Everyday Mathematics

Everyday Mathematics is a controversial pre-kindergarten through 6th grade reform mathematics curriculum developed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, and published by Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. It is one of the textbooks that have fueled nationwide math wars over how math should be taught, largely over concern that traditional mathematics methods are given less emphasis than unusual methods and a constructivist approach to teaching. According to the publisher, over 3 million students in 185,000 classrooms are currently using Everyday Mathematics.

History

The Everyday Mathematics curriculum was developed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP)[5] which was founded in 1983. Work on the elementary school curriculum started in the summer of 1985. Max Bell was Project Director for the 1st edition, released in 1998. James McBride was Project Director for the 2nd edition, released in 2002. A third edition was released in 2007.

Almost as soon as the first edition was released, it became part of a nationwide controversy over reform mathematics. In October 1999, US Department of Education issued a report labeling Everyday Mathematics as one of five "promising" new math programs. The perceived endorsement of Everyday Mathematics and a number of other textbooks by an agency of the US government caused such outrage among practicing mathematicians and scientists that a group of them drafted an open letter to then Secretary of Education Richard Riley urging him to withdraw the report. The letter appeared in the November 18, 1999 edition of the Washington Post and was eventually signed by over two hundred prominent mathematicians and scientists including four Nobel Laureates (one of which, Steven Chu, has since become Secretary of Energy) and three Fields Medalists, a National Medal of Science winner from the University of Chicago, and the chairs of the math departments at Caltech, Cornell, Stanford, UC Irvine, University of Maryland, University of Rochester, University of Wisconsin, and Yale University.

The debate has continued at the state and local level as school districts across the country consider the adoption of Everyday Math. Two states where the controversy has attracted national attention are California and Texas. California has one of the most rigorous textbook adoption processes and in January 2001 rejected Everyday Mathematics for failing to meet state content standards. Everyday Math' stayed off of the California textbook lists until 2007 when the publisher released a California version of the 3rd edition that is supplemented with more traditional arithmetic reigniting debate at the local level.

In late 2007, the Texas State Board of Education took the unusual step of rejecting the 3rd Edition of Everyday Math after earlier editions had been in use in more than 70 districts across the state. The fact that they singled out Everyday Math while approving all 162 other books and educational materials raised questions about the board's legal powers.

Description of the program

Scope and sequence

Everyday Mathematics is based on a spiral curriculum, where each of the core topics is treated throughout the school year. There are seven conceptual strands, which highlight core topics such as Algebra and Measurement. Mastery of a strand is not required to move on to concepts of another strand. It relies on the notion that reinforcement of important skills is necessary, that skills should be practiced regularly. The key principle of spiraling and distributed practice is that mastery and fluency in basic skills are goals that should be achieved long after they are first introduced (Braams 2003). This is contrasted to seeing an obvious progression of skill buildup occur (student masters one digit addition and moves on to two digit addition) In opposition to this view, however, “…Everyday Mathematics was designed to take advantage of the spacing effect…” (Braams 2003).

Features

The EM program uses six principles to guide each stage of the curriculum. Like other curriculum systems, it employs multiple practice methods such as review problems, flash cards, games, homework, etc. There are 3 essential books for the system, the Student Reference Book (for students to look up things they don't understand), the Student Math Journal (the workbook), and the Student Study Links book (for students who want to tear out their homework). Everyday Mathematics also has a student website (teachers must give login and password) where students can print out homework, play games, and also use an online Student Reference Book. You can access this website at https://www.everydaymathonline.com/student_login.html As much as possible it bases the math problems in real-world examples. Students are asked to explain their problem solving and to listen to other students' strategies, promoting communication and verbal understanding. Students also work in a variety of settings, from individual work to small groups. Class work includes long-term projects and open-ended questions. There is also information sheets that are sent to parents to encourage participation and help them work with their children; homework is structured so that students are meant to rework problems from previous lessons with adults in the home.

In 2007, the Texas Board of Education rejected the proposal to add the third grade textbook of the Everyday Mathematics series to its approved list of textbooks , stating that EM encouraged a reliance on calculators. While EM includes calculators among its tools, it tries to use them in a way that encourages learning rather than replacing learning.

Application in the classroom

Below is an outline of the components of EM as they are generally seen throughout the curriculum.

Lessons:

A typical lesson (sample) outlined in one of the teacher’s manuals includes three parts.

1. Teaching the Lesson—This is where the new content is introduced.
2. Ongoing Learning and Practice—In this section, material is reviewed for maintenance purposes.
3. Options for Individualizing—Here is where options for extending or reteaching concepts are presented.

Daily Routines:

Every day, there are certain things that each EM lesson requires the student to do routinely. These components can be dispersed throughout the day or they can be part of the main math lesson.

• Math Messages—These are problems, displayed in a manner chosen by the teacher, that students complete before the lesson and then discuss as an opener to the main lesson.
• Mental Math and Reflexes—These are brief (no longer than 5 min) sessions “…designed to strengthen children's number sense and to review and advance essential basic skills…” (Program Components 2003).
• Math Boxes—These are pages intended to have students routinely practice problems independently.
• Home Links/Study Links—Everyday homework is sent home. Grades K-3 they are called Home Links and 4-6 they are Study Links. They are meant to reinforce instruction as well as connect home to the work at school.

Supplemental Aspects

Beyond the components already listed, there are supplemental resources to the program. The two most common are games and explorations.

• Games—These are counted as an essential part of the EM curriculum. “…Everyday Mathematics sees games as enjoyable ways to practice number skills, especially those that help children develop fact power…” (Program Components 2003). Therefore, authors of the series have interwoven games throughout daily lessons and activities. Some commonly played games in the series are * Games—These are counted as an essential part of the EM curriculum. “…Everyday Mathematics sees games as enjoyable ways to practice number skills, especially those that help children develop fact power…” (Program Components 2003). Therefore, authors of the series have interwoven games throughout daily lessons and activities.

Games include:
Addition Top It This is when two to three students use a deck of playing cards (0-10). The cards are shuffled and the deck is placed in the middle of the players. Each player takes two cards and adds them together. The player with the highest sum wins that round and takes the other players cards. The game is over when there are not enough cards left for each person to pull two cards. The person with the most cards at the end of the game wins.
Beat the Calculator Three students play in groups - one player is the "caller," a second player is the "calculator," and the third is the "brain." The game begins by the "caller" selecting a fact problem by using a deck of playing cards (0-9). That person selects two cards and creates an equation using the two numbers on the cards. The "calculator" then solves the problem with a calculator as the "brain" solves it without a calculator. Students try to race each other to get the correct answer first to the equation. The "caller" decides who got the answer first and that person wins that round. The players trade roles every 3–5 minutes depending on how much time is available.

• Explorations—One could, perhaps, best describe these as mini-projects completed in small groups. They are intended to extend upon concepts taught throughout the year.

Implementing all of these components is a challenge, as it requires time, and a change of attitudes from students and teachers, can also be a problem. “…Instead of fostering a competitive environment and teaching students through logical deduction, Everyday Mathematics uses a collaborative milieu and allows students to draw their own conclusions after seeing recurring math patterns. Teachers facilitate the process instead of teaching it…" (Knight 2005). Teachers must also have faith in the spiral curriculum in order to implement and assess student work. Teachers who have been trained on grading for mastery, may become frustrated in application of EM.

Scientific evidence

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) (a database math interventions prepared by a contractor for the U.S. Department of Education) reviewed the evidence in support of the Everyday Mathematics program. Of the 61 pieces of evidence submitted by the publisher, 57 did not meet the WWC minimum standards for scientific evidence, four met evidence standards with reservations, and one of those four showed a statistically significant positive effect. Based on the four studies considered, the WWC gave Everyday Math a rating of "Potentially Positive Effect" with the four studies showing a mean improvement in elementary math achievement (versus unspecified alternative programs) of 6 percentile rank points with a range of -7 to +14 percentile rank points, on a scale from -50 to +50. (Interpretation: An average (50th percentile rank) student taught with Everyday Math could be expected to perform on average as well on the measurements used in the various studies as a student in one of the comparison programs performing at the 56th percentile rank.) "

Critics and their rationale

It is difficult for some to trust EM because it seems to differ so much from the math they grew up with. By 2007, school districts that were considering adopting EM were encountering very negative reactions from parents when asked about the choice of EM

Wertheimer (2002) points out that “…[t]he mathematicians are among the few survivors of the traditional mathematics program. They are trying to apply what they know to the entire population”. He also has a great deal of reservations about the ability of these mathematicians to evaluate the complexity of educational methodology that can help everyone achieve.

The Texas Board of Education's rejection of the third grade textbook, in addition to its criticism of calculator use, also included their decision that it provided insufficient preparation in multiplication.

References

• About Everyday Mathematics: Research & Development. (2003) Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• Bas, Braams. (2003) Spiraling Through UCSMP Everyday Mathematics. Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• Current Curriculum: About Everyday Mathematics. (2002) Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• Knight, Michelle. (2005) Everyday Math Has Its Proponents. Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• Foundations for Success, The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 19, 2009
• Johnson, Jerry. (2000) Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Using Research to Shift from “Yesterday” Mind to “Tomorrow” Mind. Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• Program Components for Grades 1-6. (2003) Retrieved June 27, 2006.
• University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2005) . Retrieved June 29, 2006.
• Wertheimer, Richard. (2002) Forum: Making It All Add Up. Retrieved June 29, 2006.

External links

• Everyday Mathematics Center Website
• Wright Group/McGraw-Hill Publisher Web site