<p>Does your school system use the Everyday Math program? I'd be interested to see how your kids fare against the national averages on exams.</p>
<p>we are currently undergoing a math review process- everyday math is used in some schools- I find that " new new" math, leaves too many gaps</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nychold.com/em.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nychold.com/em.html</a></p>
<p>you might also find this useful
<a href="http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/programs.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/programs.htm</a></p>
<p>Our public school uses Everyday Math/Chicago Math. I am not impressed. I have now had two kids through the program -- S1 was declared ineligible / not ready for Transition Math in 7th grade (the pre-algebra year), we overrode the teacher rec ... and funny thing. His Geometry (freshman yr) and Algebra 2 teacher (sophomore year) said he was one of the most talented math students she had. </p>
<p>S2 -- who was supposed to be right on track for TM -- was told he could only continue to Algebra 1 in 8th grade with an 87 (he had an 82 most of the year until he got beaten down by the 'failing math with an 82' philosophy).</p>
<p>Just MHO on Chicago Math -- combined with MHO on the local public schools -- but I would look beyond if I was looking for new texts or new approaches to math curriculum.</p>
<p>JMHO - run away, run far, far away. Fights every night over math in 3-6, then they don't use it in 7th - change to a more traditional math text, and presto - no more fights. Heard the same from many, many other parents. Also, like cnp55, overrode the teacher rec and getting 90+ on every test. As for national tests, I don't know since it hasn't been long enough to get the whole district of kids to SAT/ACT age. </p>
<p>Why are you asking?</p>
<p>We have it our public school system. S has been in it grade 1 - 6. Our kids test under national averages in most math categories. The administration defends it by saying we need to have an entire class go through the full program and that national tests are not a good indicator of success as our kids are learning different concepts at different times than the rest of the nation. When parents complained, the school offered a session to teach the parents about Everyday Math!</p>
<p>My thought was that it went clear through 8th grade, but I may be mistaken.</p>
<p>btw-I'm not referring to SAT or ACT. I mean standardized tests for elementary/middle/high schools. Our district is below the national average.</p>
<p>Horrible.</p>
<p>My siblings have to go through that nonsense. There is absolutely no emphasis on anything that actually has to do with math. (I'm an engineer who took graduate-level math in college, btw.) It's a horrible way to teach and doesn't really teach the kids the "guts" of math. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nychold.com/art-cct-020216.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nychold.com/art-cct-020216.html</a></p>
<p>I can't find the exact article, but Palo Alto stopped using it after its math scores plummeted.</p>
<p>Our schools use Everyday Math in elementary school, and some other similar standards-based math program in middle school (Connected Math, I think). I dislike these for multiple reasons -- my husband the engineer and math whiz really doesn't like them, and blames our D weak performance on math standardized tests (ACT and SAT) partly on the way these programs teach math. It's too complicated to explain his reasoning here. I know that there are lots and lots of parents who hate these new new math programs. The web site recommended by emeraldkty (<a href="http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/</a>) goes into detail about their problems and is exhaustingly extensive. Unfortunately, since many statewide assessment tests (the ones mandated by No Child Left Behind) are standards based, many districts have to use these programs if their kids are going to do well on those tests.</p>
<p>My son's private middle school used it. The program's a real dog. The kids that used it for a while found themselves very far behind when they transitioned back into the "real" world. I found it too "floaty" and not well grounded. It seemed too random. Although I'm not a math major, I have a strong background in math, engineering, and CS...and have taught my son math through calculus in a home school environment. I would not recommend Everyday Math.</p>
<p>I prefer a more traditional text. While several texts appealed to me, I chose the Saxon Math series (with a few add ons) because my DS has ADD and the Saxon presentation is a much drier one with fewer distractions and it offers a much greater opportunity for concept repetition, which I believe is the key to math mastery.</p>
<p>the more math the better.</p>
<p>It is an abomination. Closely followed by the Connected Mathematics Program.</p>
<p>Chicago math? Don't get me started....</p>
<p>Many years ago, I ended up pulling my daughter out of a local private school because they used Chicago math and she was totally lost. I had moaned and groaned about the curriculum but with no results. Daughter transferred to another small private school where they used Saxon math. Within two months all of her math problems cleared up. Math is now her best subject. </p>
<p>She also has mild learning disabilities and the amount of unintelligible verbiage interspersed with the math was too much for her to handle. (To tell the truth, I couldn't understand the darn stuff either so I couldn't even help her.)</p>
<p>I love U Chicago, but I hate Chicago math!</p>
<p>The lesson where they had the 4th graders ESTIMATE by rounding how much change they'd get back after a purchase put me over the top! So, for an everyday use, I guess a quick look at the money would tell you if you got about the right amount of money back, give or take a little. :) Math is my S favorite subject, yet he is consistently frustrated by it because he say's the lessons don't make any sense. We look at it and scratch our heads. It seems as if the directions are designed to confuse the reader.</p>
<p>I am not familiar with the elementary series of Everyday Math; however, I am very familiar with the secondary component of UCSMP including Transition, Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and Functions, Statistics and Trig. It has been great for my son. Until he began this program, he was bored senseless by too much repetition. He then took two years of AP Calc in high school that was from a different publisher. My daughter is now taking the Geometry component.</p>
<p>Here's what I liked about Chicago math:
1. There's less repetition, which is great for students who don't need to look at 20 examples of the same problem
2. There is one tiny subject section per day (about four pages of text plus problems) which is a very managable amount
3. There is alot of written explanation, so this can almost be self-taught. I think the explanations are usually clear and logical. If a student misses a day or has a poor teacher, the loss is mitigated. This is a big plus for me.
4. There is a problem section called "covering the reading" which covers the basic principles of the section. Then there is a section called "applying the math" that has problems that require a little more in depth thinking. Finally, there is a "review" section that has problems containing concepts from previous sections. </p>
<p>What I didn't like:
1. If you don't get it, there are not alot of problems to practice unless your teacher provides the Lesson Masters worksheets.
2. There are a few sections that seemed unnecessary, such as computer programming and graphing calculators. Our teachers just skipped these.</p>
<p>I agree that this might not be the best program for kids who need alot of repetition (although UCSMP offers "Lesson Masters" that are additional practice worksheets), nor for kids without good reading skills. But it worked for us!</p>
<p>baseballmom- I don't know what Math program my youngest used in elementary school but I do remember the dreaded guess and estimate problems. I also remember looking at them and thinking I have no idea what they are trying to do. I was shocked that on one homework I said to my D just add and subtract them the "normal" way. She was marked wrong on all her answers for having the correct answer. That wasn't answering the question.
My son used Saxon in Middle School. It worked well for him. He now uses CPM in high school. My D who was in the gate track used a different series.</p>
<p>I guess I need to defer somewhat to the vastly negative opinion of Chicago math. I think my son is mathematically talented, and would have probably done well in any program. He like the program because he was less bored than in his previous program (I don't remember what that was, though.)</p>
<p>The choice of Saxon math over another methodology is not based on whether a child needs a lot of repetition or not to learn a concept, it's based on whether repetition is the best method to build a solid math foundation. And, it's acknowledged by most experts in the field that repetition is the best method to build a solid math background. What might distinguish more accelerated math students from more typical ones might be the speed with which they complete the assignments. However, in any case, both should be encouraged to progress through the full spectrum of math at their own pace...and the Saxon program will permit the entire range of students to be successful. IMHO, to imply that repetition is the requirement of simply the less capable is just not true. Repetition is the requirement of the subject matter. It is done for the same reason that repetition was used to memorize the mutiplication tables. The more one revisits a concept, the more firmly engrained it becomes, and the more readily retrievable it is during an exam or when needed tangentially when solving a related off-subject problem.</p>
<p>I did not intend to demean students who need more repetition. Math was my worst subject, and sometimes even repetition did not help me. However, I was not implying that more repetition is needed by less capable students, I was saying it outright. Having been on the other end of the spectrum, I know this to be true. For those of us for whom math is not intuitive, we need more practice. Just like an average violin student needs more practice than a musical prodigy. There's nothing wrong with that. Some kids can memorize their multiplication tables in a few days, some still grope for facts after years (my DD). No offense intended here. </p>
<p>The Chicago math texts, minus the workbook supplements, do not have much repetition of problem types. Each daily section has about 20 problems with little or no duplication of exact problem types. That is enough for some but not enough for others. I don't know what current texts from other publishers look like, but I remember having books that had "problem #1, letters a-g" all the same problem with different numbers. That would be perfect for people like me, but Chicago is good for a certain segment of students also.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I 've never seen this in the literature... could you provide some references? My experience was completely opposite: the talented kids did not need any repetition (if they were learning math concepts, not memorizing the "math facts").</p>
<p>My kids did not have any experience with Everyday Math, but if that is the kind of "math" where the students are writing essays, I'd keep my kids as far as possible.</p>