My first exposure to Everyday Math

[Homemama2]

FWIW, I think Khan has a video lesson on the lattice method

 

Their explanation is easy enough to understand...but in my mind this is a fun 'shortcut' you teach after someone thoroughly understands how to do it the 'traditional' way. I have zero experience w/ EM.

[msjones]

Instead, EM has kids required to use the lattice method over and over again for a few years, thereby just about guaranteeing that kids will pretty much only be able to use that (much lengthier) method.

 

 

 

The EM manual (about 2008) that I have used does not suggest exclusive use of the lattice method. It teaches the partial products algorithm as well.

[BabyBre]

They use Everyday Math here and I watched our neighbor's daughter work a multiplication problem using this "lattice method". Not only did it take this kid 5 minutes to work the problem, but there were numbers everywhere! And, her answer was dead-wrong! It wasn't even in the ballpark. I've taken calculus in college and I couldn't even figure out what this kid was doing with all the numbers.

 

 

The lattice method is supposed to reinforce place value. :confused: I just don't know what else to say about that.

 

 

I asked her a couple of questions about it and asked her how to do division. She couldn't tell me.

 

 

Everyday math specifically does not teach long division in favor of calculator use. This video includes demonstrations of the "fuzzy" methods and excerpts from the actual teacher's guide addressing that.

 

 

 

 

I don't "get it". Where the heck did this new way of math come from?

 

You may (or may not) be surprised to know that the roots of reform math are in the 1960s. It was developed as a way to make math more "fun" for girls and minorities (even its origins are insulting!). It's now spread across the country to almost every public school district in America. Districts that have not adopted a reform program like Everyday Math, TERC Investigations, Bridges in Mathematics, Connected Mathematics, etc. are in the minority.

 

Reform programs de-emphasize or eliminate traditional methods like direct teacher instruction, memorization, drill, and standard algorithms in favor of student-lead discovery, working in groups, drawing pictures, inefficient algorithms (like the lattice method), and heavy calculator use beginning in 2nd grade or younger.

 

Parts of it sound very nice, like the hands-on aspect, but most of these programs never make the transition to more efficient methods and then to mastery through practice. Often kids don't even master the inefficient methods. Reform programs are also used in many middle and high schools, hence, amazingly high rates of high school graduates requiring remedial courses in college (my ds's high school has a 100% remediation rate at the local community college!).

 

 

Why are they teaching this to these kids?

 

There's BIG money involved, and it's nationally mainstreamed. Again, you may be surprised to know that technology companies like Texas Instruments are heavily invested. (TI calculators for each student come with the program.) Districts have invested millions of dollars for hottest new thing and often feel like they can't back out, even if they did want to.

 

 

Why do I feel like the only one who objects to this (the other parents here don't seem to mind it)? I'm irritated that our tax dollars go to this and I felt really bad for the girl. I feel guilty even being irritated by it.

 

 

It's no surprise you feel that way, but you're SO not the only one! Just google "stop Everyday Math" or something like that and you'll likely find a group of parents in your area hating on reform math. They're all over the country. It's more likely not that other parents don't care but that the thought of their children being cheated in a way that everyone else seems to be ok with (even the "experts") is incredibly overwhelming for parents who've always had faith in public schools and have probably never even considered homeschooling. It means what they've always "known" to be true is not true, and many don't even know how to begin dealing with that thought, let alone taking any action on it.

 

You have every right in the world to be so much more than irritated about your tax dollars being spent this way, and I don't understand your mention of feeling guilty about that. What I've found is that when parents learn about these programs and how our graduates are being absolutely failed by the system that's promised to prepare them, they feel guilty for not being more vigilant and aware before. We've all be very well trained to trust the system.

 

 

Has anyone else actually seen this in real life? How would you help them with their homework?

 

My dc have used TERC Investigations, not EM, but they're all very much cut from the same cloth. I've battled the effects of it by teaching Saxon at home one grade level ahead ever since they've been in ps. Obviously, that's not going to help the girl you've been working with, but at a minimum she needs to get this from another source:

 

1. Mastery of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts is a must. If facts drills or routine practice is done in the classroom, it's likely her teacher not the program you have to thank, and she'll have a different teacher next year.

 

2. Proficiency in standard addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division algorithims, including standard long division. The lattice method isn't going to do her any favors in the long run, but the standard algorithm will. If you go online to try to understand the EM methods, I would do so only as a way to help her translate what she's taught in class into a more efficient method. (WTH good is becomming proficient at the lattice method?! Can you imagine using that as an adult? :lol: ) It's almost like the writers of EM are the kind of adults who were "never good at math" in school and want to spare students of all the things that were "too hard". It's really very condescending.

 

3. Make it clear that she WILL NOT be in trouble if she uses what you teach her in class! This is no joke. The intimidation can be very hard for kids (let alone teachers) to stand up to. Let her know you've got her back. She needs an advocate, and she'll be lucky to have whatever you can offer her.

 

 

It's a very sad mathematical state we're in.

[BabyBre]

Also check out the Afterschooling Board for more parents' experiences with EM and others.

[Pretty in Pink]

Oh my goodness...that is the worst way to teach multiplication I have ever seen. It's not logical. It goes right to left, which is not natural. It has numbers all over the place, and multiple steps that could be messed up. and it certainly isn't faster. WTF???? I just looked and yup, my son's math from last year was Everyday Math. No wonder he was so confused!

 

http://www.coolmath4kids.com/times-tables/times-tables-lesson-lattice-multiplication-3.html

 

:001_huh: WTF, indeed?!

[mom2scouts]

Our local ps uses TERC Investigations and my son came out of first grade barely being able to do the most basic addition and subtraction problems. One of the reasons that parents often aren't complaining is because EM does not have a textbook and my son never brought a single math related book or homework paper home in first grade. Many parents don't know until they have to help with a homework paper that they don't understand.

 

Someone mentioned a parent who grew up with "Chicago Math". I thought EM was a version of Chicago math and came out of the education (not math) department of a University in Chicago. Also, I moved my son to MUS and it is VERY different than EM or TERC. Neither of those programs are mastery based or based on standard algorithms. I've been pleased with how well my son is understanding with MUS.

 

My future DIL is a math teacher in a middle school that uses EM. She was told that EM doesn't work, most of the middle school students are at a first or second grade math level and she could make her own lessons. She showed me the lattice method and, while it does work, it might be something fun to learn AFTER you learn the regular algorithms.

[Sun]

The EM manual (about 2008) that I have used does not suggest exclusive use of the lattice method. It teaches the partial products algorithm as well.

 

No, the manual doesn't suggest exclusive use of it (and I know EM uses partial products too -- I was responding to someone else when I commented on that). However, the workbooks that I was supposed to use when I taught EM had lots and lots of problems that specified which method the kids were to use to solve the problem. And more often than not, it was the lattice method. The traditional algorithm got much less exposure. This persisted through a few years of the math, and when I taught 6th grade, I found that almost none of the kids in the classes I taught could multiply using the traditional algorithm. Instead, they would take ten minutes and fill an entire page to do one multiplication problem that should have taken just a minute or two to do and a couple inches of paper.

[ShutterBug]

Well, and Math-U-See is sort of a combination of the lattice method and what is considered the traditional method. It works well for some kids. I can see why the traditional method works well for some kids. Ultimately, that's the REAL problem with public schools-one size has to fit all.

 

:confused:

 

We use MUS and completed Gamma (multiplication) last year. The lattice method wasn't taught as far as I remember. They did carry numbers a tad bit differently from the traditional algorithm..but nothing like the lattice method.

[vonfirmath]

Looking at the websites... The lattice method looks really interesting and I have no clue why it works, but it does seem to

 

But doesn't it need special paper? It would be REALLY easy to get the tens column and the ones column confused when one goes to add across the diagonals. The traditional method can be done with any scrap of paper you have handy (well, maybe cause I was taught traditionally -- but it seems much easier to line up straight than on a diagonal!)

[ocelotmom]

I used to tutor math in a school that used EM. When it is taught well by a well-trained teacher and supplemented with easy-to-find facts drill, many students do very well with EM (they have since moved on to TERC -- another parent 'favorite'). I often worked with my students in the classroom during the day's math instruction.

 

The kids who were doing well with EM were doing very well. They had a far more thorough understanding of the 'whys' behind the algorithms than any other students I had encountered. I saw some truly impressive teaching of EM.

 

I also saw some terrible teaching. And my students (the ones who qualified for tutoring services) were struggling miserably. They approached basic math with desperate inefficiency -- using grids of dots to figure multiplication facts, for example. (!!!)

 

When I had the students outside of their classrooms, I often taught them using RightStart or Singapore methods. We had lots of success!

 

I use many of the EM methods to supplement Singapore (my favorite is the long-division method), which I use at home with my boys.

 

However, a poorly trained teacher is likely to do a very poor job using the curriculum. And most districts don't have the money to provide thorough training.

This pretty much coincides with what I've seen of EM. I had access to the whole series last year, and spent a few hours looking it over after a friend (who is very, professionally, mathy) sang its praises - he felt that his (probably mathy-by-genetics) kids had a better understanding of math than he did as a result of EM. I found that some of the common criticism I've seen wasn't true - it does teach the traditional method of multiplication (at least in California - I'm willing to believe that it might be different in other states with different grade-level standards). It includes parent letters to send home to teach concepts that are non-traditional. If implemented well, I can see it potentially being a reasonable program.

 

But "if implemented well" is a big "if".

[BabyBre]

I found that some of the common criticism I've seen wasn't true - it does teach the traditional method of multiplication (at least in California - I'm willing to believe that it might be different in other states with different grade-level standards). It includes parent letters to send home to teach concepts that are non-traditional. If implemented well, I can see it potentially being a reasonable program.

 

But "if implemented well" is a big "if".

 

 

That "if" is the key to EM. If it's well supplemented, kids can have great success, but the program alone is insufficient. Any drill, practice, or teaching of standard algorithms that you see is most likely supplementation added by the teacher or required by the district.

 

Our district is very heavy handed in the classroom, and traditional content is not required (although it is part of our state standards) so it's one of the first things to be left out in favor of the many other things that are required of our teachers. Those who do manage to include drill and practice have classes that perform higher in general.

 

There are many factors involved in whether a program is successful or not.

[ocelotmom]

That "if" is the key to EM. If it's well supplemented, kids can have great success, but the program alone is insufficient. Any drill, practice, or teaching of standard algorithms that you see is most likely supplementation added by the teacher or required by the district.

This was in the EM textbook, not a supplement. Everything I mentioned is a part of the official EM curriculum.

 

I'm willing to believe that, in the workbook, the lattice method is emphasized and the traditional method neglected, but the traditional way of doing multiplication was quite definitely in the text.

 

I'm not trying to say it's the world's greatest curriculum, but it does appear to me that poor implementation (and a faulty design that encourages poor implementation) is a big part of the problem.

 

Bah, I had a whole big writeup in a post from about a year ago, but it appears to have disappeared into the Old Post Void.

[AvasMom]

Why aren't the parents outside the school with torches and pitchforks?

 

Do the kids end up having problems later down the road?

 

Yes. My dd was taught this way in ps. She was a year ahead so she did 7th grade math in 6th grade so really should have been prepared to do algebra this year. We backtracked and did Saxon 8/7 and she has struggled all. year. long. learning the logic of how to do math problems correctly.

[Cricket]

Oh my goodness...that is the worst way to teach multiplication I have ever seen. It's not logical. It goes right to left, which is not natural. It has numbers all over the place, and multiple steps that could be messed up. and it certainly isn't faster. WTF???? I just looked and yup, my son's math from last year was Everyday Math. No wonder he was so confused!

 

http://www.coolmath4kids.com/times-tables/times-tables-lesson-lattice-multiplication-3.html

 

I sent this link to my brother via his Facebook page. He's a homeschooling newbie and I jokingly told him to bookmark that for later when he got to multiplication. He didn't know I was kidding so his response was like "Um, I'm not sure about that." :lol: Some others chimed in with their experiences. One friend's son had changed schools in 5th grade. At his new school his 5th grade teacher had him (the student!) get up and teach the lattice method because the teacher didn't understand it. The student had already learned it at his old school. When the math teacher doesn't even get it, then I really worry!