| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Everyday Mathematics; Original topic that lead to the creation of this forum | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 16 2007, 05:53 PM (49,178 Views) | |
| IlikeLIvonia | May 20 2008, 10:02 AM Post #1521 |
Advanced Member
  ![]](http://209.85.48.16/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
In CA even the reworked edition of EM is "not recommended" for 5th grade. http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr07/docume...nov07item36.doc Recommendation: California Everyday Mathematics, grade 5, is not recommended for adoption because it does not meet all of the criteria in Category 1 and is not fully aligned with the Mathematics Content Standards. These programs have not been recommended for adoption: JRL Enterprises, Inc.: I Can Learn Fundamentals of Math, Algebra, Pre-Algebra, and Geometry (6-8) Pearson Prentice Hall: Prentice Hall Mathematics California Algebra 1 (8) Pearson Prentice Hall: Prentice Hall Mathematics California (6) Wright Group/McGraw-Hill: California Everyday Math (5) Wright Group/McGraw-Hill: UCSMP (University of Chicago School Math Project) (7 - 8) |
 |
 
|
| IlikeLIvonia | May 20 2008, 10:17 AM Post #1522 |
|
Advanced Member
|
A lot of controversy remains around EM in California. But what does the publisher's willingness to make changes to the text for CA say about their belief in the program? I think that it obviously has to do with simply selling more books regardless of their content. So does CA have a superior version versus MI? Does the publisher really care? If you accept it they'll sell it as is, if you object they'll change it....it's all about the money. |
|
|
|
| Nikki | May 20 2008, 10:27 AM Post #1523 |
|
Advanced Member
|
That's my interpretation. The publisher is in business to sell textbooks and make money. It's not about what's best for the kids. LPS bought the salespitch hook, line and sinker. When Mrs. Abler talks about the merchandise they bought, she sounds like a saleperson for the company. In fact, I orginally thought she was a consultant from EM. I'm sure the "consultants" from EM tell her how to respond to complaints about the program. Of course they feel that their alternative algorithms are superior to the traditional methods. It's based on their own research. California didn't like their alternative methods or the fact that they didn't include instruction with the standard algorithms. The publisher tried to address those issues and it's still being rejected. Nice try EM. |
|
|
|
| IlikeLIvonia | May 20 2008, 11:02 AM Post #1524 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Don't forget...Send your comments to FOX 2. Let them know that this is NOT a parent problem but a content problem. Let them know that you are aware of the controversy and problems with EM over the last decade all around this country. MI may be one of the last to jump on the EM band wagon but many, many others have all ready taken that ride. Encourage them to do a more balanced story. |
|
|
|
| Vanna White | May 22 2008, 06:55 AM Post #1525 |
Advanced Member
|
http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...518/1199/NEWS10 Keep some of Everyday Math Dear Livonia School Board: I would like to voice some concerns about Everyday Math. 1. TOO MUCH, TOO FAST. There are some good concepts in Everyday Math, but they are presented in a chaotic way. And that is part of the underlying philosophy of Everyday Math. The philosophy is to throw a lot of concepts at the children and then try to tie them all together in the end. We have been told "don't worry if your children are getting confused along the way and if it seems they are not mastering the concepts. It will all come together in the end." That remains to be seen. Many of us are sending our children for after-school tutoring to places like Kumon where one concept is mastered before moving to the next. We can SEE that working. 2. TOO SCRIPTED, TOO AUTHORITARIAN. Everyday Math is a cookbook approach. Every teacher has the same cookbook. Every teacher must follow the same recipes. Or else! Teachers are afraid that if they deviate from the "book" they could get into trouble with the school board. I have heard teachers express this fear. Even if their principal tells them they have some leeway to do what is right in their own class for their own students, they are afraid of going against the board. This is not a recipe for good education. 3. TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS WHAT? Everyday Math prohibits memorizing the math facts in class. In fact, at the meeting we had at Hoover Elementary in September to quell parents' concerns over Everyday Math, a representative from the school board answered the question "Will individual teachers be allowed to cover memorization of math facts in class?" by saying "No. But parents are welcome to do that at home." Say what? Children need to be taught the math facts at school AND at home. And teachers should be allowed the freedom to teach them in class without fear of retribution from the school board. This makes a great case for home schooling. Here is a suggestion from a parent: There is some good and some bad in Everyday Math. Now that we know what it is about, let's stop paying for it, use the good, throw out the bad, and allow teachers some leeway in determining how best to teach their children. Now there is a plan we could all live with! Kirk McLendon Livonia Everyday Math doesn't add up In response to the article "Trustees, parents question Everyday Math for fifth grade," information on the merits of this program can be found at home using the search engine "everyday math reviews." Numerous articles are written on the topic, for example, this one written by Michelle Malkin on November 28, 2007 (www.michellemalkin.com); Fuzzy Math: A nation wide epidemic. Some examples from this article include: Fifth-grade problems like: A. If math were a color, it would beÉ B. If it were a food, it would beÉ. C. If it were weather, it would beÉ Quotes from teachers like: "What would you do if you discovered that none of your fourth-graders could correctly tell you the answer to four times eight?" After reading articles like this, you can understand why parents are concerned over this program. We can all agree that Everyday Math is a very controversial curriculum. According to various publications over the last three years, the Everyday Math program will not build the foundation needed for success in high school for many students. Yes, there will be some success stories but for many students, their parents will have to pick up the math pieces at home or teachers will have to supplement their class and high school teachers will have students not prepared for Algebra. Michigan's merit curriculum has the most rigorous math requirements for high school graduation in the United States. Livonia Public Schools cannot afford to embark on a math program that doesn't build a strong elementary foundation. In order to be successful on the ACT Test, you have to be at the Algebra II/Trigonometry level in 11th grade leaving no flexibility for remedial math in high school. The ACT Test is part of the Michigan testing standard for high school graduation. My advice to parents is to get informed and involved now before a decision is made that will impact your student's future. Ms. Abler should have more respect for parents' criticism of this program; many are educated in math beyond her level. Members of the board of education should be more concerned on what impact a failing program like Everyday Math will have on the community then a few families leaving the school district. We can't afford to forget that educational test scores directly impact property values and community prosperity. Linda Wojtanowski Livonia |
|
|
|
| IlikeLIvonia | May 22 2008, 08:05 PM Post #1526 |
|
Advanced Member
|
A district with the awful EM/CM combo... D-47 focuses on math By KATHY GRESEY - kgresey@nwnewsgroup.com CRYSTAL LAKE – School District 47 officials could approve new math curriculums as soon as March 2008, but some parents are looking for immediate changes in how their children are taught math. During a board meeting Monday night, Crystal Lake resident Michael Stich asked administrators to better prepare students for math classes at School District 155 as soon as possible. Stich cited the results of an algebraic test that recently was administered to all students at Crystal Lake South High School when he spoke to the board. “It provides evidence that there are issues,” he said. “All I want is coordination [between the districts].” The algebraic test, which was created by teachers and not to be used as a district assessment, indicated that more than half of Crystal Lake South High School students were unable to correctly solve several types of equations, including the division of decimals and multiplication of mixed numbers. “I recommend this board take action to correct this,” Stich said. District 47 is reviewing its middle school math curriculum – Connected Mathematics – a process that usually is undertaken every five years, officials said. Board President Diane Johnson said the input of parents and ninth-grade students could benefit the district’s curriculum-review process. “I like the idea [of getting] information from ninth-graders,” she said. “They’re brutally honest.” Scott Kubelka, director of curriculum and assessment at District 155, said struggling high school students were offered help through several programs, such as peer tutoring and guided study hall. “We have mechanisms in place to provide help to students,” he said. “They’re all effective.” He noted that District 155 math scores had improved recently on a state-administered test. “Freshmen, in general, are performing at higher levels on the Explore exam over the past three years,” he said. “We’ve seen the highest performance at South and [Crystal Lake Central High School] on math.” Parent comment... " The problem is both Everyday Math and Connected Math, in my view. And until my oldest child hit High School and Algebra, I didn't understand fully how inadequate those 2 programs are. To the teacher who posted on the last article that ISAT scores were great, my response is that the ISAT questions are identical in content to the curriculum. It's no wonder they do not want to go back to basics; the tests don't test students on the basics. We are dumbing down our kids. " "...By the way, my child's Algebra 2 teacher complained on Parent Night that the kids couldn't complete basic skills; that he would have to review and quiz them weekly in addition to the normal class material. This is not Freshman year, folks. These kids are Sophmores and Juniors that still have not mastered long division and the like. " |
|
|
|
| Nikki | May 23 2008, 10:42 AM Post #1527 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Administrators can say that the teachers love it, the kids are having fun and standardized test scores are rising, but if it doesn't prepare children for middle and high school, it is NOT working. I actually can understand why some teachers like it. At first the implementation period is rough. Teachers are told, "hang in there....it will get better." They have to get accustomed to a different way of teaching math. Kids need time to become familiar with all the new terminology and methods of EM. Once all of these things are in place, the teacher's job actually becomes easier. Some of the reasons why administrators/teachers like it: EM doesn't require right answers on homework. Less papers to grade. "EM children" are off discovering math by themselves using calculators. :angry: Less to teach. EM requires a tremendous amount of parental involvement in terms of time & $$$$(not referring to the "home links"). :angry: Parents are re-teaching math at home or sending their kids to tutoring centers (which could explain those rising test scores). Kids come to school more prepared. EM is known to raise standardized test scores @ the elementary level. Great scores give the false impression that students are learning math. Great scores meet the requirements of NCLB. Time and time again, all around the country, these types of programs have failed children. Elementary scores are great, but when kids are taught this way and get to middle and high school, the standardized test scores start to take a dive. Why? Is it because the methods taught are not useful? Do kids lack a foundation in basic skills? Something is definitely wrong. If these programs are so great, we would see success @ the middle and high school level and it's just not there. The foundation laid in elementary school is crucial to success in later grades. Programs like EM cause more harm than good. Parents, don't be afraid to speak up. Let the board know how you feel. The vote may be on June 2. There are people on the board that are willing to listen. Good elementary MEAP scores will not get your child into college. Board email addresses: lscheel@livonia.k12.mi.us dlessard@twmi.rr.com tbailey@twmi.rr.com rfreeman3@livonia.k12.mi.us cmarkari@livonia.k12.mi.us goke@livonia.k12.mi.us steveking54@earthlink.net patricemang@hotmail.com ssteffes@livonia.k12.mi.us (Liepa) |
|
|
|
| Mr.Bean | May 23 2008, 09:10 PM Post #1528 |
Advanced Member
|
Fuzzy math: A nationwide epidemic Do you know what math curriculum your child is being taught? Are you worried that your third-grader hasn’t learned simple multiplication yet? Have you been befuddled by educational jargon such as “spiraling,” which is used to explain why your kid keeps bringing home the same insipid busywork of cutting, gluing and drawing? And are you alarmed by teachers who emphasize “self-confidence” over proficiency while their students fall further and further behind? Join the club. Across the country, from New York City to Seattle, parents are wising up to math fads like “Everyday Math.” Sounds harmless enough, right? It’s cleverly marketed as a “University of Chicago” program. Impressive! Right? But then you start to sense something’s not adding up when your kid starts second grade and comes home with the same kindergarten-level addition and subtraction problems — for the second year in a row. And then your child keeps telling you that the teacher isn’t really teaching anything, just handing out useless worksheets — some of which make no sense to parents with business degrees, medical degrees and Ph.D.s specializing in econometric analysis. And then you notice that it’s the University of Chicago education department, not the mathematics department, that is behind this nonsense. And then you Google “Everyday Math” and discover that countless moms and dads just like you — and a few brave teachers with their heads screwed on straight — have had similarly horrifying experiences. Like the Illinois mom who found these “math” problems in the fifth-grade “Everyday Math” textbook: A. If math were a color, it would be –, because –. B. If it were a food, it would be –, because –. C. If it were weather, it would be –, because –. And then you realize your child has become a victim of “Fuzzy Math,” the “New New Math,” the dumbed-down, politically correct, euphemism-filled edu-folly corrupting both public and private schools nationwide. 1munch.jpg And then you feel like the subject of Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” as you take on the seemingly futile task of waking up other parents and fighting the edu-cracy to restore a rigorous curriculum in your child’s classroom. New York City teacher Matthew Clavel described his frustration with “Everyday Math” in a 2003 article for City Journal: “The curriculum’s failure was undeniable: Not one of my students knew his or her times tables, and few had mastered even the most basic operations; knowledge of multiplication and division was abysmal. . . . what would you do, if you discovered that none of your fourth-graders could correctly tell you the answer to four times eight?” But don’t give up and don’t give in. While New York City remains wedded to “Everyday Math” (which became the mandated standard in 2003), the state of Texas just voted before Thanksgiving to drop the University of Chicago textbooks for third-graders. School board members lambasted the math program for failing to prepare students for college. It’s an important salvo in the math wars because Texas is one of the biggest markets for school textbooks. As Texas goes, so goes the nation. Meanwhile, grass-roots groups such as Mathematically Correct (mathematicallycorrect.com) and Where’s The Math? (wheresthemath.com) are alerting parents to how their children are being used as educational guinea pigs. And teachers and math professionals who haven’t drunk the p.c. Kool-Aid are exposing the ruse. Nick Diaz, a Maryland educator, wrote a letter to his local paper: “As a former math teacher in Frederick County Public Schools, I have a strong interest in the recent discussion of the problems with the math curriculum in our state and county. . . . The proponents of fuzzy math claim that the new approach provides a ‘deep conceptual understanding.’ Those words, however, hide the truth. Students today are not expected to master basic addition, subtraction and multiplication. These fundamental skills are necessary for a truly deep understanding of math, but fuzzy math advocates are masters at using vocabulary that sounds good to parents, but means something different to educators.” Members of the West Puget Sound Chapter of the Washington Society of Professional Engineers also stepped forward in their community: “For 35 years, we have been subjected to a failed experiment, ‘new math.’ Mathematics depends on individual problem-solving ability to arrive at the correct answer. Math does not lend itself to ‘fuzzy’ answers. The solution is to recognize the failure of the Constructivist Curriculum as it relates to mathematics and science, eliminate it and return to the hard core basics using texts like the Singapore Math.” If Fuzzy Math were a color, it would be neon green like those Mr. Yuk labels warning children not to ingest poisonous substances. Do not swallow! http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/28/fuzzy...nwide-epidemic/ |
|
|
|
| Mr.Bean | May 23 2008, 09:16 PM Post #1529 |
|
Advanced Member
|
My kids go to a school that uses EveryDay Math. In my opinion it sucks. Why do I think this? For starters it simply frustrates my kids. I'm no math genius so I can relate to my kids' frustrations. They are given homework for concepts they have never/rarely seen in class. This leaves my wife and I (mostly my wife) with the difficult task of trying to encourage my kids to do their homework when it does NOTHING but frustrate them. I'm not one who wants to coddle my kids through life - I think age-appropriate challenges are an important part of growing and learning and thinking and doing. I tend to see Everyday Math as a cop-out. I agree - to a point - with the curriculum in that mathematics needs to have a context. Kids are helped by seeing why/where math fits into the "real" world. However, the means of giving it to kids in the way that it's done leads me to my second objection with the curriculum. It teaches mediocrity over mastery. The entire idea behind Everyday Math is that you introduce it without expecting the kids to master it, and then you drop it for a while and bring it back again with some specific application and then drop it and bring it back again when expecting additional application -- basically a spiral. As I see it, it teaches my kids to never strive for mastery -- they know that right now it's all right if they don't get a good 'grade' (not that grades are given in elementary school anymore...but I digress). But that's only after we've consoled them and tried teaching them a technique they are NOT learning in school...... Plain and simple - this curriculum is not the answer. Tomorrow is election day where I live and there are candidates for school board that are against Everyday Math - I'm voting for them. http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com/2007/04...ryday-math.html |
|
|
|
| Mr.Bean | May 23 2008, 09:21 PM Post #1530 |
|
Advanced Member
|
MATH WARS So you've got thirteen, And you take away seven, And that leaves five... ...Well, six actually. But the idea is the important thing. --"New Math" by Tom Lehrer (1965) Reinventing math is an old tradition in this country. It has been around at least since the 1960s, when the inimitable Tom Lehrer mocked the New Math in Berkeley cafes. Even Beatniks understood that a method that highlights concepts at the expense of plain old calculation would add up to trouble. And, as it happened, the New Math's introduction in schools across the country coincided with the onset of a multi-year decline in math scores. Today the original New Math is old hat, but many folks in the education world are hawking yet another reform. It is known by names like "Connected Math," or "Everyday Math." Not surprisingly, the New New Math has a lot in common with the Old New Math. Like its forerunner, it focuses on concepts and theory, scorning textbooks and pencil-and-paper computation as "rote drill." And like its forerunner, today's New Math has powerful allies. Education Secretary Richard Riley and other Clintonites smile on it. Eight of the 10 curriculums recently recommended for nationwide use by an influential Education Department panel teach the New New Math. Not that all members of the Academy are joining the movement. Within weeks of the Education Department findings, 200 mathematicians and scientists, including four Nobel Prize recipients and two winners of a prestigious math prize, the Fields Medal, published a letter in the Washington Post deploring the reforms. More are now rallying on an opposition Website, "mathematicallycorrect.com". And well they might. For programs of the sort picked by the federal panel turn out to be horrifyingly short on basics. Consider MathLand, which won a "promising" rating from the panel. Its literature says it focuses on "attention to conceptual understanding, communication, reasoning and problem solving." This sounds harmless, but consider: MathLand does not teach standard arithmetic operations. No carrying and borrowing at the blackboard here. Instead, children are supposed to meet in small groups and invent their own ways to add, subtract, multiply and divide. This detour is necessary, the handbook informs, to spare youngsters the awful subjugation of "teacher-imposed rules." MathLand also does away with textbooks--too hierarchical, we suppose. No chance therefore for anything as sane as systematic review. Next comes Connected Math, another panel favorite. It too skips or glosses over crucial skills. Example: The division of fractions, an immutable prerequisite for algebra, is absent from its middle-school curriculum. In shutting the door to algebra, David Klein of Cal State Northridge points out, "Connected Math also closes doors to careers in engineering and science for its graduates." Finally there is Everyday Math. No textbooks here, either. Everyday Math ensures juvenile dependency to calculators by endorsing their use from kindergarten. Rather than teach long division, the program devotes substantial time to that important area of math study, self-esteem. A Grade 5 worksheet asks students to fill in the blanks on the questions below: A. If math were a color, it would be ________, because ______. B. If it were a food, it would _______, because _____. C. If it were weather, it would be ______, because, _______. We'll allow a pause here for primal screams. And then move on to the main question: Why? The reason for the New New Math, as for many other curriculum reforms, is that teachers, school administrators and their unions are tired of being blamed for statistical declines and poor student performances. So with math, as in their campaign to dumb down the SAT, such educators work to destroy or reject the standards that brought them trouble in the first place. Children are different nowadays, goes the line, and cannot be measured by old benchmarks. New Mathie and federal panel member Steven Leinwand explains: "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." Or, as Professor Klein translates: "Underlying their programs is an assumption that minorities and women are too dumb to learn real mathematics." Fortunately, America is not France, where a central government controls every aspect of schooling down to the color of the paper clips. Localities and states write their own curriculums, and can and do fight back against the New Math. California for example, reversed a calculator-friendly policy in grammar schools after scores dropped precipitously. Resource-rich families, too, one suspects, will find ways to compensate for what trendy schools omit. Still, New Math will take its casualties, especially among the poor, adding to the already mounting costs of the decline in national educational standards. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8739/wallstr.htm |
|
|
|
| Mr.Bean | May 23 2008, 09:25 PM Post #1531 |
|
Advanced Member
|
SOCMM LETTER TO THE CVUSD SUPERINTENDENT AND SCHOOL BOARD February 27, 2005 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Superintendent Fraisse and honorable Conejo Valley Unified School Board members: When our group contacted Professor James Milgram of Stanford University , co-author of the California Math Standards, he informed us of the following regarding Everyday Math (EM): “…the recent publication of the book "On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness" by the National Academy of Science, which is the report of a blue ribbon panel of the National Research Council … flatly states that none of the programs like EM have any body of valid research that shows they are effective...Thus, there is irrefutable evidence that this program does not have valid research showing it is effective... So it is safe to conclude that the district is trying a highly experimental, controversial, and unproven program on the district children.” [My emphasis added] The following link will take you to the published study which reviewed the body of research from EM and other math programs. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309092426/html/189.html#pagetop There is outstanding scientific proof which indicates that students achieve tremendous improvements using CA approved math programs. http://www.nychold.com/talk-hook-040404.pdf http://www.nychold.com/report-wbwh-040619.pdf Dr. Martha Schwartz provided our group with a comparison chart of the 2004 math test scores for the Palos Verdes and Manhattan Beach Unified School Districts (see attached pdf). Manhattan Beach uses Saxon Math a CA approved program, and obtained superior test scores to those of Palos Verdes which uses Everyday Math. The higher scores obtained by Manhattan Beach become far more significant when you compare the demographics of the two districts. 7% of the students for Manhattan Beach were designated of Asian descent, while Palos Verdes had a 25.9% Asian student population. Asian students have consistently been noted to out perform other demographic categories in mathematics, yet Palos Verdes schools using Everyday Math failed to out score the Manhattan Beach schools that used a CA approved math curriculum. http://nces.ed.gov/timss/Results03.asp?Quest=1 http://www.hvk.org/articles/0203/258.html http://www.slais.ubc.ca/courses/libr500/00.../Case_Study.htm http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/96/1220/ed2.html http://www.postgradandbeyond.mq.edu.au/ene...ries/story3.htm Perhaps the members of the school board and district Superintendent were never provided sufficient information by the CVUSD curriculum committees, so that you could be made aware of the controversy which surrounds math programs such as Everyday Math. The following links should provide enough information to make the history and the opposition to these math programs abundantly clear. http://www.educationnext.org/20052/28.html http://mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm http://www.nychold.com/em.html http://socmm.home.att.net/page0002.html Knowing these facts makes it difficult to understand the district’s decision to ignore the SBE approved programs and instead use the highly deficient Everyday Math curriculum. We urge district officials to implement math “choice” immediately and provide students an approved math curriculum if they wish. Please, do not allow the “experiment” with CVUSD K-6 math education to continue without also providing parents a “choice” that children receive math instruction using textbooks aligned with the CA math standards and annual achievement tests. Professor Wayne Bishop of CSU LA analyzed the Banyan School math scores over time, and they indicate a drop since the implementation of EM, it appears the CVUSD math “experiment” is failing. http://socmm.home.att.net/page0008.html My husband and I wrote Dr. Fraisse on October 12, 2004 regarding our concerns with the deficiencies of the Everyday Math curriculum. We received a letter dated November 2, 2004 from Martha Mutz the Director of Curriculum for the CVUSD which stated (and I am quoting here), “The SBE identified Everyday Math as an outstanding program.” In fact, the SBE 2001 Mathematics Adoption Report clearly states in black and white that Everyday Math was rejected and failed to meet the CA math standards. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/im/documents/mathrpt.pdf The truth is that the SBE did not identify Everyday Math as an outstanding program, it did however reject the program, and we hope that you will notify all CVUSD employees that informing parents otherwise is neither appropriate nor ethical We have organized Save Our Children from Mediocre Math (SOCMM) to advocate on behalf of parents to ensure there is a “choice” for students to be instructed using a state approved math curriculum. In addition to promoting “Math Choice” for CVUSD students through our web site http://socmm.home.att.net we will work diligently in the future to promote school district candidates that support our goals and we are hopeful that our efforts would help to see those candidates elected. We look forward to hearing from each of you and working together to provide the students of the CVUSD with the “choice” to use a state approved math curriculum. Sincerely, Jo Anne Cobasko Founder of Save Our Children from Mediocre Math Web site: http://socmm.home.att.net http://socmm.home.att.net/050227schoolboard.htm |
|
|
|
| Vanna White | May 25 2008, 06:13 AM Post #1532 |
|
Advanced Member
|
http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...514/1199/NEWS10 Reconsider Everyday Math I am a parent of two LPS students that are in first and fourth grade. My husband and I are currently supplementing the math curriculum because we believe that the Everyday Math program is not meeting the needs of our children. I find myself having to undo what is being taught in school because it doesn't make sense to my children. I have voiced my concerns to my children's teachers at conferences, the school principal at curriculum night, and with the district's math coordinator. While Everyday math is known for raising state test scores, the board must consider the long-term consequences of expanding this curriculum into the upper grades. The ultimate goal of any elementary math program should be to prepare children for higher-level math. According to experts in the field of mathematics, children that are taught using Everyday Math are not prepared for college. The National Math Panel, convened by President Bush, issued a report that calls for a more balanced approach to math education (meaning a combination of the conceptual and the traditional). The report advises that "spiraling" programs like Everyday Math, that revisit topics without closure, should be avoided. It also prescribes instruction with the standard algorithms which is not included in Everyday Math. Districts and states have already begun to model their standards after the panel's recommendations. In light of the National Math Panel's recommendations and the National Council of Mathematics Teachers new "Focal Points," the district should not be expanding a program that is based on a "reform only" approach. The school board should reconsider the decision to approve the use of Everyday Math for our K-4 students and should not be expanding it to our upper elementary students. It's my understanding that the district is concerned about losing $47,000 in grant funds and wants to rush to expand this program before those funds expire. If six students are pulled from LPS because of this program, the district will lose more than $47,000. Our children deserve the best math education. Rushing to make a decision because grant funds may or may not be lost is not in the best interest of the students of this district. Everyday Math will seriously limit the academic and economic future of our children. The board should implement a more balanced approach and reverse the damage inflicted by this grossly inadequate math curriculum. Laurie A. Brenton Livonia No more Everyday Math I am writing this letter as a concerned parent of a fourth-grade student in LPS. I am very concerned because there has been discussion of adopting Everyday Math for the LPS fifth-graders this fall. I just don't understand why you would want to bring an inferior math program to our upper grades. Aren't we all trying to give our kids the best education possible? Research of EM has proven over and over that reform math programs are not good for our children. Too much spiraling and not enough mastery. Please talk to Board of Education member Mr. Greg Oke. He stated at one of the candidate forums "Most of the criticisms with the Everyday Math program actually come from the fifth- and sixth-grade levels. I actually know this because my district has EM. We utilize it up through sixth grade and all the problems we've had with it actually come from the fifth- and sixth-grade level." Do we really want to do his to our kids when research AND experience prove it is not a good program? Mr. Bailey stated that he "saw no problems with EM" when he visited one of the K-4 classrooms. Did you have to sit down with your child and try to explain some of cumbersome methods they use? I did do that with my child many, many nights this past school year and we were both incredibly frustrated. And I applaud all of the teachers out there that have to teach this program. They are doing the best with what they have been given. My son's teacher has been out of class for 10 full days because of "math meetings." I hardly think this is fair to her or her students. Not to mention, if she needs that many classes to teach a math program she piloted, doesn't that say something, too? I am asking youÉ..No, I'm begging you, to please wait on this "adoption." Read the research. Do what is best for our children. Don't make another hasty decision without all the facts. Please listen to the parents, the kids and the teachers this time. Jill McCarthy Livonia |
|
|
|
| Anna Krome | May 7 2009, 09:37 AM Post #1533 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I posted in the wrong place. See Obama on Math. Sorry.
Edited by Anna Krome, May 7 2009, 09:39 AM.
|
|
Krome on Cars | |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |
