Has Everyday Math Been Good to You?

As I mentioned earlier, I want to look at the results of the education our students are receiving.  Standardized tests provide one window, but when those tests are designed to match the curriculum recommendations of the NCTM, all you get is validation that the students are doing “better” on the junk they are being made to learn.  Granted, the tests are (relatively) easy to give and score and interpret, but do they really point to how well we are preparing our students? 

Everyday Math has been around since the 1990’s, producing a whole generation of high school graduates and folks who went on to college and/or the work force.  EDM has only been in Greenwich schools since 2005, so we are only now (2010 and 2011 school years) seeing the first students going to middle school who have been using EDM for their entire elementary school careers.

How are our middle school students faring?  What are middle school math teachers saying? 

Does anyone out there have older experience with Everyday Math?  If so, how well did your math education prepare you for college and/or the work force?  Those are the results, more difficult to measure, which we need to look at. 

Brian BTN

So What Are We Trying to Do?

Dr. Sid asked me some good questions:

Q: What is my objective?

A: Two objectives:

1. Commence the K-12 curriculum review this year, so that we are not behind in 2014 when the new state standards impact the CT Mastery Test, and Greenwich's results dive, along with housing prices (longer term).  Our current curriculum is built around the old CT standard, which has our kids learning multiplication (6-9 times tables) in the fourth grade.  The new test will test that in the third grade, according to the standards.  And that is just one of the upgrades.

2. Get Everyday Math changed.  It is great that some parents (me included) are in a position to instruct our children each night to make up for Everyday Math’s deficiencies, but what about kids where both parents work, and/or don't speak English well, and/or can’t afford a tutor.  You may ask why I included speaking English well.  One administrator with whom I spoke (ex-New Canaan and now Wilton) said that Everyday Math was “language rich” program, which raises a question about how well Everyday Math works for those who are learning English or who come from homes were English is not the first language.  I want to ensure that every student gets the opportunity in school to learn math at least as well as I did.  My mom did not have the math skills to help me, and we couldn't afford a tutor.  My effort started out to protect my daughter, but there is a larger issue out there that we can't ignore. 

Q: Do I want to just ditch Everyday Math?

A: In a word, YES!  As one commentator said, “Everyday Math might be a good supplement but it's a lousy curriculum.”  Should our teachers be supplementing for the basics (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division)?  How consistently are they doing that across the district? If one teacher recognizes the issue, and one does not, is that fair to the latter’s students? The supplements my daughter had last year were the same bulk as the workbook and home work from Everyday Math, meaning her teacher supplemented about as much as the work in Everyday Math.  Does that make sense? 

Q: Am I recommending a specific substitute?

A:  If I start pushing for a specific alternative now, I would be guilty of the same fault as the person(s) who selected this program: they did not do a sufficient review.  I would prefer to get the Board of Education to agree to do a review, then ensure that it considers alternatives, including other "new math" programs, in a fair comparison.  I doubt if any of the new math programs will hold up, but it should be a comprehensive review.  Take a look at what was done by the Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District to select a new curriculum (they were – past tense – using Everyday Math).

K-6 Math Evaluation BOE Presentation 2-24-09

Q: Do I advocate allowing us our choice of curriculum?

A: One of my suggestions at the Board meeting was going to be to run two curricula, but I ran out of time and cut that sentence.  I doubt that the alternative will fly because of budget issues.  From a purely scientific (okay, geeky) point of view, I would love to see a side-by-side comparison.  And I would love to know how much Everyday Math costs every year (all those non-reusable workbooks).  Can anyone say FOIA?

Q: Is this change meant for our children (Dr. Sid’s child is the same age as mine), or is this a larger crusade?

A: One thing that we all have limited experience with is the skill level of our children’s teachers in teaching math.  Being generalist, it may or may not be a particular teacher’s strength. My daughter has been lucky so far in having very good teachers, but I would love to see some sort of meaningful math certification for elementary teachers, or separate math classes with specialist math teachers.  If we want to be serious about preparing our students for college and/or the work force, we have to provide the resources.  Greenwich downsized its support staff for math coaches in 2009 (not totally – I think there is some coaching in the lower performing schools), so at a minimum we need to bring those resources back.

Dr. Sid is betting that any change (“the system's ability to meaningfully and constructively reform itself in a short period of time”) will occur long after his/her child is out of elementary school.  That is why s/he is home schooling.  I am teaching at home too, but we need to think about all of our students.

Brian BTN

Everyday Math Survey

Look to your right and take the survey. Don't leave me out there not knowing! How do you really feel about Everyday Math?

Brian BTN

NAEP and NCTM and EDM – Part 1

So what are all these letters, and what do they mean, and how do they relate to each other?  Well, you know that EDM means Everyday Mathematics, the focus of our research and the target for removal from our school system.  From the previous posting, NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress.  Now we get introduced to the NCTM or the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 

From their website: “The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is a public voice of mathematics education supporting teachers to ensure equitable mathematics learning of the highest quality for all students through vision, leadership, professional development and research.”

http://www.nctm.org/about/default.aspx?id=166

In 1989, the NCTM published Curriculum and Evaluation Standards (usually called the NCTM Standards), which is credited or blamed, depending on your view, with setting off the latest round in the Math Wars.  The NCTM Standards were revised in 2000 with the publication of Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (usually referred to as PSSM).  This was followed in 2006 by Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence (aka, the Focal Points).

So what is the issue?  Standards are good, right?  And true, the NCTM Standards pushed most states to establish standards for their jurisdictions.  However, when standards are poorly written or when something is presented as a standard and is really something else, or curriculum developers interpret them poorly (or interpret them to fit their own needs and aims), do you know what you get?  POOR CURRICULUM!  And POOR PRIORITIES! 

To start, let us talk about priorities, i.e., how much time we spend on each topic.  When I was in elementary school (during the dark ages of the sixties), we had books called Arithmetic.  I guess the NCTM now covers this under the heading “Number and Operations.”  In fact, you would be hard pressed to find the word arithmetic in their standards documents.  I scanned the PSSM Executive Summary and found nary a mention of the word.  http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Math_Standards/12752_exec_pssm.pdf

So how much time does the NCTM suggest I spend on “Number (no “s”) and Operations?”  From the Executive Summary of PSSM (chart on page 4), I should spend about 30% of the time (between PreK and second grade), and about 26% of the time (between third and fifth grade).  Really, when I am learning to count and add and multiply, I only need to spend a third or less of my time! 

Where else should I be spending my time?  For preK to second grade, I should spend 8% of my time on algebra, 29% on geometry, 20% on measurement, and 13% on “Data Analysis and Probability.”  For third to fifth grade, I should spend 16% of my time on algebra, 25% on geometry, 20% on measurement, and 13% on “Data Analysis and Probability.” 

Data Analysis and Probability???  Now you know why your student is so good at making those bar charts!  Maybe they can figure the odds of the Giants winning this weekend?  I will predict there is a high probability that many of those students can’t multiply and divide at the end of fifth grade.

So have times changed?  Or have our standards changed?  Or are we trying to cram too much (too much superfluous material, to early) into too little time.  If I consider algebra to be arithmetic, I should (according to the NCTM) be spending only about 42% of my time on arithmetic between third and fifth grade. 

The chart on page eight from the link below shows one math professor’s analysis of how much time is spent on various topics in fifth grade according to various source documents.  When he was in fifth grade (1956), he spent about 85-90% of his time on arithmetic and the rest on everything else. 

http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/wsw.ppt (you may have to double click)

Source: website of W. Stephen Wilson, Professor of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, from Leading Minds K-12 Math Education Forum, April 24, 2008  http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/

Ah, no wonder I can’t add and subtract and multiply and divide!  I am only spending half as much time as my grandparents did, and about 60% of the time my competition in Singapore does (42%/70%).

As a check point, I did a similar study of my daughter’s fourth grade EDM home work book.  I got about 55% for time spent on arithmetic, 14% on data/ estimation/ statistics/ probability, and 31% geometry/measurement.

So maybe part of the problem is that we are not spending enough time on the basics.  Remember, if you want to teach other stuff, something has to get dropped.  So what if it is just basic arithmetic!  But the EDM Teacher’s Reference Manual Grades 1-3 says “Children need a mathematics curriculum that is rigorous and balanced and that: … Explores a broad mathematics spectrum, not just basic arithmetic…”

I am reminded of a line from a semi-famous movie that says “Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing.”  Just because the Everyday Math philosophy says our children can learn many things, does not mean they must learn many things at the cost of learning important things well.

Okay, you got me, it was Star Trek IV: The Undiscovered Country.

Up next: more alphabet soup.