Yes, it would be a big turn-off.

Investigations

I wish they would have surveyed the parents on what is working and what is not before deciding on a program. Our school system just had two options to choose from which were both similar to everyday math and from talking to a teacher they already had their decision made before the public forum.

To the PP that asked about another option - Singapore Math. I buy it online with a home instructor's guide. My kids' school uses Everyday Math which I think is horrible. The school thinks they are doing a great job teaching math when in reality my kids are advanced in math because I work with them at home. This summer they both are doing around 30 minutes of singapore math a day. I love everything else about the school so we are staying but it does get annoying when they post my kids' work in class as an example of how well EM works. Other kids in the class are going to Kumon. So the school administrators really don't understand that it is a terrible program.

Isn't there a program that teaches children to think about math without it being so confusing with spiraling and teaching many different ways to achieve the same answer? Seems like there should be something in between Saxon and Every day math. I had a course instructor who would skip all about and give you 10 ways to do each task. By the 3rd task I was exhausted and gave up listening to all the different choices. That is the type of fear I have with this everyday math. Children getting overwhelmed by choices and not following math because of all the skipping around. What do these schools do to counter this problem when teaching from these books?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers have been brainwashed by NCTM. However, if you gently introduce the brighter ones to better materials, like Singapore Math, they often change their minds.

ITA. NCTM is very strange group. I am not sure where their logic comes from.

NCTM is a "very strange group"? Are you a math teacher, professor of math education, or PhD-level mathematician? Genuinely curious here. Why do people on this forum think they (or NYC HOLD) know more about math education than the National Council or Teachers of Mathematics or the National Science Foundation?

Becase most teachers know no math. They have clue what the end point of math education looks like.

Anonymous wrote:Please, EDM detractors, let us know where you got your graduate degrees in math or math education. Your talking points sound a lot like Michelle Malkin's.

Harvard (statistics). Will fight with my life that my children never ever go to school that uses EDM.

Anonymous wrote:Teachers love EM. Mathematicians don't. Yes, I would be bothered.

+1

GDS uses EDM--but their math program is exceptionally strong. In the end, it comes down to the teachers.

Anonymous wrote:How would you know what math curriculum a ps follows before actually attending? Is this discussed during tours?

Yes, you should ask about math and reading programs. Look in the classroom for the textbooks or workbooks they are using. Sitting a desk or using more manipulatives. Educators at private schools are happy with EDM and investigations for Math. I'm amazed that the private schools do not want to differentiate themselves but offer the same stuff you can get in public.

How would you know what math curriculum a ps follows before actually attending? Is this discussed during tours?

We left our PS in MD because of it and opted out of some "top" PS's in VA because of it. For a family with gifted kids in math it is dreadful...I don't know who it is good for- I'm really have never ever liked the curriculum.

Perhaps some value in this discussion to look past the U of C branding of EDM. Info from EDM shows EDM was predominantly developed by people with backgrounds emphasizing the process of education. EDM's most outspoken critics are people with advanced degrees requiring high levels of math (and quite a few parents). Maybe the math experts are just stuck on how they learned too. But that's a bit rich for this parent.

Since the whole purpose of Everyday Math is suppose to be allowing children to learn different methods, I think it would be good if they left room for kids to do more drills, flash cards, and other "old school" techniques as PP describes above. However, I think the biggest problem with EDM is that it is different from how the parent generation learned math, so we have a knee-jerk animosity towards it. We are frustrated when we look at the homework, and can't help because we aren't familiar with EDM techniques. If schools really want to sell parents on this, they need to make LOTS more available online to parents to easily and quickly explain the techniques.

All three of my kids went through EDM at their school, and my opinion about the program are mixed. For my older two sons (who are strong in math anyway) it was fine, and in some respects opened up and fed their curiosity by reenforcing the multiple strategies for problem solving. For my youngest daughter it was not helpful. She could definitely benefitted from a more structured and linear approach where she had more time to master concepts before moving on. Also, EDM never allowed her to gain automaticity in operations like multiplication and subtraction. We had to supplement at home drills and flash cards. Also, it would have been a lot easier for us to help pur daughter with homework if there had been a more straightforward text-- the EDM resources weren't the clearest for my DH and I to follow. Thank goodness we had gone through EDM with the earlier kids or it would have been a disaster! Lattice method anyone??