.
News Alert
Top 20 High Schools In New Jersey: Schools In…

Letter to the Editor: Fanwood Resident Speaks Out Against BOE Everyday Math Decision

Michael Lewis of Fanwood is hoping the Board of Ed will not "rush judgement" on updating the Math Curriculum with a new version of "Everyday Math."


(Letter to the Editor)

To the Scotch Plains - Fanwood Board of Education:
 
I am writing today in an attempt to forestall a "rush to judgment"
on the merits of updating a Math Curriculum based on "Everyday Math".
 
My personal disdain for the program is no secret.  I have no doubt
that is is both easier and less expensive to implement an update
as to install a completely new program.  Moreover, I have come
to the conclusion that there is actually a certain amount of
parental support for "Everyday Math".  Finally, by all appearances
our students are testing in a satisfactory manner.
 
It is precisely because of these factors that the accompanying
report by the Bridgewater-Raritan School District is so interesting.
If one reads the first twenty or so pages of the report one might conclude
that everything is fine.  Yet its conclusions mirror both my own common sense
as well as what I see in my own household:  The limitations
of "Everyday Math" in the early years result in Math students
"hitting a wall" when it comes to actual application in Middle School;
more-numerate students eventually work around it while less-
numerate students continue to have difficulty.
 
http://www.brrsd.k12.nj.us/files/filesystem/Math%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf
 
(my thanks to Barry Garelick, who posted this link on the Scotch Plains-Fanwood Patch)
 
I call to your particular attention to several points:
 
1) Neither "Everyday Math" nor the concepts associated with so-called "Progressive Math"
were dismissed out of hand - many people see value in the "spiraling" nature of "Everyday
Math" and that is given due consideration.
 
2) "Everyday Math" was measured against EIGHT other programs using a standard
rubric tied to a defined "ideal" program incorporating values associated with both
so-called "traditional" and "progressive" instructional modes.
 
3) Input was solicited from both teachers and parents; the report itself was reviewed
by outside academics in an attempt to ensure thoroughness and impartiality.  (Of special note:
a drop-off in levels of parental support ocurring in grades 5 / 6 even as
teachers continue to support the program; this would correspond with
my own common sense telling me that at this point students might
be expected to rely on a thorough grounding in basic concepts - thus
allowing parents to back away from day-to-day involvement.
 
4) An actual discussion of what happens to many students in Middle School
based on year-to-year tracking of data.
 
5) There is a general discussion of the relative merits of both so-called
"traditional" and "progressive" instructional modes - the report makes
the point that the terms are somewhat arbitrary; an "ideal" incorporates
concepts associated with both modes.
 
6) There is truth in the notion that every publisher has their own
approach (Harcourt alone has at least four!), each with its own
supporting studies.  Moreover, many claim to be tied to
evolving Core Curriculum Standards.  However, if the "What Works Clearinghouse"
of the US Department of Education is to be believed, little of the supporting
research is statistically significant, and that which is proves little.
 
7) There is an acknowledgment that student effort, and student belief in the
ultimate benefit associated with that effort, is very important.  Ironically,
while I might concede that imparting student confidence could well be
considered a strength of "Everyday Math", this confidence might well be found
to be misplaced as time goes on.
 
8) Finally, the report examines whether New Jersey state Core Competency
standards are in fact too low, thus inflating NJASK pass rates (this part 
is dated, and I will defer to Administration on this).
 
My fear is that "Everyday Math" will be retained without a thorough
evaluation of its merit based on student achievement,
and of its strengths / weaknesses against a proper universe of alternatives.
I challenge the Board to THOROUGHLY question the district's Math Supervisor
and Assistant Director of Curriculum on these points - I do not believe
that this can be done in one or two nights.  I further challenge the Board
to THOROUGHLY question its Business Administrator on relative
savings associated with retention as against potential alternatives;
when Evesham replaced "Everyday Math" it negotiated a contract 
with the publisher that resulted in a savings off list on teacher materials
and Medford also cited savings when it replaced "Everyday Math"
this year.
 
I do not discount the cost and effort associated with replacing
"Everyday Math".  Yet districts do spend the money and make the
effort.  As you evaluate the recommendations being made regarding
"Everyday Math", I ask only that all the necessary questions be asked,
the answers thoroughly evaluated, and YOU bear in mind one question:
when it comes to Math instruction in the context of an ever-more-competitive
working environment  "Since when is "enough for enough" good enough?".
 
Respectfully,
 
Michael Lewis
Fanwood

ralphwiggummm February 08, 2013 at 12:34 PM
I'm with Mike on this. Why spend needless money to leave a math teaching system that is doing well by us. Does the BOE get some sort of kick-back or coupons to fancy nail salons every time they change/expand teaching materials and approaches? What is the matter with these people? Don't they see that citizens are struggling to survive and keep their homes. Perhaps they aspire to become like that face-in-palm group, the Union County Free Loaders.
crockpot February 08, 2013 at 01:24 PM
ralph - reread the letter, the BOE is not leaving the math program that is doing well by us. Michael doesn't like the program and wants the BOE to change it. My kids are doing well with this program and we like it and would like to see it continue.
Nicole Bitette (Editor) February 09, 2013 at 06:55 PM
Hi ralph, here is an article with more information about the discussions to renew Everyday Math.
Keith Jones February 18, 2013 at 11:59 PM
Parents, as an interested parent with a Ph.D., and a wife with an MA in education, and a child who suffers from ADHD let me tell you that everyday math has its problems, especially with children who fall out of the average group (lower, or higher). It is not responsive to the individual needs of the different learning styles, capabilities, or limitations of students. It teaches to the mean and teaches by repetition with each iteration serving the average student; so gifted kids are bored, challenged kids NEVER catch on, and the middle 60% or so do fine. This is a poor excuse for a math agenda these days, there are MUCH better programs. Do not limit your teachers by choosing everyday math, dare to i!prove things@
Ally Musano February 19, 2013 at 03:28 PM
Keith, you are so right on! Have hated this program ever since using it during my student teaching many years ago. Now that my 4 children have been subjected to it, I see on a personal level how it does a dis-service to most children. The so called "spiraling effect" does not instill mastery, which is so important to math. I had no idea that evaluating Everyday Math was up for discussion for the district. There are certainly better options for programs. Interested parents should have a say- let them speak to their experiences with this program!
assia February 21, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Keith, I am a math Teacher. You can say about almost any program that "the challenged students never catch up and the gifted are bored". It is not the program it is the nature of Math and the students ability. Have the students take Math is separate group levels according to their ability as early as possible in elementary school. That way the potential of all individual student will be applied the most and we will have future generation that takes Math and all related fields (Sience, Engineering, Technology) seriously.
Anne Fisher March 09, 2013 at 06:49 AM
What a disappointment. I pulled my children out of their NYC public school which uses Everyday Math so I could try to undo the damage, get them back on track, and enroll them in a better, NJ school (possibly Scotch Plains/Fanwood) this fall. If you want to know why Everyday Math is a disaster waiting to happen, read "The Life and Death of the Great American School System." Or more specifically "A Statistician’s View of Constructivist Math Programs" by Nicole O. Stouffer, which details the failings of the constructivist, "spiraling" Everyday Math approach: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/2012/04/statisticians-view-of-constructivist.html
Ally Musano March 11, 2013 at 02:02 PM
@Ann- I wish I read this sooner. What a great article. All parents should take a look- and pass it on to their school administrators. Thank you!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something