| 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 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 16 2007, 06:53 PM (4,939 Views) | |
| yrraH NS | Sep 20 2007, 04:43 PM Post #481 |
Advanced Member
  ![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Here is another video clip illustrating just how "hilarious and fun" division is using Everyday Math. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoQPE84VV8k Man! Think of the fun students will have doing this! <_< BTW, how IS a parent supposed to help their child work through this disaster of an answer. |
 |
 
|
| IlikeLIvonia | Sep 20 2007, 06:11 PM Post #482 |
Veteran
|
EM and other reform math programs promote themselves as instilling a "deep, conceptual understanding" of math in students. Honestly, I do not see any evidence of that from the examples we've seen here. How is this stuff "deep?" I'm thinking that most 1st graders are well beyond an exercise of this caliber. |
|
|
|
| IlikeLIvonia | Sep 20 2007, 06:24 PM Post #483 |
|
Veteran
|
This parent talks about how "deep" her 3rd grader's math is. It isn't EM but a different reform program. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwdELHKB0Tw |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 20 2007, 07:09 PM Post #484 |
|
Deleted User
|
How NOT to Teach Math by Matthew Clavel, City Journal, March 7, 2003. The author describes his experience as a Teach for America volunteer in a Bronx classroom, forced to use the Everyday Mathematics curriculum against his and his fellow teachers' best judgement. Clavel takes issue with the program's over-emphasis on cooperative learning; its placement of "critical thinking" skills before basic knowledge; the haphazard, spiraling, movement between topics; the sudden jumps to advanced topics for which students have not been prepared; misguided homework assignments; and an over-reliance on calculators. http://www.illinoisloop.org/mathprograms.html |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 20 2007, 07:12 PM Post #485 |
|
Deleted User
|
Saxon Math A recent, very interesting study on Saxon is from Anne Arundel County in Maryland, where the 14 schools scoring lowest in math were switched from Everyday Math and Mathland (two fuzzy math programs) to Saxon Math. The results were striking. In all 14 schools, math performance jumped after a year with Saxon:  http://www.illinoisloop.org/mathprograms.html#saxon |
|
|
|
| IlikeLIvonia | Sep 20 2007, 07:38 PM Post #486 |
|
Veteran
|
Dueling Brochures: Everyday Math vs. Saxon Math December 24, 2003 We had an interesting experience when researching math programs for a proposed charter school. We did not want the educational program to be based on popularity or "wonderfulness," rather we wanted the program to have been proven in real classrooms. We'd heard good things about both "Chicago Math" (aka Everyday Math and UCSMP) and "Saxon Math" so we wrote to both, asking for more information. Now of course both would put their best marketing face on, and we knew to take their findings with a grain of salt. Everyday Math The Everyday Math materials arrived first. We were very impressed by all the research that they said went into the design of the program. They illustrated their results using four double-line graphs—one line in the graph represented Everyday Math and the other was a control group—each graph showing pre- and posttest results. But in three of the four graphs the pretest was different from the posttest. This means that before the study, they tested the students using one form of assessment, then after the study they picked a different test entirely! These were the only graphs that appeared that the Everyday Math group did better than the control group, but once you factor in the switcheroo mid-experiment the data becomes meaningless. In the fourth graph, we were pleased to note that both the pre- and post-test used were identical. However in this graph, the two lines were parallel, meaning the Everyday Math group posted an identical gain to the control group! In none of the four graphs was the identity of the school given. We were disillusioned, to say the least. Either the entire group of University of Chicago experts from the Everyday Math program had forgotten how to conduct proper research, or... (at that moment the doorbell rang.) Saxon Math It was the postman with the package from Saxon. We looked at the Saxon materials with low expectations. Their research booklet was terse, just a simple seventy-eight pages of bar graphs, called ?The Saxon Report Card.? Many of the bar graphs were longitudinal, illustrating a before-Saxon base line and a yearly progression afterwards. Some of the results were fair, some good, and others stellar. All of the results were positive. They also compared apples-to-apples, in each case showing before and after results using the same assessment, such as the SAT-9. But what really got our attention was the following: Not only were all seventy schools or districts identified by name and town (from twenty-one states plus the District of Columbia), each included the principal's name! The results spoke for themselves, but we wanted to double-check for ourselves. Using a separate list of Saxon-using schools, we called two Philadelphia principals. Both were very pleased with the program, and both pointed out that their PSSA and SAT-9 scores had gone up every year since they adopted the Saxon Math program. We weren't quite sure what to make of all this. Either this was an elaborate hoax—including the tapping of our phones—engineered by the Saxon folks, or... (at that moment, the kitchen timer rang.) Dinner was ready. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An amazingly similar incident to our Chicago Math experience is recounted in Elaine McEwan's Angry Parents, Failing Schools, in which a pair of former college professors examined the research presented in an Everyday Mathematics (Chicago Math) brochure and concluded "the research was seriously flawed. The snazzy packet was 'smoke and mirrors' and unfortunately a lot of parents and educators were fooled." |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 20 2007, 07:54 PM Post #487 |
|
Deleted User
|
Saxon PDF http://saxonhomeschool.harcourtachieve.com...th_research.pdf Everyday Math PDF http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/educators/references.shtml An interesting read.... http://www.wheresthemath.com/images/Hook_E...,_ESM_Paper.doc |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 20 2007, 09:12 PM Post #488 |
|
Deleted User
|
Math Educators Find Common Denominators By Valerie Strauss Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 21, 2004; Page A10 Confused by the latest "good news-bad news" headlines about how U.S. students compare in math with their peers in foreign lands? Wondering whether the math program at your child's school is teaching addition better than another program might? You aren't alone. Many parents are asking these questions and finding that, when it comes to math, the educational landscape in the United States can be maddeningly complicated. Math programs that give students different ways to answer basic problems are beloved by some teachers, while others scoff and label the programs "fuzzy math." Research reports are issued, then debunked by critics. And the long-running "math wars," pitting traditionalists against reformers, are at high pitch. Any large-scale meeting of the minds about the best way to teach the subject, educators and mathematicians say, is nowhere near -- in part, because the country is so large and education decisions are locally driven. "We have 50 states with 15,000 separate independent school districts," said Gerald Kulm, a math professor and researcher at Texas A&M University. "Our textbooks and other curriculum materials have to suit at least some majority of the people in those districts, and so things get complicated." This month's release of international comparisons of math performance highlighted the confusion. One study showed that U.S. eighth-graders made significant gains compared with their counterparts worldwide, climbing several places -- to 15th out of 45 countries -- since the international math rankings came out nine years ago. Yet another recent study suggested the opposite of progress -- that 15-year-olds in the United States lag behind their peers in most other leading industrialized nations in the ability to solve real-life math problems. Some mathematicians and educators even disagree on whether international comparisons are valid. R. James Milgram, a Stanford University mathematician, said yes; Jeremy Kilpatrick, a University of Georgia professor, said different cultures and educational systems skew the results. There may be some room for hope of a truce in the math wars, according to Milgram and Kilpatrick, both of whom attended a "peace summit" designed to see whether common ground could be found. Richard J. Schaar, a mathematician and senior vice president of Texas Instruments Inc., wooed the two scholars, plus three other figures in math education, to Washington early this month. Also attending was Harvard University Professor Wilfried Schmid, who, like Milgram, criticizes "reform" math programs for failing to teaching children the fundamentals. Kilpatrick and two other leading math educators at the gathering, the University of Michigan's Deborah Loewenberg Ball and Joan Ferrini-Mundy of Michigan State University, hold the view that the reforms are helping students better understand math because they do not rely on memorizing correct answers. To the surprise of all, there was more agreement than they had imagined, several participants said, suggesting that they may be moving toward a "centrist position." Among the topics they said they agreed on: • Heavy reliance on calculators in the early elementary grades is a bad idea. • Elementary school children must have automatic recall of number facts, meaning that, yes, they have to memorize multiplication tables. • Children must master basic algorithms. The meeting participants spent time defining the word "algorithm," which means a set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps. Schmid called it "significant that we do have agreement in this group . . . To me, it is an indication that we are moving toward peace in the math wars." Participants said parents can take these areas of agreement and look for them in their children's math programs. The group plans to continue meeting and to issue a report with math education goals, Schaar said. The fact that their discussion centered on such basic understandings revealed how hardened the sides had become. Controversy over a National Science Foundation-funded program, Everyday Mathematics, developed at the University of Chicago, tells the tale. The program is being used in many schools across the country, including Annandale Terrace Elementary School. On a recent day at the Northern Virginia school, teacher Abigale Braun presented this problem for 21 second-graders to solve: 15+5+9=__. Then she asked them how they got their answers. Dennis Segovia-Ramirez said he put 15 plus 5 together to make 20 and then added 9. Sarah Velegaleti said she knew 5+9 was 14 and just added 15. Laila Elahi put down 15 tally marks on her white board, then 5, then 9, and added them all up. Braun praised them, telling them that there was no single correct method and that it was important for them to figure out the way that worked best for them. She said that in computational skills, her second-graders are far ahead of students using other math programs. Her school's principal, Christina Dickens, said the University of Chicago program helped children improve on standardized tests. At the opposite end of the country, however, Milgram and other math educators have persuaded the California legislature not to allow school systems to use the University of Chicago program without a special waiver. The critics believe that it does not teach basic math rules and leads to computational incompetence. They prefer more traditional approaches such as Harcourt Achieve's Saxon math program. In an effort to help bring clarity to the math wars, the Mathematical Sciences Education Board of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 147 studies done on the effectiveness of 19 math programs used in schools today. The conclusion, released this summer: Not one study had been carried out well enough to prove a program's effectiveness. "Don't believe a thing said to you associated with the phrase 'research shows,' " said W. Stephen Wilson, a Johns Hopkins University mathematics professor. There are programs successful in some schools, but there isn't a single best one, according to experts, who emphasize it often comes down to teachers: how well they understand math and how much they have been taught about the program their school is using. "All the program can do in the best case is be correct, efficient and accessible. Then it is up to the teacher," Schmid said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec20.html |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 20 2007, 09:14 PM Post #489 |
|
Deleted User
|
I am just curious...Is ANYONE pleased with the math after seeing it? I am a teacher and have been pleasantly surprised with the results that I am seeing thus far. My kids really seem to enjoy it and it is 800 times better than what we had. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 20 2007, 09:20 PM Post #490 |
|
Deleted User
|
Pretty Good by Charles Osgood There was once a pretty good student, Who sat in a pretty good class And was taught by a pretty good teacher, Who always let pretty good pass. He wasn't terrific at reading; He wasn't a whiz-bang at math; But for him education was leading Straight down a pretty good path. He didn't find school too exciting, But he wanted to do pretty well, And he did have some trouble with writing, And nobody had taught him to spell. When doing arithmetic problems, Pretty good was regarded as fine; Five and five needn't always be 10, A pretty good answer was nine. The pretty good student was happy With the standards that were in effect, And nobody thought it was sappy If his answers were not quite correct. The pretty good class that he sat in Was part of a pretty good school, And the student was not an exception; On the contrary, he was the rule. The pretty good school that he went to Was right there in a pretty good town. And nobody there ever noticed He could not tell a verb from a noun. The pretty good student, in fact, was A part of a pretty good mob. And the first time he knew what he lacked was When he looked for a pretty good job. It was then, when he sought a position, He discovered that life can be tough, And he soon had a sneaky suspicion Pretty good might not be good enough. The pretty good town in our story Was part of a pretty good state Which had pretty good aspirations And prayed for a pretty good fate. There once was a pretty good nation, Pretty proud of the greatness it had, But which learned much too late, If you want to be great, Pretty good is, in fact, pretty bad. |
|
|
|
| Nikki | Sep 21 2007, 07:58 AM Post #491 |
|
Veteran
|
Some of you may be wondering if EM teaches basic multiplication facts. Straight from the LPS 4th grade student textbook: Basic Multiplication Facts A basic fact is a product of two one-digit factors. 8 x 5 is a basic fact. If you don't know a basic fact, try one of the following methods: Use counters or draw a picture To find 8 x 5 make 8 groups of counters with 5 counters in each group, or draw a simple picture to show 8 groups of 5 objects. Then count all the objects. Skip count-up To find 8 x 5, count up by 5s 8 times: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40. Use your fingers to keep track as you "skip count." Use known facts The answer to a 4s fact can by found by doubling, then doubling again. For example, to find 4 x 7, double 7 to get 14. Then double 14 to get 28. The answer to a 8s fact can by found be doubling three times. For example, to find 8 x 6, double 6 to get 12. Double again to get 24. And then double a third time to get 48. The answer to a 6s fact can be found by using a related 5s fact. For example, 6 x 8 is equal to 8 more than 5 x 8. 6 x 8=5 x 8 +8=40 + 8, or 48. There is a "pattern" to the 9s facts: The 10s digit in the product is 1 less than the digit that is multiplying the 9. For example, in 9 x 3=27, the 2 in 27 is 1 less than the 3 in 9 x 3. In 9 x 7=63, the 6 in 63 is 1 less than the 7 in 9 x 7. The sum of the digits in the product is 9. For example, in 9 x 3=27, 2+7=9. In 9 x 7=63, 6+3=9. |
|
|
|
| Nikki | Sep 21 2007, 08:16 AM Post #492 |
|
Veteran
|
EM alternative methods The LPS 4th grade textbook shows students numerous ways to add, subtract, divide and multiply. The traditional algorithms are not discussed anywhere in the textbook. Addition The "partial-sums" method A way to add in which sums are computed for each place (ones, tens, hundreds, and so on) separately. The partial sums are then added to give the final answer. The column-addition method A method for adding numbers in which the addends' digits are first added in each place-value column separately, and then 10-for-1 trades are made until each column has only one digit. Lines are drawn to separate the place-value columns. Subtraction The "counting-up method Count up from the smaller to the larger number, first by ones, then tens, and so on, and then the odd remainder, and then in a second pass, add up the addends. (Example: If we do 425 - 48 then the second stage involves adding up 2 + 50 + 300 + 25 to obtain 377.) The "trade 1st" method A subtraction method in which all trades are done before any subtractions are carried out. The "partial-differences" method A way to subtract in which differences are computed for each place (ones, tens, hundreds, and so on) separately. The partial differences are then combined to give the final answer. The "same change" rules for subtraction Change both numbers by the same amount so that the smaller number ends in one or more zeroes and the problem is easier. The left-to-right subtraction method A subtraction method in which you start at the left and subtract column by column. First subtract the 100s, then the 10s, then the 1s. Division The "partial-quotients" method (which is explained 4 different ways) A way to divide in which the dividend is divided in a series of steps. The quotients for each step (called partial quotients) are added to give the final answer. The "skip count-down" method "To find 35/5 start at 35 and count by 5's down to 0. Use your fingers to keep track as you "skip count." 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5, 0. That's 7 "skips." Multiplication The "partial products" method A way to multiply in which the value of each digit in one factor is multiplied by the value of each digit in the other factor. The final product is the sum of the partial products. The "lattice" method A very old way to multiply multidigit numbers using a diagram. The "skip count-up" method To find 8 x 5, count up by 5s 8 times: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40. Use your fingers to keep track as you "skip count." "One can well imagine how a pupil who already has excellent mastery of arithmetic can enjoy seeing and understanding how the multiple methods of Everyday Mathematics all lead to the same correct result. The danger of this profusion of methods for pupils who are not so comfortable with the basics is also easily imagined. These pupils, and some teachers and parents as well, will be hopelessly confused. Combine that with the easy tolerance of calculators in Everyday Mathematics and one can foresee that entire classrooms will throw up their hands and rely on the calculator for arithmetic, never to achieve the facility with number and operation that they'll need to advance beyond the grade school level."--- By Bastiaan Braams, New York University(Mr. Braams is a research associate professor in the department of mathematics at New York University.) The Many Ways of Arithmetic in UCSMP Everyday Mathematics: http://www.nychold.org/em-arith.html |
|
|
|
| crazy_cat | Sep 21 2007, 08:46 AM Post #493 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I haven't seen enough yet to make a judgement. The homelinks are going to start next week according to my child's teacher. |
|
|
|
| Nikki | Sep 21 2007, 08:52 AM Post #494 |
|
Veteran
|
hangin' in, What grades are your children in? |
|
|
|
| Spanky | Sep 21 2007, 09:15 AM Post #495 |
Veteran
|
No, I'm not at all pleased yet with EM. My 4th grader has a lot of homework and that is fine with me, but not when a parent has to sit with him everytime and re-explain what they're trying to teach :angry: Quite frankly, if we wanted to homeschool, well, we are not qualified to home school that's why we send him TO school! And how will he take that test next week without a parent sitting next to him? FYI, he was an almost all 4 student in math last year! For him to 'not get it' (his words) is very unusual and frustrating for him. As for '800 times better than what we had'??? Wow, we must have a huge amount of math illiterates out there now since LPS has been using traditional math for years and years. How DO they fill up those AP and advanced classes? |
|
|
|
| BoaterDan | Sep 21 2007, 10:03 AM Post #496 |
|
Veteran
|
Please PLEASE stick around and explain. It may not be apparent from these message, but many of us are still trying to come to a conclusion on this program. One of the questions I've had ever since the pilot program, is how much value was given to the "seem to enjoy" part. Do you think at the end of the year your student will know more USEFUL math than they would have before. Sure, all else being equal I'd prefer for them to have fun, but the goal is student achievement, after all. How is the program "800 times better"? |
|
|
|
| BoaterDan | Sep 21 2007, 10:07 AM Post #497 |
|
Veteran
|
Did you guys see this video in Jim's link? Go here and scroll down just a bit. http://www.illinoisloop.org/mathprograms.html#terc Wonder if we can get that played at a board meeting since we had to endure the teacher telling us how wonderful EM was not once, but twice. |
|
|
|
| Spanky | Sep 21 2007, 10:10 AM Post #498 |
|
Veteran
|
"Do you think at the end of the year your student will know more USEFUL math than they would have before." Thanks BD-That's one of the things that I am trying to understand, too. How is Geometry USEFUL for a 4th grader? What place does it have at this point in their little lives? Aren't they better served by knowing addition, subtraction, multiplication and division? Don't you think Geometry will be better understood after these basic facts are known? Anyone? |
|
|
|
| Nikki | Sep 21 2007, 10:15 AM Post #499 |
|
Veteran
|
It's on the MEAP this year. |
|
|
|
| IlikeLIvonia | Sep 21 2007, 10:56 AM Post #500 |
|
Veteran
|
I'd suggest that parent's get their kid's tested by a professional who can administer a standardized (nationally normed) math achievement test. Get them tested now and then at the end of the year after completing the EM course work. |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |