Everyday Math

(Released to the web January 26, 2008)

Three years ago an article published on readingtonparents.org raised questions about the Everyday Mathematics program used in Readington schools and in many other districts like ours. Today our district is said to be reviewing the program, along with many others, to determine what course our math curriculum should take in the coming years. Some critics believe that this review process is a sham and that the de-facto decision has already been made to forge ahead with an updated version of Everyday Mathematics, a program frequently despised by parents and other community members. On the other hand, there are current school board members who believe that the Everyday Math program is not working well for our children and who could stand up for change when the time comes. Now is a good time to review the program and its record here in Readington.

By way of background, the Everyday Math program is part of the constructivist or “Chicago” mathematics philosophy. It seeks to provide deeper understanding of math concepts by providing multiple methods of seeking the same answer, by using “spiraling” techniques which cause students to touch on methods and subject areas briefly and to revisit them later in their studies, and by offering students an opportunity to find computational methods with which they are most comfortable. On the flip side, critics say that, whatever the goals of Everyday Math, in practice it is a curriculum which is a mile wide and an inch deep, it is confusing to students who seem to chase their tails finding different computational methods instead of finding the answers, it doesn’t provide enough practice for students to master fact recall, it fails totally in areas like fractions and pre-algebra, and it forces parents or the private tutors they hire to supplement with more traditional methods at home. In other communities across the country and even in our own county Everyday Math has been controversial too.

Here in Readington there is deep division among teachers on the effectiveness of the program. Currently the Everyday Math program ends at sixth grade, because students change to a more traditional program (Connected Math)  which does not recognize or encourage some of the more unusual and often less efficient computational methods like the lattice method of multiplication or partial products algorithm. Some teachers in the middle school frown on what they see as wasted time spent in the lower grades on pointless and confusing exercises and they resent having to teach remedial work. Some of them feel that the students are coming to them lacking in basic fact recall, lacking background in traditional computational methods and in fractions and in decimals, and they are annoyed when students try to use the "nonstandard" and inefficient methods learned in the Everyday Math program. Teachers in the lower grades are far from agreement either, some strongly defending the principles of Everyday Math and others siding with parents who believe that our students are missing the boat. Other adults who are in a position to observe Readington children outside of the classroom report math skills which are shockingly poor. Substitute and replacement teachers report similar amazement after spending a day or an extended period in Readington classrooms teaching math.

Not surprisingly, not all Readington teachers practice Everyday Math as the script demands. Many supplement or introduce traditional computational methods, or minimize some of the more outlandish Everyday Math computational methods. The Everyday Math program does not script the introduction of some traditional and common computational methods at all. Our current administration has said publicly that it does not discourage supplementation, although previous administrations did. It is not clear exactly what teachers now believe they should do, but obviously the success or failure of Everyday Math is more difficult to pinpoint when individual students will be taught differently depending on the teacher.

For those who have faith in test scores, ours are nothing to brag about in the area of math. However, there are those who believe that programs like Everyday Math are best aligned to what is being tested by NJ ASK state tests and that, while real-world skills may not be developing in our students, it is the state scores which are being examined more closely. This attitude may explain why administrators across the country often defend Everyday Math in the face of withering parental and community criticism. In Readington our current administration has not taken a public stand, but has sent the question to a committee for review. Meanwhile, we continue to spend five figures a year on Everyday Math materials like workbooks and activity sheets. Parents who want to scream each night the “homelink” pre-scripted worksheets are brought out of the backpacks understand where this money is going.

To summarize, then, Readington parents and other adults in the community generally seem displeased with Everyday Math, teachers are divided, the school board offers glimpses of discontent but has not had a big public discussion on the matter, and the administration has asked a committee to look at the matter rather than to take a stand themselves. A survey of questionable utility on the matter was sent by the district to parents not long ago, but results have not been released. When readingtonparents.org recently asked readers to offer comments, the same sorts of concerns were raised as have been previously discussed. Several parents expressed irritation at having to teach math at the kitchen table and wondered how they suddenly became home-schoolers. They noted a lack of repetition for really mastering concepts and algorithms, inconsistency between teachers and grades, confusion from too many computational methods being introduced, and students landing in the upper grades lacking the needed basics to move forward there. Others confirmed a lack of mastery in areas like multiplication and division and a lack of general conceptual understanding of how to seek an answer to a problem. Parents of children in higher grade levels are the most outspoken. One former Readington educator now employed in another district stressed that the program mattered less than the individual teacher, a thought that some national studies might support.

Alternatives to Everyday Math exist, certainly, and some are supposedly being considered by the math committee. One of those programs which is enjoying a certain buzz these days is Singapore Math. The US version, based on a program developed in Singapore where math test scores on international tests have been high, is being tried in New Jersey by South River, Asbury Park, Metuchen and Florham Park. The November 2007 issue of Educational Leadership published two articles on Singapore Math, both offering praise. Authors of one article, Steven Leinwand and Alan L. Ginsburg, believe that:

“Singapore Math has had great success because it focuses on five essential elements. Its guiding framework presents a balanced and integrated vision that places problem solving at the center. Each element of the system—the framework, a common set of national standards, texts, tests, and teacher preparation programs— is carefully aligned to clear and common goals. With smaller and more targeted textbooks, Singapore has a clearer and more coherent mathematical focus at each grade level. Moreover, its textbooks include multiple representations and “think bubbles,” which clarify main concepts; also, they consistently include bar models to pictorially represent concepts. Finally, students are given rich multistep problems to complete, a practice that supports strong mathematical development.”

A US company offers inexpensive Singapore Math textbooks on an individual basis. Parents who have supplemented at home with this program find it deceptively simple. At first glance it seems almost too easy, but the concepts are being introduced in a progressively harder manner and with a depth far beyond what is found in other programs. Students are able to build on what they have learned instead of “spiraling” from one concept to the next. The textbooks are spare—even sparse—and dispense with the fluffy sidebars and splashy graphics found in most nationally marketed math programs.

Some school administrators dismiss Singapore Math as “gimmicky”, but critics fire back that nothing could be more of a gimmick than the lattice method or Egyptian methods taught in Everyday Math.

Whether Singapore Math or some other nationally marketed program is considered, the fact is that there are strong alternatives to the Everyday Math program used today in Readington. Whether our administration will ignore the complaints of parents and other stakeholders and simply recommend the purchase of the updated Everyday Math program, perhaps using the math committee to pass the buck, or whether it will offer a bolder move toward change remains to be seen. So, too, is the role of our school board uncertain. Historically the board has tended to rubber-stamp the wishes of the administration on matters like this, offering no more than a brief discussion before a vote. No one knows for sure if Everyday Math will be strongly examined by the school board if it becomes the recommendation of the committee and the administration. One thing is certain, though: many parents of students now in the middle school feel shortchanged by a math program that their children used in the elementary grades.