Everyday Mathematics

[Pink Fairy]

I was researching math programs, and I came across this website--VERY interesting. This company reviews math curricula, focusing on student achievement in mathematics as the key outcome. (Of course, these are programs more typically used in ps, like Scott Foresman).

 

Anyway, has anyone here used the Everyday Mathematics curriculum? I've never heard of it, but I'd like to know a bit about it because, according to the studies this company did for elementary math:

 

"Everyday Mathematics

 

had potentially positive effects on

 

 

math achievement.

Four other curricula had no discernible effects on math

achievement."

 

 

Here's the link in case you are interested:

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2b/c3/66.pdf

 

 

[MIch elle]

Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth-

 

Division the Everyday Mathematics way-

 

Our public school uses it and it's awful!

[Pink Fairy]

Thank you for sharing this--that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for (although I had hoped for better news).:001_smile:

[Sue G in PA]

my ds used Progress in Mathematics by Sadlier-Oxford (also mentioned in the study and a typical ps program) with our cyber and did quite well. He liked the colorful workbook format of it for K-2. Text format started in 3rd. I was able to find a copy of the 1st gr. book at our local hs store (cheap) and plan to use it w/ my ds5.

[Raders Fan]

EM is a truly awful math curriculum. It's the primary reason I started hsing dd11. But I am grateful for it because it prompted me to start this wonderful hsing journey!

 

Jennifer

[Jenmomof3]

We used the kindergarten set here and it was just what we needed. It basically gave us games and activities to do each day. It was a really fun intro. to math for my kids and I plan to use it for my youngest when she's ready. I switched to Singapore this year for my older kids, however, because looking ahead at the EM program, it seems to make problems more confusing than they need to be and I really disliked the emphasis on using calculators.

[Parrothead]

I know the public school here uses it. The parents I've spoken with about it hate it.

[Perry]

Our ps uses Everyday Math and it was a disaster for my kids. It's what got us started on the path to homeschooling. Check out mathematicallycorrect.com and NYCHOLD.com for lots of information.

[RoughCollie]

One of the many reasons we did not send our kids to the local PS for grades 1-8 was its use of the Everyday Math curricula. I absolutely loathe that program. My DD used it in PS during grades 1-3 and our experience of it was one of several reasons we began homeschooling her.

 

We used Singapore in grades 1-6, and then switched to a combination of Singapore, Saxon, and the Key To [math] series. Two of my DC scored in the 98% percentile in math on the standardized test they took at their school last September, so I'd say this worked just fine for us.

 

Here is a link to site with lots of linked reviews:

 

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

 

And another favorite site of mine: http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/

[Gretchen in NJ]

I was researching math programs, and I came across this website--VERY interesting. This company reviews math curricula, focusing on student achievement in mathematics as the key outcome. (Of course, these are programs more typically used in ps, like Scott Foresman).

 

 

As a student studying to be a math teacher, I loved the program. I believed the Kool-Aid they were making me drink. As a parent of a child who used it in PS 1st grade, I do not like the program at all. It is strange that they focus on student achievement and still recommend using Everyday Math. Everything, I have heard and read says the opposite.

 

IMHO it does not follow the Classical Form of Education. The program does not believe in mastering your math facts.

 

Gretchen

[JaniceO]

My now 10 year old used to do very well in Math. Then we moved to Washington and they used Everyday Math. He still did extremely well. Fast forward to another move, another school that DOESN'T use Everyday Math, the poor kid is struggling to keep up. He's had a C- all year. I didn't put any of it together until I did some research and found out that Everyday Math didn't encourage mastery. He was always allowed to use a calculator and wasn't expected to memorize his multiplication.

[Pink Fairy]

It sounds like EM is a real dud--I'm so glad I asked!

[Lynn in WI]

Is this the same as Chicago Math?

[Carmen_and_Company]

My school district uses this & has the lowest math scores in the whole state of Minnesota! :001_huh:

 

My son HATED this program with a passion. It's all project based without minimum application. I remember a project he had to do in 5th grade called, " My Special Number." He had to pick a number & explain why he picked it, then do the factorization for it, and some other crap. They spent a whole week working on this dumb project. They never factored any numbers, just talked about it, or did some other mindless work with puzzles. If the district were to use a traditional program as the main text & Everyday Mathematics as a supplement, my eldest ds may have stomached the program.

 

It teaches multiplication using a grid, while fun, it does not teach why multiplication works as a means of simplifying addition problems such as 5+5+5. I could go on, and on. If it weren't for my afterschooling & using Singapore Primary Mathematics, Taz would still hate math to this day.

 

I don't know if any posted this already, but the program received a C- from Mathematically Correct: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/books.htm

 

Scroll down to find the review of Everyday Mathematics 2nd & 5th grade programs. Another one to stay far, far away from is CMP (Connected Math Project). Our district uses this as early as 5th grade for middle school, and Mathematically Correct gave the program a big fat F.

[Carmen_and_Company]

EM is a truly awful math curriculum. It's the primary reason I started hsing dd11. But I am grateful for it because it prompted me to start this wonderful hsing journey!

 

Jennifer

 

Same here. That & all the worksheets day in and day out for every subject, including gym.

[Myrtle]

Obviously someone or a group of someones in a school district thought this sounded like a really good idea. I wonder what their thinking was?

 

My guess is that it might have gone something like, "Math is about real life problems, not drill sheets" or "Algorithms don't teach mathematical thinking, this program does something different, therefore this program teaches mathematical thinking" or maybe they even believed that the program was teaching math "conceptually."

 

So I guess my question is for those whose kids were in this program, what were you being told by the teachers and district?

[Sandy in Indy]

Is this the same as Chicago Math?

 

Yes...that's my understanding.

 

I'm tutoring a public school student and that's what the school is using. Hate it, hate it, hate it. It only took about 2 minutes of online time to find out why...

[angela in ohio]

As a student studying to be a math teacher, I loved the program. I believed the Kool-Aid they were making me drink.

 

Have another drink and tell me how you feel about the number three... :lol:

[Lynn in WI]

Hmm...that's interesting. Then this is the curriculum that the Potter's School uses for math?

[sassenach]

My dd's EM experience in 3rd grade was part of our motivation to homeschool. I ended up having to rehab her with MUS, just to get her back up to grade level. It also made her hate math, even though she got A's.

[Sandy in Indy]

Hmm...that's interesting. Then this is the curriculum that the Potter's School uses for math?

 

I just looked at the Potter's School and yes, they use Chicago Math. I'm really surprised!

[Jenstet]

 

I don't know if this was posted.

 

Everyday Math is what our town and state uses. It is THE reason we started homeschooling. Our state just tested 28% proficient in Math.(72% failed)

 

I have had my 10 year old in MUS this year learning multiplication all over again. What a nightmare. Other names for it reform math, fuzzy math.

[forty-two]

Is this the same as Chicago Math?

Yes...that's my understanding.

 

Hmm...that's interesting. Then this is the curriculum that the Potter's School uses for math?

 

My understanding is that the elementary math program from the University of Chicago is entirely separate from, and has no connection to, the high school math program from the University of Chicago. I've read, but not fact-checked, that the high school program was developed by the math department, while the elementary school program was developed by the ed department. At any rate, they were developed separately, and thus should be evaluated separately. I've read that the high school program is pretty decent, but, again, not fact-checked.

[forty-two]

From what I can see from the UCSMP website, there are two editions of the secondary math series, and there seems to be minimal connections between the two; in fact, they aren't even published by the same company. The third edition is brand new - not all of it is published yet - and is billed as an expansion of Everyday Math, and is published by the Wright Group (which is part of MacGraw Hill), same as EM. The second edition is published by Prentice Hall and the Algebra book, at least, came out in 1998. No idea if it is any good, but seemed to be a lot of info and samples at the publisher's site (accessible through the UCSMP site).

 

Edited to add: Mathematically Correct gave the 2nd edition Algebra text a C.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Is this the same as Chicago Math?

 

My understanding is that it is the same as Chicago Math, but I am not totally sure.

 

Gretchen

[Jacey]

our school district is using Investigations in Data, Number, & Space.....Mathematically Correct gave it an F!! It was one of the reasons why I pulled my dd out of ps- not happy with this program at all. Same kinds of issues as some of the other "reform math" programs. I, too, wouldn't have had as much of a problem with this if our school focused on traditional math and used Investigations as a supplement (I think some teachers tried to do that). I believe there is *some* validity to using this type of program to help explain the "why's" & to "see" connections in math; plus the potential reach those who don't "get" traditional math....but not at the expense of throwing algorithms, multiplication facts (my dd was learning these at least), and long division out the window. Sheesh.

 

Glad to be using Singapore- a breath of fresh air.

[Lynn in WI]

From what I can see from the UCSMP website, there are two editions of the secondary math series, and there seems to be minimal connections between the two; in fact, they aren't even published by the same company. The third edition is brand new - not all of it is published yet - and is billed as an expansion of Everyday Math, and is published by the Wright Group (which is part of MacGraw Hill), same as EM. The second edition is published by Prentice Hall and the Algebra book, at least, came out in 1998. No idea if it is any good, but seemed to be a lot of info and samples at the publisher's site (accessible through the UCSMP site).

 

Edited to add: Mathematically Correct gave the 2nd edition Algebra text a C.

 

Thank you, Forty-Two. That's good info.