Posts
This isn't an article it's an advertisement for Everyday Mathematics. There isn't even a single mention in the article of the possibility that some parents, teachers, and schools might not like it.
Some selected quotes:
The curriculum is designed to integrate strategies such as algebra, probability, geometry and statistics into the lessons for students as young as kindergarten and first grade. Also through the lessons, students are taught several different techniques to solve problems, while traditionally, students were only taught one way.This reporter didn't even need to get out of bed to write this article. All she had to do was have the textbook creators fax in the article to her editor.
...
Fremgen said another benefit is that most of the math ideas spiral through the curriculum throughout the year, so if students don't understand a method or concept the first time, it will come around several other times for them to try again.
...
The program's success also may be because of the curriculum's real-life applications that allow students to use what they learn in everyday experiences, Fremgen said.
21 comments:
When a newspaper article displays such an excessively upbeat attitude towards a topic, I smell discontent.
This article starts with this. “For fifth-grade teacher Kate Fremgen, math equals fun.”
I’m so tired of hearing about how math is fun for teachers and children. My school broadcast a TV presentation about our new math program, and it seemed that the overriding message was that everybody in school was so excited about doing math. We were told students literally cheer and applaud when they’re told it’s time for math.
Not a word about how they’ll assess effectiveness of this new program.
Bah, humbug.
This links to a NY Post column written by Michelle Malkin against Everyday Math.
My apologies. The link didn't work. It's in the NY Post, Nov 28, 2007. Column by Michelle Malkins.
Has anyone done an analysis which compares the math vocabulary required to be successful in algebra and the math vocabulary in Everyday Math?
I ask because I recently met with the curriculum director and asst superintendent in a neighboring school district.
I went to support a friend of mine whose son is struggling through pre slgebra in the 7th grade.
He is experiencing the 'death march to algebra' that we know so well here at KTM. He failed the chapter 2 test.
The vocabulary covered in Chapter 2 was (according to the Chapter Review):
additive identity
associated property of multiplication and division
commutative property of multiplication and division
deductive reasoning
distributive property
equation
identity property
inverse operations
like terms
multiplicative identity
open sentence (means expression)
simplify a variable expression
solution of an inequality
The topics covered were:
Simplifying expressions
Translating words into expressions and equations
Solving equations in one step (by addition, subtraction, multiplication and division)
GRAPHING INEQUALITIES (on a number line)
SOLVING INEQUALITIES (including -d>14)
Our message to these gentlemen was:
1. You are actually teaching algebra not prealgebra
2. Therefore, you will just be teaching algebra two years in a row and hoping that the students will get it.
3. You have taught them Everyday Math for K-6 with no textbooks and no formal vocabulary. Now you give them a textbook and rigorous expectations without any support.
Their message to us was:
1. The teachers chose this textbook and it has be used for all students including the highest level students. We think it is prealgebra
2. No, we're not.
3. We don't agree that Everyday math doesn't cover math vocabulary.
And the teacher know that they have to teach the students math study skills as part of the prealgebra class. (Yeah, right. I haven't seen any evidence that leads me to believe that teachers take the time to teach these skills. That's why we teach them at the community college level.)
So, does anyone know where I can get a list of vocabulary and terms covered in Everyday Math?
Anne Dwyer
The Malkin article appeared in may places. Here, for example:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=23663
I wish she had pointed out that the fuzzy math plague is driven by tax dollars through the EHR directorate of the National Science Foundation.
[Everyday Mathematics was developed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project and is now used in more than 175,000 classrooms. The Edwardsville school district conducted a study of its math curriculum, then decided to adopt Everyday Mathematics because it is more in line with state standardized tests. It is designed to assist students become more sophisticated in math at a young age and to keep reinforcing those strategies year after year.
"Everyday Math was a very good match for us and in aligning with the Illinois state standards," said Lynda Andre, assistant superintendent.]
It was clever to make the state tests and so-called standards fuzzy. Now the need for fuzzy programs can be justified on those grounds alone. No more need to intone "Research shows..." which is rapidly becoming a gag line. The tail can finally wag the dog with abandon.
Caustic, you are on the $$$$.
This is the story in CT as well. EM has come in like gangbusters piloting in high performing schools and branching out everywhere. Leinwand worked for CT when our current state standards were developed so you can imagine how well those state standards align with Everyday Math. They fit like the proverbial glove!
The kids in EM schools magically do well on the CMT's so, of course, it's all good. Well, except for that most of these same students would probably be devastated by Massachusetts' standardized test or one based on internationally respected standards (Singapore, for example).
Schools brave enough to admit there is a problem (like New Milford) cannot abandon it altogether because they fear (and rightly so) that they would see a decline in their CMT scores. In the days of meeting AYP, this will simply not do.
Sadly, for most parents, seeing that their child is meeting state goals is good enough even if it means that their child probably won't be able to go very far when advanced mathematics is required.
"So, does anyone know where I can get a list of vocabulary and terms covered in Everyday Math?"
Each grade of EM has a reference manual (hard cover) that has explanations and definitions. Fuzzy math curricula use many fuzzy terms, but even so, there is a big jump in formal terminology once you get to pre-algebra. All of the properties and identities are new.
After years of Everyday Math, my son is now in a 7th grade pre-algebra class using a Glencoe text. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than Everyday Math. I would say that the problem is not with Glencoe, but with Everyday Math. However, I would blame many things other than terminology.
The biggest problem is (of course)the lack of mastery of the basics. Not only do pre-algebra students have to confront more formal terminology, they struggle with new concepts while carrying around the baggage of poor skills. Math starts to move right along at this point and you better not get behind!
For example, today I had to help my son with finding greatest common factors. He needs this to be able to do the backwards (factoring) operation of the distributive property.
For example:
48x^2 - 18x = 6x(8x - 3)
They get one class of explanation and then they move on to the next topic. If you don't have a good teacher or support at home, you're lost. I had to give him a more complete explanation of GCF, but he was still hung up on doing the example above. It took me a while to figure it out and help him with his problem. He just couldn't deal with why you would want to do that in the first place. It's kind of like driving in the wrong direction.
It's a big jump from low expectation, spiraling (it's OK if you don't understand it yet) Everyday Math in 6th grade, to a much faster pace, one chance or your lost approach to math in 7th grade. Pre-algebra doesn't have to be hard, but Everyday Math does not ensure that you have the proper skills, and most teachers presume that kids have to take responsibility for their own learning.
In other words, EM doesn't prepare the kids properly, and then the school says that learning is now their own responsibility. They go for years telling kids and parents "Don't worry about it. They will see it again." to "It's now your responsibility and you better not fall behind."
It's a really bad joke.
I'm tired of hearing the words "fun" and "teachers" connected, period.
We are constantly being given "The teachers like it" as a rationale for buying stuff in the middle of a tax revolt.
re SMART Boards: "The teachers love them!"
re TRAILBLAZERS: "The teachers like it!"
Yes, well, I would like to have tile on my bathroom floor.
Not new tile, any tile. We're still walking on the exposed floorboards.
Maybe the district will buy me some tile this Xmas!
death march to algebra
Anne!
Can I put your comment up front!
Oh my gosh, that brings back hideous memories.
I was planning to write a post about C. starting to come "back online" in math. Math A (NY state's integrated algebra & geometry) is far easier than the death march to Math A we dealt with in 6th and 7th grade.
Still, I despair of C. ever really recovering unless he decides he wants to recover.
I carry on insisting he relearn math....
My new plan is to read Karen Pryor's Don't Shoot the Dog to see whether I can put together a "clicker training" regime around here.
"Clicker training" meaning a home remedial program based entirely in positive reinforcement.
Therefore, you will just be teaching algebra two years in a row and hoping that the students will get it.
That's what we have now lived through only in our case it's going to be 3 years.
Here's a cute story.
One of C's friends said the other day, "I have trouble with the distributive property."
The fact that these kids can now SAY they have trouble with the distributive property, as opposed to wandering around in a math fog, is cool.
I should add that I want teachers, students, and parents to enjoy their days.
Nonetheless, "the teachers love their SMART Boards" is not a justification for the purchase of 45 SMART Boards using taxpayer money.
The "real-life" meme is becoming increasingly surreal around here - though not with math.
We're now dealing with WAC.
WAC means teachers in every single subject make writing assignments that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that would ever, under any circumstances, occur in the real world of real writing.
Every once in awhile I'll think to myself: Wait! I'm a writer! I'm a writer IN REAL LIFE!
I'm a writer in real life and I don't do any of this stuff!
I'm experiencing firsthand what math people have been living through for years: the complete and total lack of interest in the real world of real writing/math/history/whatever.
What is the real world in math?
The real world in math is what mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists, etc. actually do.
Which bears no resemblance to what constructivist math does.
Of course, it makes sense that you'd find math professors who no longer do math supporting these curricula, doesn't it?
I'm tired of hearing the words "fun" and "teachers" connected, period.
I'm thinking that if schools are so concerned with fun above all else, they should stop playing games and do something about. Why don't they just tell parents that anything truly academic (that may require elbow grease and *gasp* lack of constant fun and entertainment), will be the parent's responsibility.
They can keep half the tax money for fun stuff (art, music, PE, organized sports) thereby shortening the school day to about 2-3 hours. Then our kids will have time for core learning to take place and parents can keep the other half of the tax money to pay tutors or courses in math, language arts, science, history and the like.
It's high time schools earned their keep and that parents stopped having to pay taxes, pay tutors, and teach their kids reading, writing and arithmetic themselves.
I was on the cleanup crew for the Winter Festival this weekend where I talked to a couple of moms who now have kids in the accelerated math course at the middle school. Both said the kids were having trouble, and one said, "But [my daughter] is being tutored by X."
She took it for granted that the hiring of tutors in the accelerated track is routine.
The one good thing that's happened here is that the schools have taken a parent survey, apparently in preparation for the TriState Consortium visit (or whatever it is that's happening).
One of the questions asks whether parents have hired math tutors, but unfortunately there is no question asking how much teaching the parent has done -- although the survey does have an item saying, "I feel comfortable assisting my child in math" (something along those lines).
"Assist" is the big word these days.
assist and enhance
Those are biggies.
Nothing ever needs improvement, just enhancement.
We were told students literally cheer and applaud when they’re told it’s time for math.
calling Richard Elmore
We think it is prealgebra
I think that's a fair assessment on their part but to put it in context, these students will continue to take prealgebra on into high school with labels such as "Algebra I", "Geometry" and "Algebra II". Here's what I mean: 50% of them won't be able to place out of freshman elementary algebra and may even end up in remedial arithmetic courses.
Good Lord.
I just read the article word-for-word instead of skimming.
I may never have seen a more egregious case of public relations masked as journalism ever.
Everyday Math has been on a PR blitz recently, particularly this week. I'm not sure if its a knee jerk response to the Malkin piece, board of eds considering whether or not to adopt the newest version of EM, or simply a coincidence. Whatever the case, if I see another promo piece masked as a blog entry I'm going to be ill.
Actually, I just realized that I was bombarded with press releases and paid blogger entries about the time the Texas rejection of 3rd grade EM hit the press. I have no doubt that the Wright Group is doing some serious damage control right about now.
Post a Comment