Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If you haven't read this article yet, it explains very clearly why, at the elementary level, the *quality* of the math teacher, ie, a background in math theory, is tantamount to all else:
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall2009/wu.pdf
Agree, but ASSUME that some teachers are bad and that your child will come in contact with them. Wouldn't you like to have a good curriculum in place as a buffer. Another problem with EDM is that the way it is set up (often no textbook) parents are taken out of the loop and can't work with their kids and supplement. EDM is making more work for the teachers by removing the parents from the educational process.
Anonymous wrote:I've heard that Everyday Math is supposed to help kids see that there are, sometimes, multiple strategies to figure out math problems. I think the idea is to get away from memorization and tune the kids in to problem solving. Is this what you've heard? I'm not saying it is good or bad - I don't know yet - but I think this is the rationale for it.
Anonymous wrote:If you haven't read this article yet, it explains very clearly why, at the elementary level, the *quality* of the math teacher, ie, a background in math theory, is tantamount to all else:
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall2009/wu.pdf
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would be more concerned about the quality of the MATH TEACHERS than a school's use of EDM. FWIW, GDS uses EDM and its math program is arguably among the strongest in the region.
Very good point. The problem with EDM is that it is dangerous in the wrong hands. Believe it or not, there are bad teachers at every school. Sidwell has bad teachers, so does Janney. Some say that the best curricula are the ones that take the bad teacher into account.
Anonymous wrote:I would be more concerned about the quality of the MATH TEACHERS than a school's use of EDM. FWIW, GDS uses EDM and its math program is arguably among the strongest in the region.
Anonymous wrote:I would be more concerned about the quality of the MATH TEACHERS than a school's use of EDM. FWIW, GDS uses EDM and its math program is arguably among the strongest in the region.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Everyday Math is one of a very small select curricula that meet standards set by both NCTM and NSF. They promote a deeper, more conceptual understanding of math that goes beyond rote memorization. If taught well, students learn to problem solve, communicate, think intuitively, and ultimately develop a far stronger repertoire of math skills than most traditional curricula allow. I'm curious what people's objections are besides the fact that it is different and kids don't memorize as much as they once did.
But as the OP, this was not the question. I was really curious about the impact that curriculum has on making a decision.
Well, yes, but threads do evolve over time. Since some people obviously are turned off by Everyday Math, I am curious why. As an educator, I am pretty impressed with it, though I found TERC/Investigations superior. Both are NSF/NCTM endorsed, which is pretty much as good as it gets.
Rather than seeking affirmation that an opinion is widely held, why not investigate the legitimacy of that opinion, regardless of its pervasiveness?
OK in a nutshell:
http://www.nychold.com/em.html
can we please get back to the OP?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Everyday Math is one of a very small select curricula that meet standards set by both NCTM and NSF. They promote a deeper, more conceptual understanding of math that goes beyond rote memorization. If taught well, students learn to problem solve, communicate, think intuitively, and ultimately develop a far stronger repertoire of math skills than most traditional curricula allow. I'm curious what people's objections are besides the fact that it is different and kids don't memorize as much as they once did.
But as the OP, this was not the question. I was really curious about the impact that curriculum has on making a decision.
Well, yes, but threads do evolve over time. Since some people obviously are turned off by Everyday Math, I am curious why. As an educator, I am pretty impressed with it, though I found TERC/Investigations superior. Both are NSF/NCTM endorsed, which is pretty much as good as it gets.
Rather than seeking affirmation that an opinion is widely held, why not investigate the legitimacy of that opinion, regardless of its pervasiveness?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Everyday Math is one of a very small select curricula that meet standards set by both NCTM and NSF. They promote a deeper, more conceptual understanding of math that goes beyond rote memorization. If taught well, students learn to problem solve, communicate, think intuitively, and ultimately develop a far stronger repertoire of math skills than most traditional curricula allow. I'm curious what people's objections are besides the fact that it is different and kids don't memorize as much as they once did.
But as the OP, this was not the question. I was really curious about the impact that curriculum has on making a decision.