Palo Alto Adopts Everyday Math! Suckers! Meeting Tonight!!

From the Palo Alto Unified School District:

Welcome to the 2009-10 school year in the Palo Alto Unified School District.   Our staff has been very busy preparing for the implementation of the new math program, Everyday Math (EDM).

Close to 200 teachers attended a 3 day Summer Math Institute, in which they had time to be trained on the program and begin collaborating with their colleagues.  In addition, all of the teachers attended differentiated professional learning workshops on the August Staff Development Day. 

And the principals, with district office curriculum staff, spent a day with an EDM administrative consultant learning about the program and discussing ways to support teachers in implementing the new materials.   We have a number of on-going professional learning days planned throughout the school year for teachers, as well as parent information nights.  We will have a Fall  “EDM Author Evening” for the community to hear from the authors from the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project who developed this program over the past twenty years.  All of these meetings will be posted within the next few weeks so that the community can mark their calendars to attend.

"A Conversation with Everyday Mathematics Authors" Sept. 30th at Nixon School at 7pm - 9 pm

An Everyday Math Shill Spouts More Noise

Andy Isaacs gets pwned in the comments of his article in Edweek claiming Everyday Math is great as a response to Barry Garelick's reasonable and researched claim against the efficacy of EDM.

Andy touts the research as well as the hardy tepid endorsement of the What Works Clearinghouse (they panned it!). Andy is either kind of dense, or needs the job (prostitute). You must go read the comments left by parents and teachers. They righteously tear this moron apart.

If your school district uses Everyday Math, this is a must read (keep in mind this guy makes his money touting this kind of curricular nonsense, and then go read the comments)...

The Case for Everyday Mathematics

Written By: Andy Isaacs

University of Chicago School of Mathematics Project

Everyday Mathematics is the most researched and trusted elementary math curriculum in the United States. It is the program of choice for nearly four million students nationwide. No other program has been developed as thoroughly and carefully over time, with full field testing prior to publication. In addition, no other program has the extensive verification that it works.

Barry Garelick’s May 15 column, “One Step Ahead of the Train Wreck,” contains misperceptions that need to be corrected. While we certainly empathize with Mr. Garelick and his daughter’s struggle in math, we feel the methods in Everyday Mathematics are validated by its successful track record nationwide.

First, Everyday Mathematics does indeed teach multiple algorithms (strategies for solving math problems). Everyday Mathematics encourages students to learn multiple algorithms because it helps them understand both how to solve a problem and why the method is valid. Students can choose the way that works best for them, allowing them to not only feel more successful but to actually understand the math better.

Everyday Mathematics materials identify one algorithm for each operation as a “focus algorithm.” The purpose of a focus algorithm is to provide children with at least one accessible and correct paper-and-pencil method and thereby set a common basis for classroom work. Each focus algorithm is chosen for both efficiency and understandability.

The highly efficient paper-and-pencil algorithms that have been traditional in the U.S. may no longer be the best algorithms for children in today’s technologically demanding world. Today’s elementary school children will be in the workforce well into the second half of the 21st century and the school mathematics curriculum should reflect the technological age in which they will live, work, and compete.

Parents who would like to become more familiar with the algorithms in Everyday Mathematics can now see them in the Free Family Resources section of EverydayMathOnline.com. These animations take users step-by-step through solving a problem with each algorithm. With clear voiceover instructions, the animations help parents, students, or teachers gain a better understanding of different ways to solve a problem.

Mr. Garelick may be happy to learn that the third edition of Everyday Mathematics addresses many of his issues with the program. For example, students have a hard cover student reference book with worked examples and a journal to keep a daily record of their work. The reference book is also available online. The program was revised for the third edition based on extensive teacher feedback.

The publisher Wright Group/McGraw-Hill has done many things to help parents support their children with Everyday Mathematics homework. Everyday Mathematics’ instructional content incorporates ways to involve parents. Each lesson has a Home/Study Link in the form of homework that includes extensions of lessons and ongoing review problems. This shows families what students are doing in math class.

Everyday Mathematics comes with the Home Connection Handbook, which helps teachers and administrators communicate with families. It includes:

· A how-to section on holding school events such as the Back-to-School Night, Open Houses, a Family Math Night, and Portfolio Day. Each event is designed to welcome parents into the math education process and provide the background knowledge for them to do so successfully.

· Materials for teachers to send home such as newsletters, Family Letters, Game Kits and Feedback Sheets.

· Family Letters provide families with information about the Everyday Mathematics structure and curriculum by explaining key content and vocabulary, directions for appropriate games, and so on. The Family Letters are available in nine languages: English, Arabic, Bengali, Chinese (traditional), Haitian Creole, Korean, Russian, Spanish, and Urdu.

· Recommendations on creating Parent Handbooks – including how to create them, what to include, and when to distribute.

· Suggestions for inviting parents into the classroom to observe or volunteer.

· Displays to visually explain Everyday Mathematics to parents.

· Tips for maximizing time during Parent-Teacher Conference.

· A Glossary defining math terms.

In addition, Wright Group/McGraw-Hill also has developed several online support sites for teachers and parents.

· Under the Free Family Resources section of EverydayMathOnline.com, parents can access additional resources, including Algorithm Animations tutorials.

· The Parent Connection Web site provides much of the material from the Home Connection Handbook detailed above and quick tips for helping children succeed in math.

· The EverydayMathSuccess.com site includes videos of the program in action and important research supporting the program’s effectiveness.

Another issue Mr. Garelick questioned includes Everyday Math’s pacing, which we refer to as distributed practice. First, content in Everyday Math is taught gradually over time, beginning with concrete experiences to which students can relate. Research shows that students learn best when new topics are presented at a brisk pace, with multiple exposures over time, and with frequent opportunities for review and practice. The sequence of instruction in the Everyday Mathematics curriculum has been carefully mapped out to optimize these conditions for learning
and retaining knowledge. Test results show that this approach works.

We agree with Mr. Garelick that instructional material must support teachers to be effective. The Everyday Mathematics Teacher’s Lesson Guides are robust with mathematical background information to help teachers enhance their knowledge of the mathematics. The Teacher’s Reference Manual that comes with the program also offers extensive teacher education information about the content in the program. McGraw-Hill Education also provides professional development for Everyday Math teachers routinely in the form of national user conferences, in-person training for new and experienced users, and a newsletter for teachers to share ideas.

As a final word, Everyday Mathematics’ effectiveness has been documented through a variety of studies. No other program has been scrutinized as widely, both by researchers and program users. Everyday Mathematics students have been found to be mathematically literate on a wide variety of measures, including state-mandated tests, commercially available standardized tests, tests constructed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, and tests written by independent researchers.

As a report from the National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council, 2004) makes clear, no other currently available elementary school mathematics program has been subjected to so much scrutiny by so many researchers. The agreement about the curriculum across so many research studies is the strongest evidence that Everyday Mathematics is effective.

The ARC Center, located at the Consortium for Mathematics and its Applications (COMAP), studied the records of 78,000 students and found that the average standardized test scores were significantly higher for students in Everyday Mathematics schools than for students in comparison schools.

In the Everyday Mathematics Intervention Report, posted by the What Works Clearinghouse, Everyday Mathematics was found to have a “potentially positive effect” – this is the second highest rating possible – something not yet accomplished by any other elementary math curriculum.

In addition, many districts have shared that they see markedly improved student outcomes on state-mandated tests. Some of these districts include: New York City, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Virginia Beach, VA; Kent, WA; Fayetteville, AR; Citrus County, FL; and Chattanooga, TN.

For any parent struggling with their child’s math performance, it is essential to partner with the teacher to get to the root of the problem. For any teacher struggling with a particular lesson or student, it is key that they look for help from district leaders or even the publisher of the program and the author group. Wright Group representatives are always available to help.

To learn more about the philosophies behind Everyday Math, see it in action, hear from those succeeding with it, and find parent resources, please visit EverydayMathSuccess.com.

Did you notice his copious and italicized use of the proper name "Everyday Mathematics"? Did you read the comments at the Edweek site?

Everyday Math: Still Stoopid

This was sent out to teachers to help them with Everyday Math in my district. It was suggested that it also be shared with parents.

Do you see how lame we are?

Everyday Math: WTF?

Here is a nice video that shows you exactly how Everyday Math teaches a couple concepts:



And a counterpoint:

Part 1



Part 2

Everyday Math: Still Sucking In November 08

I know I am just a lowly teacher, and I don't know much. And, I know I have had some pretty bad things to say (like here, here, here, here, here, and here) about Everyday Math. Well, it's not just me, OK?! So many mathematicians are against this kind of program that dilutes the stringent rules and terminology of mathematics. I have talked about precision elsewhere on this blog (somewhere?), and in countless meetings. Too many teachers and administrators either discount precision or are unable to be precise when they teach. Here is a snippet from the article you will go read after expansion!

Disagreements over math curricula are often portrayed as “basic skills versus conceptual understanding.” Scientists and mathematicians, including many who signed the open letter to Secretary Riley, are described as advocates of basic skills, while professional educators are counted as proponents of conceptual understanding. Ironically, such a portrayal ignores the deep conceptual understanding of mathematics held by so many mathematicians. But more important, the notion that conceptual understanding in mathematics can be separated from precision and fluency in the execution of basic skills is just plain wrong.

Read it (It's lllooonnnnggg)...

Why the U.S. Department of Education’s Recommended Math Programs Don’t Add Up

Posted on October 31, 2008 by the editor

What constitutes a good K-12 mathematics program? Opinions differ. In October 1999, the U.S. Department of Education released a report designating 10 math programs as “exemplary” or “promising.” The following month, I sent an open letter to Education Secretary Richard W. Riley urging him to withdraw the department’s recommendations. The letter was coauthored by Richard Askey of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, R. James Milgram of Stanford University, and Hung-Hsi Wu of the University of California at Berkeley, along with more than 200 other cosigners.

With financial backing from the Packard Humanities Institute, we published the letter as a full-page ad in the Washington Post on Nov. 18, 1999, with as many of the endorsers’ names and affiliations as would fit on the page. Among them are many of the nation’s most accomplished scientists and mathematicians. Department heads at more than a dozen universities–including Caltech, Stanford, and Yale–along with two former presidents of the Mathematical Association of America also added their names in support. With new endorsements since publication, there are now seven Nobel laureates and winners of the Fields Medal, the highest award in mathematics. The open letter was covered by several newspapers and journals, including American School Board Journal (February, page 16).

Although a clear majority of cosigners are mathematicians and scientists, it is sometimes overlooked that experienced education administrators at the state and national level, as well as educational psychologists and education researchers, also endorsed the letter. (A complete list is posted at http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com.)

University professors and public education leaders are not the only ones who have reservations about these programs. Thousands of parents and teachers across the nation seek alternatives to them, often in opposition to local school boards and superintendents. Mathematically Correct, an influential Internet-based parents’ organization, came into existence several years ago because the children of the organization’s founders had no alternative to the now “exemplary” program, College Preparatory Mathematics, or CPM. In Plano, Texas, 600 parents are suing the school district because of its exclusive use of the Connected Mathematics Project, or CMP, another “exemplary” program. I have received hundreds of requests for help by parents and teachers because of these and other programs now promoted by the Education Department (ED). In fact, it was such pleas for help that motivated me and my three coauthors to write the open letter.

Common problems

The mathematics programs criticized by the open letter have common features. For example, they tend to overemphasize data analysis and statistics, which typically appear year after year, with redundant presentations. The far more important areas of arithmetic and algebra are radically de-emphasized. Many of the so-called higher-order thinking projects are just aimless activities, and genuine illumination of important mathematical ideas is rare. There is a near obsession with calculators, and basic skills are given short shrift and sometimes even disparaged. Overall, these curricula are watered-down math programs. The same educational philosophy that gave rise to the whole-language approach to reading is part of ED’s agenda for mathematics. Systematic development of skills and concepts is replaced by an unstructured “holism.” In fact, during the mid-’90s, supporters of programs like these referred to their approach as “whole math.”

Disagreements over math curricula are often portrayed as “basic skills versus conceptual understanding.” Scientists and mathematicians, including many who signed the open letter to Secretary Riley, are described as advocates of basic skills, while professional educators are counted as proponents of conceptual understanding. Ironically, such a portrayal ignores the deep conceptual understanding of mathematics held by so many mathematicians. But more important, the notion that conceptual understanding in mathematics can be separated from precision and fluency in the execution of basic skills is just plain wrong.

In other domains of human activity, such as athletics or music, the dependence of high levels of performance on requisite skills goes unchallenged. A novice cannot hope to achieve mastery in the martial arts without first learning basic katas or exercises in movement. A violinist who has not mastered elementary bowing techniques and vibrato has no hope of evoking the emotions of an audience through sonorous tones and elegant phrasing. Arguably the most hierarchical of human endeavors, mathematics also depends on sequential mastery of basic skills.

The standard algorithms

The standard algorithms for arithmetic (that is, the standard procedures for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of numbers) are missing or abridged in ED’s recommended elementary school curricula. These omissions are inconsistent with the mainstream views of mathematicians.

In our open letter to Secretary Riley, we included an excerpt from a committee report published in the February 1998 Notices of the American Mathematical Society. The committee was appointed by the American Mathematical Society to advise the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Part of its report discusses the standard algorithms of arithmetic. “We would like to emphasize that the standard algorithms of arithmetic are more than just ‘ways to get the answer’–that is, they have theoretical as well as practical significance,” the report states. “For one thing, all the algorithms of arithmetic are preparatory for algebra, since there are (again, not by accident, but by virtue of the construction of the decimal system) strong analogies between arithmetic of ordinary numbers and arithmetic of polynomials.”

This statement deserves elaboration. How could the standard algorithms of arithmetic be related to algebra? For concreteness, consider the meaning in terms of place value of 572:

572 = 5 (102) + 7(10) + 2

Now compare the right side of this equation to the polynomial,

5x2 + 7x + 2.

The two are identical when x = 10. This connection between whole numbers and polynomials is general and extends to arithmetic operations. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of polynomials is fundamentally the same as for whole numbers. In arithmetic, extra steps such as “regrouping” are needed since x = 10 allows for simplifications. The standard algorithms incorporate both the polynomial operations and the extra steps to account for the specific value, x = 10. Facility with the standard operations of arithmetic, together with an understanding of why these algorithms work, is important preparation for algebra.

The standard long division algorithm is particularly shortchanged by the “promising” curricula. It is preparatory for division of polynomials and, at the college level, division of “power series,” a useful technique in calculus and differential equations. The standard long division algorithm is also needed for a middle school topic. It is fundamental to an understanding of the difference between rational and irrational numbers, an indisputable example of conceptual understanding. It is essential to understand that rational numbers (that is, ratios of whole numbers like 3/4) and their negatives have decimal representations that exhibit recurring patterns. For example: 1/3 = .333…, where the ellipses indicate that the numeral 3 repeats forever. Likewise, 1/2 = .500… and 611/4950 = .12343434….

In the last equation, the digits 34 are repeated without end, and the repeating block in the decimal for 1/2 consists only of the digit for zero. It is a general fact that all rational numbers have repeating blocks of numerals in their decimal representations, and this can be understood and deduced by students who have mastered the standard long division algorithm. However, this important result does not follow easily from other “nonstandard” division algorithms featured by some of ED’s model curricula.

A different but still elementary argument is required to show the converse–that any decimal with a repeating block is equal to a fraction. Once this is understood, students are prepared to understand the meaning of the term “irrational number.” Irrational numbers are the numbers represented by infinite decimals without repeating blocks. In California, seventh-grade students are expected to understand this.

It is worth emphasizing that calculators are utterly useless in this context, not only in establishing the general principles, but even in logically verifying the equations. This is partly because calculator screens cannot display infinite decimals, but more important, calculators cannot reason. The “exemplary” middle school curriculum CMP nevertheless ignores the conceptual issues, bypassing the long division algorithm and substituting calculators and faulty inductive reasoning instead.

Steven Leinwand of the Connecticut Department of Education was a member of the expert panel that made final decisions on ED’s “exemplary” and “promising” math curricula. He was also a member of the advisory boards for two programs found to be “exemplary” by the panel: CMP and the Interactive Mathematics Program. In a Feb. 9, 1994, article in Education Week, he wrote: “It’s time to recognize that, for many students, real mathematical power, on the one hand, and facility with multidigit, pencil-and-paper computational algorithms, on the other, are mutually exclusive. In fact, it’s time to acknowledge that continuing to teach these skills to our students is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive and downright dangerous.”

Mr. Leinwand’s influential opinions are diametrically opposed to the mainstream views of practicing scientists and mathematicians, as well as the general public, but they have found fertile soil in the government’s “promising” and “exemplary” curricula.

Calculators

According to the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, the use of calculators in U.S. fourth-grade mathematics classes is about twice the international average. Teachers of 39 percent of U.S. students report that students use calculators at least once or twice a week. In six of the seven top-scoring nations, on the other hand, teachers of 85 percent or more of the students report that students never use calculators in class.

Even at the eighth-grade level, the majority of students from three of the top five scoring nations in the TIMSS study (Belgium, Korea, and Japan) never or rarely use calculators in math classes. In Singapore, which is also among the top five scoring countries, students do not use calculators until the seventh grade. Among the lower achieving nations, however, the majority of students from 10 of the 11 nations with scores below the international average–including the United States–use calculators almost every day or several times a week.

Of course, this negative correlation of calculator usage with achievement in mathematics does not imply a causal relationship. There are many variables that contribute to achievement in mathematics. On the other hand, it is foolhardy to ignore the problems caused by calculators in schools. In a Sept. 17, 1999, Los Angeles Times editorial titled “L.A.’s Math Program Just Doesn’t Add Up,” Milgram and I recommended that calculators not be used at all in grades K-5 and only sparingly in higher grades. Certainly there are isolated, beneficial uses for calculators, such as calculating compound interest, a seventh-grade topic in California. Science classes benefit from the use of calculators because it is necessary to deal with whatever numbers nature gives us, but conceptual understanding in mathematics is often best facilitated through the use of simple numbers. Moreover, fraction arithmetic, an important prerequisite for algebra, is easily undermined by the use of calculators.

Specific shortcomings

A number of the programs on ED’s list have specific shortcomings–many involving use of calculators. For example, a “promising” curriculum called Everyday Mathematics says calculators are “an integral part of Kindergarten Everyday Mathematics” and urges the use of calculators to teach kindergarten students how to count. There are no textbooks in this K-6 curriculum, and even if the program were otherwise sound, this is a serious shortcoming. The standard algorithm for multiplying two numbers has no more status or prominence than an Ancient Egyptian algorithm presented in one of the teacher’s manuals. Students are never required to use the standard long division algorithm in this curriculum, or even the standard algorithm for multiplication.

Calculator use is also ubiquitous in the “exemplary” middle school program CMP. A unit devoted to discovering algorithms to add, subtract, and multiply fractions (”Bits and Pieces II”) gives the inappropriate instruction, “Use your calculator whenever you need it.” These topics are poorly developed, and division of fractions is not covered at all. A quiz for seventh-grade CMP students asks them to find the “slope” and “y-intercept” of the equation 10 = x - 2.5, and the teacher’s manual explains that this equation is a special case of the linear equation y = x - 2.5, when y = 10, and concludes that the slope is therefore 1 and the y-intercept is -2.5. This is not only false, but is so mathematically unsound as to undermine the authority of classroom teachers who know better.

College Preparatory Math (CPM), a high school program, also requires students to use calculators almost daily. The principal technique in this series is the so-called guess-and-check method, which encourages repeated guessing of answers over the systematic development of standard mathematical techniques. Because of the availability of calculators that can solve equations, the introduction to the series explains that CPM puts low emphasis on symbol manipulation and that CPM differs from traditional mathematics courses both in the mathematics that is taught and how it is taught. In one section, students watch a candle burn down for an hour while measuring its length versus the time and then plotting the results. In a related activity, students spend a whole class period on the athletic field making human coordinate graphs. These activities are typical of the time sacrificed to simple ideas that can be understood more efficiently through direct explanation. But in CPM, direct instruction is systematically discouraged in favor of group work. Teachers are told that as “rules of thumb,” they should “never carry or grab a writing implement” and they should “usually respond with a question.” Algebra tiles are used frequently, and the important distributive property is poorly presented and underemphasized.

Another program, Number Power–a “promising” curriculum for grades K-6–was submitted to the California State Board of Education for adoption in California. Two Stanford University mathematics professors serving on the state’s Content Review Panel wrote a report on the program that is now a public document. Number Power, they wrote, “is meant as a partial program to supplement a regular basic program. There is a strong emphasis on group projects–almost the entire program. Heavy use of calculators. Even as a supplementary program, it provides such insufficient coverage of the [California] Standards that it is unacceptable. This holds for all grade levels and all strands, including Number Sense, which is the only strand that is even partially covered.”

The report goes on to note, “It is explicitly stated that the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, and multiplication are not taught.” Like CMP and Everyday Math, Number Power was rejected for adoption by the state of California.

Interactive Mathematics Program, or IMP, an “exemplary” high school curriculum, has such a weak treatment of algebra that the quadratic formula, normally an eighth- or ninth-grade topic, is postponed until the 12th grade. Even though probability and statistics receive greater emphasis in this program, the development of these topics is poor. “Expected value,” a concept of fundamental importance in probability and statistics, is never even correctly defined. The Teacher’s Guide for “The Game of Pig,” where expected value is treated, informs teachers that “expected value is one of the unit’s primary concepts,” yet teachers are instructed to tell their students that “the concept of expected value is nothing new … [but] the use of such complex terminology makes it easier to state complex ideas.” (For a correlation of lowered SAT scores with the use of IMP, see Milgram’s paper at ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram.)

Core-Plus Mathematics Project is another “exemplary” high school program that radically de-emphasizes algebra, with unfortunate results. Even Hyman Bass–a well-known supporter of NCTM-aligned programs and a harsh critic of the open letter to Secretary Riley–has conceded the program has problems. “I have some reservations about Core Plus, for what I consider too shallow a coverage of traditional algebra, and a focus on highly contextualized work that goes beyond my personal inclinations,” he wrote in a nationally circulated e-mail message. “These are only my personal views, and I do not know about its success with students.”

Milgram analyzed the program’s effect on students in a top-performing high school in “Outcomes Analysis for Core Plus Students at Andover High School: One Year Later,” based on a statistical study by G. Bachelis of Wayne State University. According to Milgram, “…there was no measure represented in the survey, such as ACT scores, SAT Math scores, grades in college math courses, level of college math courses attempted, where the Andover Core Plus students even met, let alone surpassed the comparison group [which used a more traditional program].”

And then there is MathLand, a K-6 curriculum that ED calls “promising” but that is perhaps the most heavily criticized elementary school program in the nation. Like Everyday Math, it has no textbooks for students in any of the grades. The teacher’s manual urges teachers not to teach the standard algorithms of arithmetic for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Rather, students are expected to invent their own algorithms. Numerous and detailed criticisms, including data on lowered test scores, appear at http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com.

How could they be so wrong?

Perhaps Galileo wondered similarly how the church of Pope Urban VIII could be so wrong. The U.S. Department of Education is not alone in endorsing watered-down, and even defective, math programs. The NCTM has also formally endorsed each of the U.S. Department of Education’s model programs (http://www.nctm.org/rileystatement.htm), and the National Science Foundation (Education and Human Resources Division) funded several of them. How could such powerful organizations be wrong?

These organizations represent surprisingly narrow interests, and there is a revolving door between them. Expert panel member Steven Leinwand, whose personal connections with “exemplary” curricula have already been noted, is also a member of the NCTM board of directors. Luther Williams, who as assistant director of the NSF approved the funding of several of the recommended curricula, also served on the expert panel that evaluated these same curricula. Jack Price, a member of the expert panel is a former president of NCTM, and Glenda Lappan, the association’s current president, is a coauthor of the “exemplary” program CMP.

Aside from institutional interconnections, there is a unifying ideology behind “whole math.” It is advertised as math for all students, as opposed to only white males. But the word all is a code for minority students and women (though presumably not Asians). In 1996, while he was president of NCTM, Jack Price articulated this view in direct terms on a radio show in San Diego: “What we have now is nostalgia math. It is the mathematics that we have always had, that is good for the most part for the relatively high socioeconomic anglo male, and that we have a great deal of research that has been done showing that women, for example, and minority groups do not learn the same way. They have the capability, certainly, of learning, but they don’t. The teaching strategies that you use with them are different from those that we have been able to use in the past when … we weren’t expected to graduate a lot of people, and most of those who did graduate and go on to college were the anglo males.”

Price went on to say: “All of the research that has been done with gender differences or ethnic differences has been–males for example learn better deductively in a competitive environment, when–the kind of thing that we have done in the past. Where we have found with gender differences, for example, that women have a tendency to learn better in a collaborative effort when they are doing inductive reasoning.” (A transcript of the show is online at (http://mathematicallycorrect.com/roger.htm.)

I reject the notion that skin color or gender determines whether students learn inductively as opposed to deductively and whether they should be taught the standard operations of arithmetic and essential components of algebra. Arithmetic is not only essential for everyday life, it is the foundation for study of higher level mathematics. Secretary Riley–and educators who select mathematics curricula–would do well to heed the advice of the open letter.

—-

Author, David Klein, is a professor of mathematics at California State University at Northridge.
Source: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/usnoadd.htm

—-
Marks of a good mathematics program

It is impossible to specify all of the characteristics of a sound mathematics program in only a few paragraphs, but a few highlights may be identified. The most important criterion is strong mathematical content that conforms to a set of explicit, high, grade-by-grade standards such as the California or Japanese mathematics standards. A strong mathematics program recognizes the hierarchical nature of mathematics and builds coherently from one grade to the next. It is not merely a sequence of interesting but unrelated student projects.

In the earlier grades, arithmetic should be the primary focus. The standard algorithms of arithmetic for integers, decimals, fractions, and percents are of central importance. The curriculum should promote facility in calculation, an understanding of what makes the algorithms work in terms of the base 10 structure of our number system, and an understanding of the associative, commutative, and distributive properties of numbers. These properties can be illustrated by area and volume models. Students need to develop an intuitive understanding for fractions. Manipulatives or pictures can help in the beginning stages, but it is essential that students eventually be able to compute easily using mathematical notation. Word problems should be abundant. A sound program should move students toward abstraction and the eventual use of symbols to represent unknown quantities.

In the upper grades, algebra courses should emphasize powerful symbolic techniques and not exploratory guessing and calculator-based graphical solutions.

There should be a minimum of diversions in textbooks. Children have enough trouble concentrating without distracting pictures and irrelevant stories and projects. A mathematics program should explicitly teach skills and concepts with appropriately designed practice sets. Such programs have the best chance of success with the largest number of students. The high-performing Japanese students spend 80 percent of class time in teacher-directed whole-class instruction. Japanese math books contain clear explanations, examples with practice problems, and summaries of key points. Singapore’s elementary school math books also provide good models. Among U.S. books for elementary school, Sadlier-Oxford’s Progress in Mathematics and the Saxon series through Math 87 (adopted for grade six in California), though not without defects, have many positive features.–D.K.

—-
For more information

Askey, Richard. “Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics.” American Educator, Fall 1999, pp. 6-13; 49.

Ma, Liping. Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.

Milgram, R. James. “A Preliminary Analysis of SAT-I Mathematics Data for IMP Schools in California.” ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram

Milgram, R. James. “Outcomes Analysis for Core Plus Students at Andover High School: One Year Later.” ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/andover-report.htm

Wu, Hung-Hsi. “Basic Skills Versus Conceptual Understanding: A Bogus Dichotomy in Mathematics Education.” American Educator, Fall 1999, pp. 14-19; 50-52.

An Example Of Everyday Math Silliness

This is a note to teachers from Everyday Math. I have taught my second graders the term "commutative property" for years. Now I am supposed to ignore the real term in favor of the nonsensical "turnaround facts". Seem silly to you too?


page 112, California Grade 2 Teacher's Lesson Guide

New Teacher: Find Other Work!

I am really frustrated. Everyday Math, Lucy Calkins, Words Their Way Spelling Inventory, and the rest are a waste of time and money, and they create frustration at the expense of educating the kids.

Here's what I mean. We teachers have to use these materials whether they are useful to us or not. We have to use them because of NCLB; accountability is now more important than education, joy, love, life, community and family.

Schools must show improvement, and new materials are almost never always the way to improve things. Indeed, we adopted Everyday Math because apparently we had to adopt something; it was time! Seriously! Not because EDM is better. Not because Scott Forseman was worse. It was just because it was adoption time.

I have mentioned my scores many times because they are at the core of my argument against forcing teachers to use certain materials. Most of the curricular materials a school uses have been produced for a huge market; many school districts nation-wide adopt identical materials. This nationalization of materials makes for watered down materials. They can't be rich and specific because some things may not go over well in certain places. So, we get lean materials, especially in history, social studies and science. Math, less so.

With math, because we all know if we do not lead the world in math and science we will not continue to lead the world, we adopt new materials--that are research based--hoping knowing they will improve scores. There is only one problem with this: Everyday Math was rejected by many school districts because of its spiraling sequence and overly complicated teacher guide, the plethora of silly materials that are embedded in the instruction making for less than rigorous lessons, and all the games of "math self-discovery". It is a bad program, and one that I do not need; look at my scores!

So, my high scores may go down if I have to implement Everyday Math. If my scores go down, and my candidate of choice is elected, I will not get my merit pay. However, if I refuse to use EDM, my scores will remain high, and I will get merit pay, unless I get fired for not using the curriculum provided, regardless of its lack of efficacy.

And don't get me started on Lucy Caulkins. We were given the writing assessment materials today. We were supposed to be teaching "How to" (the real words are "expository text") because that is what the first writing assessment will be on. Well, we have not been teaching what the assessment will be assessing because the assessment has a requirement in the rubric that is not a part of "How To" writing, except sometimes. Confused? I think the kids will be too.

This is the kind of negligence administration constantly foists on us, and then we look like the idiots. Teachers have complained about the lack of information this assessment provides for years. Each year our literacy leader (oxymoron) says they will be fixing it. They haven't, yet. It's only been my whole career, so, maybe they will get to it. Things take time, right?

Well, I cannot do it anymore. I sit in those damned meetings, make valid and important points by exposing the silliness, lies, or whatever else is being obfuscated by the principal and administration, then get a letter of reprimand in my personnel file for doing so.

I should be congratulated for my students' scores. I should be asked how I do it! But no, I am being told to shut up, regardless of the substance of my remarks (principal actually said that. My points are valid and substantive, but shut up). Shut up, sit down, be quiet, play dumb, and shut up again.

Well, fuck you. Got it!? Fuck. You.

I'm looking for other work. If you are a new teacher, or thinking of getting into teaching, you might want to think again. The future is not bright for teachers. Just like the taxpayers taking final responsibility for the greedy bastards, teachers are going to continue to take responsibility for the outcomes of kids they have no control over. If it seems unfair, and a little stoopid, well, you might be on to something.

Update: I forgot to mention that I cannot quit mid-year without being in danger of having my credential revoked. Teaching has changed, for the worse...

School Emergency!!

If you know who I am, or where I work, then you need to know about Everyday Math. It is a bad program that we are being forced to use. I have crazy high math scores when my kids get tested, and I am afraid to use Everyday Math because my scores, and more importantly, the knowledge attained by my students, will no longer exist.

Here are some links for you.

http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm


http://www.schoc.org/id56.html

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

http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/everyday.htm

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_3_7_03mc.html

http://www.npe.ednews.org/Review/Essays/v2n6.htm

http://www.chatham.edu/PTI/2003%20Units/Looking%20at%20Everyday%20Mathematics/abstracts%20math.htm

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

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3220616.html

Everyday Math: Causes Cerebral Hemorrhage

Over at Eduwonk there is a war of words over Everyday Math. There are a couple of folks who swear by it, and the rest of us who hate it. I am not sure what there is to like about it, but the comments are interesting. Anyone interested in the internal warfare should check out the post and comments.

Everyday Math: Still Sucks (even more, actually)

We had a staff development meeting today. This is when all the 1st and 2nd grade teachers get together and are developed. Professionally. The only problem with the moniker is that neither word fits! It is not very professional sitting in itty-bitty chairs watching some cat-lady treat us like her students as she models a lesson. Nor is there anything being developed!

The whole faculty of 3 or 4 schools left the thing complaining. We complained about the cat-lady who should never be around other adults. We complained about the chairs and lack of snacks (remember, teachers cannot just "go to the bathroom" or grab a soda whenever we feel like it. We have kids to supervise. So, if you are going to drag us to a meeting after 6 hours of kids, give us some damn food and drink.).

So...the staff development focused on our new math program, Everyday Math. It sucks. Even before we started listening to the cat-lady we were all talking about the fact that Everyday Math begins with money in 2nd grade. Bad place to start, as I mentioned in another post.

The cat-lady had lots of difficulty getting us to stay on task because we didn't understand the tasks. They are rather elusive. Like, why are we getting 1st week 2nd graders to figure out how to make change (she talked about the fact that many adults can't make correct change. Oh. Really? So fucking what?) Her answer was that it is just being introduced. They don't have to master it.

think about that answer for a minute...................................
keep thinking............................................................................

Ok? Was it an answer to my question? No! She did this many, many times. She interrupted my question, didn't understand it, and proved she has no idea why the materials ask us to introduce a concept that is ill-posed this early in the year.

Introducing small children to new concepts is fine. But creating a curriculum that does this when reality shows us that kids are too disparate to be taught all at once (which Everyday Math requires) is just silly. Kids will need to be pulled separately for remediation. Of course, this is not written anywhere. It is not written because to write it would be to show the lack of thought put into the curriculum's design and it's target--small children who are all over the map in terms of common skills.

This is the problem with NCLB, or education if you are a teacher hater.

It was an embarrassment for me to be in the meeting, and it would be an embarrassment for you if you were there and then had to tell someone who matters what you saw in the meeting.

The woman had 35 years of teaching experience (so what, McCain had nearly 30 years of Senatoring, and he is a moron). Apparently, to the administrators of school districts across this great nation, 35 years means you know what you're doing. Let's not allow this nonsense.

Also, my questions were pedagogical in nature. I do not need second grade math explained to me. What I needed explained was the basis for the claims being made by the cat-lady and the Everyday Math coach who was there (constantly asking the cat-lady to explain the materials to her! I shit you not!). My questions included things like, "What am I assessing when I make the child take the formative assessment that includes a new-fangled, highly irregular way of explaining the commutative and associative properties? Am I assessing their understanding of the new-fangled thing, or their understanding of the math standard the thing is supposed to illuminate?" Her answer was something like "I do what I'm told".

There was a principal in the room, and he felt the anger. He seems smart and he tried to validate some of our concerns. He lost me when he said "At least we are talking about math." What! At least we are talking about math! We can do better than that, can't we? Why set your math-sights so low?

This is how education is going to go. We teachers are being scripted, and we are being made to use materials that will inevitably be replaced, including the silly, made-up language for things we already have language for (I've ranted on this before, too), causing another generation of kids to have to figure out the normal words long after they have internalized the silliness.

[an aside: Before I could get into my credential program 10 years ago (I started late!) I had to take a math prerequisite. The teacher, a young college professor from Hayward (now CSU East Bay) made it clear that many of us were taught math incorrectly, and he would straighten us out. He did! And we had been taught crazy shit when we were kids, we found out.

We are doing the same thing to each generation of children as we flail to find the "killer app", the perfect curriculum that will allow make all kids learn (my least favorite, vapid, Education phrase). Can't we use the terms those in the field use? Enough with the made up stuff!]

The worst part is that the public is being slowly convinced that teachers suck, need staff development, and the staff development works.

The truth is teachers don't suck (most of us, some of us do), don't need staff development (they need time to meet together, share ideas, visit each others classrooms to see each other in action) and the staff development does not work. In fact it sucks. Didn't you just read what I wrote above?!

Everyday Math: Sucks

What math curriculum did your district adopt? Mine adopted Everyday Math. Explain something to me; why do we need to adopt new curricular materials if none of us use them anyway? Actually I know the answer. Because all teachers need to teach the same thing, the same way, because research has shown that teaching all children the same thing, the same way, works better than tailoring the curriculum to the kids' needs.

No? What? I am wrong on that? Jebus. I thought my job was to try to teach as many of my students as possible as much as possible in the best way possible. Oh well. Silly me.

Everyday Math for 2nd graders begins with money. That's right, money. Not place value which is the foundation for what will be the major focus of 2nd grade math. And for the money unit I am supposed to ask kids to bring in coins! The district spent I don't know how many thousands of dollars on the new curriculum, and we have to ask poor kids to bring in change. We suck.

And then there are the "math coaches" who are there to help. In our math meeting today our coach told us the district has not yet figured out what assessments we will be using. The coach does not know if or when all teachers will get the materials that have not shown up yet. The coach does not know how we are going to share the materials (1 set for 2 classes), but that is our problem.

We were given an assignment by the coach: the scavenger hunt activity the faculty engaged in consisted of a couple pieces of paper with questions like; where do you find the ELL support in the teacher materials? The principal, who hates me so she sat next to me, couldn't find any of the stuff on the scavenger hunt list. Why? No, she is not stupid. It is that the materials are made for teachers, which means the Everyday math folks can sell us training sessions on how to use their unnecessarily complicated teacher guide (all teacher guides are like this, so, very few people use them, and the are simply overkill anyway).

The sequence of Everyday Math is out of whack, the daily lessons and activities--that must be followed--are less robust than what I do now. When I told my principal that I thought there were a few very powerful but simple things we could do to make our instruction more "regular" among grades, like using academic language, she agreed that would be good. I said considering everone is complaining about the new adoption, and it is no different that what it is replacing, and it is too complicated for anyone to put to good use this year, why don't we make a couple changes that are simple and powerful. Principal said we need to get on board with the new curriculum because not all teachers can handle the academic language on their own.

Okay. Fine. I guess most teachers are stupid, and we need scripted curricular materials. Except that some of us don't. Did I mention my scores?