understand it. It is also a spiral curriculum and not mastery. Her teacher said don't worry about her not understanding they would cover it again in 3rd and 4th. Anyway, the end result is that is when I started doing math with her at home and told her not to worry about the math at school.

 

Thanks for your sharing your experience and insights. I really appreciate it. I agree with your thoughts about teachers needing to have a good grasp of math before being able to teach it to children. I think a lot of people in the United States believe that anybody can be a preschool teacher as long as they are good with kids, and that only a very elementary understanding of basic concepts is necessary to teach elementary school. I actually believe that these positions need our most intelligent, well-rounded, deep-thinking professionals. And while I know that there are some absolutely amazing and very intelligent early childhood and elementary teachers, I have personally known many who were weren't. And I sat next to a girl in college who admitted that she didn't even like kids and didn't want to be an elementary school teacher, but she couldn't think of anything else in college that she would be able to pass. Can you imagine someone saying that about becoming a college professor? We clearly need to change the attitude we have as a society toward early education. And I don't mean add higher standards and tougher standardized tests.

 

This thread has helped me develop some good questions to ask the school district about how EM is implemented in their classrooms and about their flexibility with allowing a student to incorporate methods (however traditional they may be) that they have learned at home in their classroom learning. I'm starting to wonder, though, how much afterschooling we will really have to be doing, and, in turn, if it would be really worth it to enroll them in school.

[Shay]

This is my experience and I realize it may vary tremendously with others on this board.....

 

I was sick at my stomach when I learned our school was going with EM (I had read all the stuff). Now, 4 years in (or is it 5?), I am okay with it. At first, I was supplementing Singapore Math with my kids b/c I just always had done that and they seemed to really get math with SM. I tried to do this mostly in the summer. My kids would get to something in the SM text and say "I know, I know, we've already done this." And they knew what to do. So, I discontinued the SM afterschooling and was actually quite relieved about it. I do think one of the keys for us was that I had started SM with each of them in the EarlyBird series and they had a firm foundation and did not struggle to make the conceptual leaps that are required. They are naturally "mathy." I've seen many kids (ones I tutor) who do not have the base 10 concept down in 1st grade and I wonder how in the world they are surviving. These are usually the same kids who are struggling in other areas, such as reading.

 

I absolutely disagree with the notion of "drill and kill" of math facts. Afterschooling those is a *must* if the school does not do it. Our school gives the 2nd graders weekly timed tests and they call this fact work. That is a test, not systematic drill. My son (before I knew to add fact work) would literally bite his arms during those tests. He was so used to succeeding in everything he did and all of the sudden he was expected to perform at a fast rate something he had not memorized. So, you may want to know what their fact practice really *is*. If they do not do it at all it is super easy to do at home, as I'm sure you know. The flashmaster in the car is easy and I used to have my 4 take turns with it on the way to school.

 

For 2nd grade, they do not want the child doing the traditional algorithim for adding 2 digit numbers because they want them to grasp place value. So, 24 + 36 becomes 20 + 30 + 10. What is insidious to me is that the same school that detests fact drill will drill kids on "sight" words at a very early age before they have enough code knowledge to make any sense of it. You know, the kindergartener should know "eight", "blue" or "two" at a glance, but don't you *dare* use the traditional algorithm in 2nd grade before you have the conceptual understanding. Makes not sense to me.

 

 

I also agree that it is important that your child has a good teacher (but how do you know that going in?) One time they transferred a kindy teacher to the 6th grade and my son was going to be in that grade. I knew that this teacher always hated math and wasn't good at it, so I politiely requested he not be in her class (and I *did* tell them why).

 

My problems with EM mostly are at the very early levels where some kids may be still in the concrete stage and are constantly being asked to perform abstractly. If your kids get math easily and have no other learning problems, they should do fine IMHO. My opinion again, but a homeschooled child who has done SM or RS should go in fine. I would not say that to someone who took a relaxed approach in K or 1st.

 

I agree with you that there needs to be reform and that there need to be deep thinkers and intelligent teachers in early elementary education. I know some wonderful ones who fit this description, but they are not the norm. Often, the teachers have to do what *they've* been mandated to do whether or not they agree with it. If I taught kindy at our school, I'd have to teach my kids the "color and number" sight words during the first 9 weeks.....whether I agree with it or not. Deep thinkers are needed at every level.

 

Since this has been brought up in this thread (perhaps we need a new one, though)... why such scorn for Everyday Math amongst homeschoolers, yet Right Start is embraced?

[LexiR]

Gandpsmommy, thanks for the link, I had missed that the first time I read this thread (I was probably busy posting!) That was very insightful, and I see his point. I think math is harder to teach because in many households, it's not truly lived, as well as learned in school (present company most likely excluded, ;) ). But truly, could kids really be fantastic readers and deep thinkers if they "learned to read" in school, but didn't do any reading/discussion at home? The schools are hard pressed to try to do it all.

 

I agree also with your thoughts on elementary teaching. I am extremely fortunate to live in an area where a lot of really bright people choose teaching for the hours that fit with parenting. I know quite a lot of "second career" teachers. I think this helps our overall presentation of any curriculum to have high caliber teachers.

 

Best wishes to you personally with your decision making. I think you are attentive enough that your children will thrive in any setting.

 

Burleygirl, EM is especially difficult for dyslexic children. My daughter is somewhat dyslexic, and some of the homework sheets with multiple concepts at once were horrifying for her. I remember one particular sheet that had fractions placed on a number line, in a cryptogram form, that ultimately told a joke about Bob Hope and frogs (Bob Hop). Her little slow to process mind was overwhelmed. She does well with concepts, but not ones so varied at once. She's 2E, but kids that are just below level, struggle greatly when too many things are thrown at them at once. EM absolutely isn't best for every child.

[LexiR]

Great thoughts Shay, I was writing very slowly while watching the video, and you snuck in on me there. Another thing we found was that our teachers realized early on that my kids were strong in math, and I think they got more grace in the methods as such.

 

We had a teacher once tell my son (and his class) in 4th grade that calculus was "really hard math" and that she had failed. Aurgh! Don't they realize those notions stick? She was a really great teacher, but just not strong in math, :( . I love when 7th grade rolls around, and the math teachers have actually studied math in-depth!

[burleygirl]

LexiR - After I was going on to someone about EM and the disastrous effect it had on my daughter and that we eventually found out she was dyslexic which is another long story, they told me the same thing that EM was not a good curriculum for a dyslexic. She has an excellent memory so she always knew the answers to her homework but could never tell me why it was the answer. She would always say that's what the teacher said the answer was.

 

Because of her excellent memory it appeared that she was reading very well which is why we didn't discover the dyslexia until 4th grade when the style of teaching changed - less direct verbal instruction. She was required mostly to read to find out what to do next. The teacher usually lectured for 10 -15 minutes and then the rest of the time was seatwork. We would spend hours doing the homework together.

[msjones]

Shay, thanks so much for your response. I look forward to hearing more from you and other posters! I also wondered why Righstart would be so revered, while EM would be scorned with such severity, when they seem similar to me. I haven't had any personal experience with EM, though, so my knowledge is very limited. I was wondering if the key might be that Righstart uses different strategies, games, activities, and word problems to help children understand a concept leading to understanding the algorithim and being able to apply it in now that they understand why it works, whereas maybe EM bypasses the traditional algorithim completely? Again, my knowledge of EM is admittedly very limited, so I"m guessing here. I would love to hear from more about it.

 

There are a lot of similarities between Rightstart and EM. I use Rightstart with my boys, and tutor struggling EM kids.

 

The key difference between EM and Rightstart is that the parent is teaching Rightstart. The parent has 'bought into it' and is determined to make it work for her child. Most parents, as we all know, despise EM. It is preceded by a lousy reputation, looks weird, and is a disaster in the hands of a crummy/negative teacher.

 

If a teacher doesn't want to teach it, had one pathetic day of training, and doesn't understand math too well herself, her students (and their families) are in for a poor year of math.

[msjones]

I wonder about this, too.

 

After watching the video, I ended up having a discussion with a friend of mine with kids using EM in 2nd and 5th grade. He thinks it's great, and that his kids have a much better understanding of mathematical concepts than he did at their age.

 

Now, this particular person is an extremely intelligent cryptologist, and presumably his kids have inherited some portion of his math skill, so I doubt they're representative.

 

So, I sat down at DS's school today, and looked through the 3-5th grade curriculum. What I found didn't entirely support the video's assertations.

 

The hardcover "Resource book" isn't a standard textbook. However, it does include instructions on how to solve problems using the various methods... including the standard US method (It's possible that this is specific to the California edition). The maligned "World/US tour" section, as I suspected from watching the video, is filled with numerical data of all sorts, and has obvious practical application uses. We did a similar activity when I was in 6th grade, 20ish years ago. My friend complains that his kids aren't allowed to take this book home.

 

There are parent letters that are supposed to be sent home from time to time. Some of these do include instructions for the parents on how to do unfamiliar problems. In the 1st grade book, these are included in the Home Links workbook, so it would be simple for them to be sent home at the relevant time. For 4th-6th grade, all the parent letters are in one book (for all three grades, not a different book for each grade), separate from the student workbook, and I can easily see that just not happening. It would also be easy for a parent to overlook/throw away a letter, then end up needing it at a later time, and the instructions aren't repeated frequently (probably once a year). My friend stated that they rarely receive those letters anymore, and feels that this isn't a good thing.

 

Overall, I see a lot of potential for an increased understanding of mathematical concepts. I saw this in the video, and even moreso when looking through the materials. However, there's just so much included (three different methods of performing each type of calculation), and so much of it nonstandard, that I fully believe that, in the hands of a less capable teacher, it would turn into a confusing, tedious mess. I also see less math-capable students having trouble sorting through it all, especially without adequate guidance from their teacher.

 

I'm also aware that, while neither my friend nor I had any trouble picking up the nonstandard methods from the video, we're both well above average in math understanding, and average parents might have a much harder time learning the nonstandard methods well enough to help, even with written instructions.

 

And I'll be really curious to see if my friend's opinion changes at all as his kids get into higher math (we won't be doing EM ourselves past this year, and mainly use it for supplementation now, because I do think many of the activities are good).

 

:iagree:I think these are excellent observations.

 

I am very familiar with EM, and agree with what you've said here. In particular -- the World/US Tour unit is quite good, in my opinion. It's a very well-organized story-problem/practical math application unit.

 

I've see that video and wondered if the presenters actually read through the whole curriculum or just chose to focus on their pet issues.

[msjones]

I'm quite interested in this thread because we are considering putting at least one of our children into a public school next year which uses Everyday Mathematics. I'm somewhat appalled at the number of negative opinions expressed here and at the severity of that negativity.

 

There are also parents who are happy with the program; one just doesn't hear much from them on message boards.

 

When we spoke to the curriculum director at the local school district which we are contemplating using, and found out that EM was their curriculum, I googled it to find out information. Surprisingly, I thought it looked similar to the curriculum we use at home: Righstart. Perhaps I didn't get a complete picture from the limited information on the internet, though?

 

I use Rightstart with my kids and tutor EM kids. I agree that the programs are similar. They both teach strategies and emphasize understanding of algorithms. I find Rightstart superior in the amount of facts practice emphasized.

 

I would like to know from parents who have actually seen the curriculum and had children using it, do the children never have the opportunity to learn the traditional arithmetic algorithims (for multiple-digit addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) along with the other (perhaps more intuitive for some) ways of solving arithmetic problems? And, is the limitation of what methods they are allowed to use to solve problems coming from the individual teachers or from the program itself?

 

Yes, they are taught/shown the traditional algorithms (or, at least they should be). In the school where I tutor, the children are expected to understand why those algorithms work. Their understanding comes from learning the 'new' (they aren't actually new -- just new to most US parents) methods. For example, by learning the much-maligned partial quotients long-division algorithm, students gain an understanding of why/how the 'traditional' method works. (That is a significant accomplishment, in my opinion. Prior to EM, I didn't know a single student who could explain the math behind that algorithm. Although your Rightstart student may be able to.;))

 

I have not seen a teacher refusing to allow a student to use a traditional algorithm. I have seen teachers requiring students to demonstrate understanding of the 'alternative/new/fuzzy' method in addition to the 'traditional' method. This enrages some parents.

Most of the reason I love Righstart is that it leads children to think about mathematic concepts and to understand the reasoning behind the algorithims before it ever introduces the algorithims. But learning the traditional algorithim is the culmination of that process. By the time they are introduced to the traditional algorithim in Righstart, it makes so much sense that it is a very small, logical step. Then, the students are given ample opportunities to practice using the algorithim, which they now understand.

 

This is a great explanation of what EM attempts to do.

Also, Righstart teaches strategies for addition and subtraction and only expects students to begin memorizing facts when they understand the strategies. But they do memorize the facts. Similarly, they introduce multiplication conceptually using activities that require repeated addition and building arrays, etc., and also have the child learn the multiples for each numeral through 10 before they begin memorizing multiplication facts. But they do memorize multiplication facts.

 

This is a weak spot in EM, in my opinion. It teaches strategies (in the 2nd and 3rd grades), but goes over them quickly (the strategies have gone high over the heards of students I see), and has too much emphasis on using arrays for mult facts. Ugh. The arrays are so inefficient, and it pains me to see my students drawing them out to figure out 5x7.

 

Also, the teacher would have to add practice time into her lessons; I don't think it is scheduled in the book. (I'm not positive about that, though...) So, if I had a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th grader doing EM, I'd be sure to practice those strategies and facts at home.

 

Righstart uses a lot of word problems and real life applications to teach concepts, which has helped my children immensely to understand the concepts themselves and their relevance to real life. We started out using Singapore and Miquon math with dd (now 8 yo) when she was in kindergarten. At the end of first grade I decided that it something was missing and went looking for a better fit for us. We discovered Righstart, and it has made an amazing difference. I can't imagine how different dd's understanding of math would be if we had continued with only Singapore and Miquon.

 

I started using Righstart A with ds when he was five years old, in pre-k. He is now six years old, in kindergarten, and using B. I am constantly amazed at how keen his mathematical though processes are. The games (specifically one that teaches which numbers pair up to make ten) have cemented concepts in his mind that help him to learn higher-level concepts. But to him they're just fun games that he requests even when it's not math time.

 

I guess what I'm taking a huge amount of space and words to say is that I think kids need both. They need to understand the concepts behind the algorithims, and they need to do so before the algorithims are drilled into their minds. But they also need to memorize and be able to use those algorithims, once they are meaningful to them.

 

And my question is: Does EM accomplish this? If not, do you think we might be able to continue teaching our dc the algorithims to complement the EM approach, or do you think it would be ill-received by teachers, which would lead to frustration for the kids?

 

If you have the time and interest in continuing to teach math at home, I think that would be excellent combined with EM at school. As for how the teacher would feel -- it all depends on who you get.

 

Also my dd (currently finishing up third grade) already knows the multiplication algorithim. She knows all of her multiplication facts through ten, and she does multi-digit multiplication problems daily. She is currently learning division and will be learning the algorithim for that soon. Would she still be allowed to use that knowledge to solve problems or would she be retaught according to EM strategem? Fortunately we live in a school district that believes in placing children by ability, so if she is ahead of her peers she would be able to go to a different grade level for that subject. Do you think she would be ahead? When I looked at the program online, it seemed to me that she would be right in line with what they are doing in her grade level. Thanks so much for any responses!

 

I don't see many kids bored by EM. There are many enrichment opportunities in the teacher's guides. Whether they are presented to your daughter, is another thing. The program isn't perfect, but it has a lot to offer -- especially in the hands of a competent teacher. It all depends on the expertise and energy level of her teacher.

[gandpsmommy]

msjones, thanks so much for your thoughtful reply.

[msjones]

msjones, thanks so much for your thoughtful reply.

 

I hope it was helpful. I do understand the many worries parents have about EM, and know that it has caused a lot of distress for many families. I've also seen it implemented very successfully.

 

When well taught, I think it is much, much better than our old 'traditional' curriculum (Addison-Wesley). When done badly kids can struggle so much, and parents are right to be angry and to speak out.

 

The Big Problem, in my opinion, is inconsistency. There are so many variables -- the teacher's skill and willingness to use a new program, the quality and amount of training provided (EM should be preceded by at least a week of training, in my opinion, and that almost never happens), class size, behavior issues in the classroom, the amount of time available to teach math each day, and the amount of supplementation the district/school makes available.

 

Of course, what I just described is the Big Problem with public schools in general. Too many variables that are almost entirely out of the parents' (and often the teachers') control.

 

Just my 2 cents. I think that if your children have a foundation in a program like RightStart, a trained, competent ps teacher, and an involved parent at home they could be very successful with Everyday Math. I sure hope so!

[Karis]

i am asking this for my brother. . .does anyone here afterschool math because their school district uses Everyday Math? my niece and nephew are in 3rd and 5th grades and my bro and sil are not pleased and asked me for suggestions. tia!

 

 

That was the beginning of the end... :tongue_smilie:

 

Ds attended a private school that used this. The following year we began homeschooling. ( many reasons)

 

I feel like he lost a year. Supplement NOW

[BabyBre]

I haven't read the whole thread through, but keep in mind in comparing programs (like RightStart vs. Everyday Math) that in the earlier grades, discovery is an extremely appropriate way to learn math concepts. At some point, however, traditional and internationally recognized algorithms need to be taught - the sooner after mastering concepts, the better. It's very hard to "discover" algebra, trigonometry, and calculus and be proficient.

[Blessedchaos]

When my dc entered ps 3 years ago, our district used Investigations, which was a horrible program. We continued to use MUS at home because I didn't feel they were getting enough at school. The following year our district switched to EM, and I did some research and panicked because I couldn't find a single positive review. A good teacher friend of mine who has taught EM reassured me saying it was ok and that they do teach standard algorithms, but I will say I was really worried. Well, now it's been 2 years and I have to say I am really pleasantly surprised at what a good change it's been for my kids and for our district as a whole. My kids' math scores have gone up between 15-20% each time they are tested (2x/year). I can see that they are learning much more advanced topics much earlier than with Investigations. Most importantly, it really clicks with my kids (but math is their strong point), and by the time we get to the concept in MUS, they often know it already. Having learned with a traditional approach, I don't personally understand EM and I can see that there are definitely weaknesses. But it really seems to help kids understand why they are doing what they are doing. I have seen kids who were really struggling with math before really blossom and advance under this program. So while I wouldn't say it's the *best* program out there, I do feel like it has its strong points.

[OlgaLA]

Our school uses EM. My daughter is in the third grade, and this is the second year I am afterschooling her. After the first grade she was literally crying when it was math homework time. Last year she was fine. This year she seems to be way ahead of her classmates, who still cannot add single digit numbers. I looked through her student workbook, and ridiculously easy assignments there are mixed with some that even I would have problems with (Before someone thinks I can't solve a third grade problems, it was something like "Write a list of things you are sure will happen, will not happen, and will possibly happen" Well, if you think of it, there are extremely few things a human can be absolutely sure will happen. We had a very interesting discussion with my daughter on this topic.) Still, most of the book was way below the level I consider acceptable for this age. So, even putting aside the methodology, it is a weak program that needs supplementing, IMO.

[regentrude]

"Write a list of things you are sure will happen, will not happen, and will possibly happen" Well, if you think of it, there are extremely few things a human can be absolutely sure will happen.

 

Why do you think there are extremely few things that will definitely happen? I would say on the contrary- we can predict lots of things with absolute certainty.

Every human or pet will die.

Ever object I throw up in the air will fall to the ground.

Ever ice cube left at room temperature will melt after sufficient time.

If I have a glass full of red marbles and pick one with closed eyes, it will absolutely be a red one.

 

I'd say the list is endless.