Update: This is an interesting video shared with us about Everyday Math.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI

Parent Post: We now we have one more entry into the math education debate! The National Math Advisory Panel has spent the last two years coming up with recommendations for math education based on best available scientific evidence. The panel mainly explored the skills necessary for success in algebra since algebra is the gateway to higher level math classes and because there is a direct relationship between success in algebra and graduation from college. The full report is very long, but on page xvi of the final report you will find a list of 45 recommendations. On reading them, I think many of the recommendations are in direct opposition with some Deer Creek "methodologies" (especially Everyday Math) and policies.

For example, in recommendation 1, "Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided." This is exactly what EM does. The EM "spiral" continually revisits topics without expecting mastery. This is completely different than the Saxon spiral review which requires mastery at every reiteration. Also, the first recommendation calls for "an emphasis on proficiency with key topics". The panel defines this as including achievement of "automaticity as appropriate (e.g., with addition and related subtraction facts), develop flexible, accurate, and automatic execution of the standard algorithms, and use these competencies to solve problems." This is obviously inconsistent with EM because EM absolutely refuses to teach the standard algorithms. The lack of standard algorithms relates directly to the 4th recommendation which calls for proficiency with fractions including decimals.

There are also recommendations that would improve middle school math. From the 14th recommendation:  “ Children’s goals and beliefs about learning are related to their mathematics performance. Experimental studies have demonstrated that changing children’s beliefs from a focus on ability to a focus on effort increases their engagement in mathematics learning, which in turn improves mathematics outcomes: When children believe that their efforts to learn make them “smarter,” they show greater persistence in mathematics learning. …Teachers and other educational leaders should consistently help students and parents to understand that an increased emphasis on the importance of effort is related to improved mathematics performance. This is a critical point because much of the public’s self-evident resignation about mathematics education (together with the common tendencies to dismiss weak achievement and to give up early) seems rooted in the erroneous idea that success is largely a matter of inherent talent or ability, not effort."

How does this directive relate to the completion grades for math homework. When we give out completion grades are we really encouraging children to put effort into math or are we encouraging them to give up quickly?

I think this report is a good starting point for conversations on math education.  The full report is found on: http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html . The final report with the 45 recommendations is a link on this page. There is also a survey of more than 700 algebra teachers. Happy reading! Is next year a math adoption year?

Parent Post: That's great that this parent has had a good experience with Everyday Math.  However, many students are entering into it in 3rd, 4th and 5th grades, not having it the whole way through elementary school.

I can't say that I am against it but the main concern is that each elementary here in DC is using a different math program.  When the kids get to Middle School, they were all out of synch and spent valuable time getting everyone on the same page at the beginning of this school year. 

I still, as a parent, do not understand why each elementary uses a different curriculum.  And while I respect and appreciate this parent sharing their EM experience, I can't help but suspect that introducing it at different grade levels, after other math studies had been used at lower grade levels, would produce less positive results.

Parent Post: I am a parent who was lucky enough to have a student in the Everyday Math curriculum from 1st-5th grade. His ability to talk about mathematical concepts far exceeds what other older children in our family are able to do. Our children have attended the same elementary school with a majority of the same teachers, but our youngest son's math education has been superior. He began talking about Algebra and its concepts in 2nd grade! Hang in there, Everyday Math advocates. This is a good program.
 

Our Reply: Has enough data been collected from the Middle School to effectively review the math programs being used at the three elementary schools?  If so, is the district reviewing such data so that all of the elementary students will be close to the same point when reaching Middle School?  With the opening of a fourth elementary school it is even more important that the students going to the Middle School be close to the same point or the beginning of sixth grade year will be lost to review.

Parent Post: Unfortunately David Miller's website was hit with an automated attack this morning. Before the attack, I had finally been able to post the other side of the math debate. So far at Rose Union, anyone who disagrees with the math debate is usually told they are a dinosaur who is outdated and incapable of change. I think both sides of the debate are knowledgeable and we should be hearing both. I also think that IF the majority of the parents disagree with the math program we should be able to request a different one. The school board does work for the parents. It doesn't work for the administration. It certainly isn't a slave to some kind of state or national education agenda!

I was hoping you would post the information from the main study that is being used to support Everyday Math. I wasn't able to post the last study before the Miller site went down. I think the parents should be able to look at that information and decide for themselves if it even addresses their concerns:

I looked up the studies quoted in the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) website you posted. All of them are available at your nearest university JSTOR affiliated library. I think you can also get a free 72 hour online subscription to Questia (just google Questia) and download them for free. We definitely need to take a look at the studies and not just the summaries.

Basically out of 61 studies on EM, 0 of 61 meet the evidence standards required by WWC. 4 meet the evidence standards "with reservations". The WWC “meets reservations” designation implies that there are some problems with the study that may or may not effect the results. I want to look at the studies for proof that EM does not hurt computation abilities since that is the most common complaint against EM.

1.Woodward, J., & Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63 (3), 373–388. The WWC’s own summary says, (my emphasis added) “the WWC categorized the effect of Everyday Mathematics on overall math achievement as indeterminate. The study also reported subtest results (computation, concepts, and problem solving) and found a statistically significant positive effect on the concepts subtest. WWC calculations revealed a substantively important, but not statistically significant, positive effect for the concepts subtest and a substantively important, but not statistically significant, negative effect for the computations subtest.”

This study used two testing methods to measure math skill changes. The first testing measure used the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The ITBS actually showed a small decrease in computation skills (my main concern). Also, the control group actually improved in some areas more than the EM group. For example, in the problem solving subtest, the EM student’s scores went up from 25 to 37 points. The control group’s scores went up from 25 to 41 points.

From page 11 of the study we see the 2nd test used to get some of the positive results: “The second measure, the Informal Mathematics Assessment (IMA), was an
individually administered test of problem solving abilities. The intent of this measure
was to examine the problem solving processes or strategies a student used in deriving
an answer, as well as the answer itself. In this respect, it is consistent with the call for
assessment which is more closely aligned with math reform and the NCTM Standards (Romberg, 1995). Students were also given a range of mathematical tools and
representations which they were encouraged to use as part of the problem solving. The IMA "tool kit" included a calculator, ruler, paper and pencil, poker chips, and number squares with ones, tens, and hundreds values.”

The IMA is completely inline with the NCTM standards which are accused of being light in the computation department. Children were given calculators to solve the problems. The intent of the test was to look at their problem solving strategies, not their computational ability.

Even though this study was intended to measure the effect of EM on mainstreamed children with learning disabilities, it is consistent with what is happening all over the nation. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released standards in 1990 which were accused of encouraging calculator use from kindergarten while deempahsising pen and paper calculations. School systems are picking up these reform math programs which are in line with the NCTM standards, as most states are also picking up testing methods which are in line with the NCTM standards. The NCTM standards ignore some skills which the scientists and engineers consider key to success in technical career fields. The schools also drop testing methods that might be more likely to show the reform curriculum deficiencies (like the ITBS). Then the reform programs are called a success based on the tests that don’t include the very skills which the NCTM standards ignore. Also, the summaries of the studies don’t always tell the whole story especially where the control group did better than the target group. In this case it is not lying if I tell you that EM did well even if I neglect to tell you the control group did better.

2) Carroll, W. M. (1998). Geometric knowledge of middle school students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 98 (4), 188–197. The What Works Clearinghouse says "After accounting for pretest differences between Everyday Mathematics students and comparison students, the WWC determined that this finding was substantively important but not statistically significant. Based on this study finding, the WWC categorized the effect of Everyday Mathematics on geometric knowledge as being a substantively important positive effect." Even though the finding was not found to be statistically significant, I would accept this as a sign of a positive trend. I have no complaints in how EM teaches geometry. However this study does not address my concerns. My concerns are related to the elementary math skills EM does not teach, not middle school geometry.

3)Waite, R. D. (2000). A study of the effects of Everyday Mathematics on student achievement of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students in a large north Texas urban school district. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (10), 3933A. (UMI No. 9992659). What Works Clearinghouse says, "The Woodward and Baxter (1997) study reported no significant effect of Everyday Mathematics on overall math achievement. After accounting for pretest differences between Everyday Mathematics students and comparison students, the WWC confirmed this finding. Based on this study finding, the WWC categorized the effect of Everyday Mathematics on overall math achievement as indeterminate. The study also reported subtest results (computation, concepts, and problem solving) and found a statistically significant positive effect on the concepts subtest. WWC calculations revealed a substantively important, but not statistically significant, positive effect for the concepts subtest and a substantively important, but not statistically significant, negative effect for the computations subtest. The subtest analyses do not factor into the rating. " The study authors themselves say there was no significant effect of Everyday Math on achievement. However, once again we have that pesky trend towards a negative effect on computation.

4) Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32 (4), 368–398.

What Works Clearinghouse says, "the WWC determined that this finding was statistically significant for the 48 early-implementing schools. For the 19 later-implementing schools, however, the WWC determined the finding to be not statistically significant. Based on this study finding, the WWC categorized Everyday Mathematics as having a statistically significant positive effect on overall math achievement for the 48 early-implementing schools and an indeterminate effect for the 19 later-implementing schools."

This looks good but let's check the actual study. When we look at how the target (EM) group was picked, we see the authors got a list of schools who bought Everyday Math from the publishers. Then they verified this list with a curriculum survey in 1999. They never contacted any school to find how EM was implemented. From page 378 of the survey we see, "  Beyond a simple measure of length of use, we did not seek to distinguish the level of implementation (e.g., percentage of teachers using the curriculum, units or chapters covered per grade, professional development provided for teachers)" We don't know if the longest implementing schools did better because they got better at following EM or because they supplemented more. I am also reminded of our own core knowledge program. We bought it, it is listed as our curriculum but I don't think we are implementing it across the board. Should we be included in a Core Knowledge study? 

When we look at how the comparison group was selected, it appears we don't really know much about that either. From page 380, "At the elementary level, 78 comparison schools reported using 15 different textbook programs, with the most commonly used programs being those published by Addison-Wesley, Houghton-Mifflin, and Scott Foresman. These three textbook programs were used in 56% of the schools in the comparison group and in 55% of schools statewide. Three schools reported using district-designed programs, and several more schools reported using more than one textbook or curriculum program." We only know the math programs of 56% of the control group. Keeping in mind that most math publishers had incorporated at least some of the recommendations from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards by that time, I don't think we can even call this a traditional vs. Everyday Math study. Also, we have to look at what can happen when you average 15 different programs. If EM was a man who was 5 ft tall and he was compared to a group of 14 men who were 4'9" and one man who was 8'4". The average of the 15 other men would be just under 5 ft. We certainly can't claim that EM is the tallest man in the room.

Looking at the tests used, the baseline test at the beginning of the study was the Massachussetts Educational Assessment Program (MAEP) and the final test is the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assesment System. Once again, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assesment System was written to conform to the NCTM standards and which has less and easier computation questions. The authors address this test difference by claiming that for computation, "by 1996,  Everyday Mathematics students already showed greater gains than the comparison group on the old MEAP test, which preceded state frameworks and was not particularly aligned to the NCTM Standards." I didn't see any data supporting this assertion in the study so we don't know how big this difference is or if the difference was statistically significant. Also, with 15 control group programs, we once again don't know if there were a couple of programs scoring higher than EM.

After reading this study, I think better studies are needed that specifically address the computation issue. Everyone should be able to read this and make up their own mind.

November 8, 2006 saw a post regarding Rose Union's new Everyday Math program. Replies to this have been overwhelming. Please see below:

November 10, 2006

Parent Post

Based on the RU website message posted by the principal last week, Mrs. Riggs, she is asking for an open dialogue with parents about their concerns. In my interactions with Mrs. Riggs, I have found her to be open, genuine, intelligent and reasonable. A meeting with her to discuss concerns about the text and how RU is working towards strong math achievement would be a logical step. I appreciate that the parents in this district care so deeply about their children’s educations, but I wonder if this is really a school or district problem? Maybe some children are experiencing challenges adjusting to a different way of thinking about math. It seems to me that if your child is having problems in math or any other subject that the most appropriate response would be to meet with the teacher and work out a plan to address that concern. I like the problem solving and math/number sense approach of Everyday Math. Clearly, the text does not address every skill or math concept with equal effectiveness. However, I know based on work my child brings home and what she tells me, that the RU teachers, just like those in the other 2 schools, supplement their math texts with other activities and calculation practice like Mad Minutes. My child is thriving in this math approach and the other math activities and instruction provided by her teacher.

Our Reply

Great Post and we couldn’t agree with you more. As an outsider looking in there are two problems that we see. The first is some parent’s concerns with using Everyday Math and second is how the district as a whole implements new curriculum.

As for the Everyday Math the parents that have concerns should set up a meeting with Principal Riggs and Superintendent Wilkinson to address their concerns. With every issue that we have been involved with personally Superintendent Wilkinson has graciously made time in her busy schedule to meet with those parties involved to work with them to come up with a resolution that best fits everyone’s needs. We are sure you will find Principal Riggs willing to do the same.

As for the way the district implements new curriculum that should be addressed to the school board and Superintendent Wilkinson. This is the second time this issue has come up. First was with the laptop issue and now it is with Everyday Math. Hopefully the board will take the initiative to start the process but if not there is a procedure that allows patrons to bring up the issue. Let’s see what happens

Parent Post 1

From an equally concerned parent, however I’m concerned more about what we choose to complain about. Let’s take on things such as equipping our teachers with better teaching mechanisms for the classroom; this affects our kids in a way that we can quickly change. How about more computers for the classroom, Smartboards for all our classes to help instruct our children, better security for our schools? It goes on and on. Let’s take on things we can change, that make a difference and would give us a leg to stand on when we disagree with school curriculum.

Statements made such as; "Everyday Math is based on the philosophy that children don't need to do complicated calculations because they can use a calculator instead" are not based on facts. If you have an opinion, please express it as such but let us not pass this statement off as fact.

Everyday Math is a widely accepted program that teaches math in various styles based on a child's ability to learn. Yes, it has created some controversy but all children learn differently and this program, and programs like it, allows our children to focus on how they learn best. Those are facts.

You, as a parent, may choose to teach your children differently but this program is not geared for 'one' child, it focuses on all children and is grounded in research. If a parent doesn't like the program because it is not how they learned math 20 to 30 years ago, I would encourage them to keep an open mind and allow their children to work through the program before judging its merit. As research has shown, this program allows a child to explore how they choose to learn math. Once they learn their own method, math becomes easier for them and more fun.

With regard to the statement made about reinventing the wheel; change happens in the school district, at work and in life. As a taxpayer in this district, I think we should give our teaching professionals time to work out how they will teach our children. Ms. Riggs and her newly assembled team of professionals are very qualified and come highly regarded from all over the state, as well as right here in Deer Creek. Why don’t we give them time to set up the learning environment? Why don’t we work to equip them with items mentioned above? Additionally, let us take the time to meet with our teachers and principals before we post negative things about the very people that are having one of the greatest affects on our children.

Parent Post 2

When will it be enough? Since October 2005, Mrs. Riggs has requested input from all interested parents and teachers to meet with her and be part of the process of developing the Rose Union Community. She started with a Parent Question Night, and then had an ongoing Book Group to develop school philosophy and curriculum. This was not a “Cloak and Dagger” organization but an opportunity for anyone to come and put in their input.

Mrs. Riggs and the Rose Union staff have gone out of their way to continue this open communication with all parents and patrons about every decision made and Rose Union is still providing opportunities for parents to voice concerns at PTO meetings, at Principal Advisory Meetings, and at Coffee with the Principal. As for Everyday Math, if you had come to Rose Union’s Math Night, looked at the links on the Rose Union web-page, or had attended Rose Union’s November PTO meeting (all open to the public) you would have learned that Everyday Math was researched and evaluated (along with other math programs) before the decision to adopt this program was made. The Deer Creek School board recognized that Everyday Math is on the Oklahoma State Adoption List, is approved by the NCTM, and trusts the Deer Creek classroom teachers to be professional educators (the best in the state according to test scores), people who know if students are struggling to master a concept one way that teaching it another way or using supplemental materials is not only okay but necessary.

The Rose Union Staff cares about all students, works hard to meet student needs, and tries to provide the best education possible. To help make this possible, parents and school staff must work cooperatively as a team. Both sides should be able to voice concerns and have those concerns listened to and addressed. By anonymously questioning professional ability, what is gained is a break down in communication and trust, what is lost is high quality educators.

Parent Post 3

In my opinion, the few people that are "up-in-arms" over this have probably never been up to the school to observe a lesson or ask a question. They have meetings in their homes and post anonymously on websites. Principal Riggs did not come up with this on her own - curriculum decisions are approved by the school board.

I don't feel that I have enough knowledge to intelligently argue about it but I do have enough faith in Principal Riggs and am open to hearing and LEARNING about "EM" and giving it a chance. If parents cannot handle change better than this, it is they who are being a detriment to their own children. Many in this district truly do seem to be in a "bubble" as is often heard about DC. They don't know how good they have it. Communicate, be open and give it a chance, people - don't create a "we vs. them" atmosphere in your child's classroom.

Our Reply

The three individuals have brought up some great points. With Parent 1 we agree that the school district desperately needs to improve the technology and teaching tools that are available district wide. It would be nice to see the School Board make that a high priority now.

As for Everyday Math or Saxon Math or any other math I too do not feel like I have enough knowledge or experience to tell anybody which program they should use. Until Saturday I have never even heard of Everyday Math. When I did my research on the Internet I was able to find enough research on both sides of the issue so I still couldn’t tell you which is better or who is telling the truth. That is why we put the links on the website for everybody to do their own research and make their own decisions.

The issue we have is not with the program but with how the process is being implemented. What affect will it have on the entire process? If each elementary school uses a different process will the students end up at the same spot? Are they going to hit the ground running in the six grade or is there going to be an extraordinary amount of time getting the students to be at the same spot? Nobody knows the answer to this question but only time will tell. For a great example of how another school district handled this exact same situation read this news article. nychold.com/art-danbury-060304.html Not a bad example to follow in how to decide on what curriculum to use.

As to Parent 2’s question when will it be enough? We may never ever come to a point when it will be enough for everybody but that’s okay. I do take exception to your using the term “Rose Union Community”. Are we not the “Deer Creek School District”? Wouldn’t it be nice if we get to the day where we look at ourselves as one cohesive unit instead of five separate entities?

Just for the record below are the math scores for all of the schools last year. You will notice the low score in the DCHS but that is up significantly since the last testing and if I remember correctly the 8th grade class was the first class that has gone through the system since the last time the district changed the math curriculum. One might think the current system is performing more than adequately. Hence the phrase “Reinventing the Wheel” or "Don't fix it if it isn't broken".

DCES

• 3rd Grade- 96%
• 4th Grade- 99%
• 5th Grade- 99%

Prairie Vale

• 3rd Grade- 99%
• 4th Grade- 99%
• 5th Grade- 95%

DCMS

• 8th Grade- 93%
• Algebra EOI- 95%

DCHS

• Algebra- 50%

November 8, 2006

Parent Post

I wonder what the Rose Union parents think of our new math curriculum "Everyday Math". (EM) This program has already been pushed out of California and is on the decline in Texas after being blamed for a lack of algebra readiness and a high rate of remediation for math at the college level. There are organizations all over the country that have been created to combat EM, including Mathematically Correct, Illinois Loop, and New York City Hold.

Mrs. Riggs says her decision to choose EM was influenced by the other schools that are currently using EM. These schools include Norman, Holland Hall and St. Mary's. I checked the websites for Holland Hall and St. Mary's. Holland Hall uses EM for the first 3 years with supplementation, and then switches to Houghton Mifflin Math in 4th grade and McDougal Littell course 1 (which is DC middle school's 6th grade math book) in 5th grade. St. Mary's switches to Scott Foresman Middle School Math in 5th grade. Both schools supplement the EM with other programs. I suspect that the students at these schools are prepared for middle school math because they don't use EM all the way through elementary school, not because EM is adequate.

Norman has only had EM for 3 or 4 years so the full effect of EM on algebra readiness won't be seen for a couple of years. Also, Norman doesn't seem to do any IOWA or SAT testing of students. Norman calls EM a success just based on the Oklahoma CRT tests. The Oklahoma CRTs are new and not comparable to the tests in any other part of the country. If you check the Oklahoma Department of Education website: www.sde.state.ok.us/announcements/OCCT/OCCTregreport2006.pdf, you will see that the percentage of students, in 2005, who are proficient in the different subjects and grades range between 78 and 90 percent. However, on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) website; nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp, the percentage of students who are proficient ranges from 21 to 29 percent. The NAEP, IOWA and SAT tests have a stronger emphasis on computation.

Everyday Math is based on the philosophy that children don't need to do complicated calculations because they can use a calculator instead. There are many college professors, scientists, computer programmers and engineers (among many other professions) who disagree. If we want our children to be prepared to go into any profession that they chose without being hindered by educational deficiencies, it seems we should listen to the people who use math on a daily basis. Here is a link to an open letter to United States Secretary Of Education, Richard Riley protesting the inclusion of Everyday Math on a list of "exemplary" and "promising" math programs: www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm This letter was signed by 200 of the nations leading mathematicians and educators.

Our Reply

We are not against changing the system. We do have a problem with the district not properly evaluating new systems. Had they done their homework with Everyday Math, they would have seen that this is a flawed system. We are not opposed to finding new ways to educate our children but have to wonder why our district feels the need to reinvent the wheel. This is a classic example of what is wrong with our district. These types of decisions are made all the time with no obvious planning or research.

I would love to see the report given to justify using more than one type of educational process to the students. All children eventually feed into the Middle School and then the High School. Those schools math departments have to work with what the elementary schools feed them. Did anybody bother to ask the Middle School for their input or how about the High School? I am certain that our illustrious board would have demanded formal research be done before approving such a change. Certainly the board would have had a public forum before such a change. Actually they did neither nor have we found any evidence that any formal research was done.

So to the morons who tell us to stop griping and get involved, tell us how we could have gotten involved when the cloak and dagger secret society doesn’t give you the chance. Well sorry I just had to vent. Below are some related links in regards to Everyday Math. We recommend you visit them and make your own decision.

• www.nychold.com
  Search on “Everyday Math” in the site search for articles
• www.illinoisloop.org/mathprograms.html
  If you get a chance read the personal stories on the home page
• www.mathematicallycorrect.com
  See why Mathematics PhDs across the USA oppose "Everyday Math"

Post your comments >>