News and Information from the KCRT, the Kenilworth Committee for Responsible Taxation Home D38 News D38 Facts D38 Docs D38 Public Meetings KCRT Feedback   Get on the list for the latest Kenilworth news! Click here!

"Unapproved"?

Lower grades in District 38 use a math program named Everyday Mathematics, which has been controversial in districts across the United States. We were surprised when we learned of this: The last few years' worth of the official minutes of the D38 Board shows no discussion, vote or even a mention of Everyday Math.

By Illinois state law, before a new curriculum can be introduced into a school district, it must be approved by the district's school board. We have repeatedly asked the D38 Board for any evidence that the controversial Everyday Math was approved, as required by state law. So far, it appears that it does not have such approval.

We call on the Kenilworth District 38 board to take a stand!

The D38 Board cannot continue to allow their authority to hijacked with use of unapproved curricula. Even if they wish to permit the use of the heavily criticized Everyday Math in D38, they need to do this officially with a vote, following public discussion.

UCSMP "Everyday Mathematics" (a.k.a. "Chicago Math")

Popularly known as "Chicago math," this program is one of the most pervasive of the original fuzzy, constructivist math programs. It was developed starting in 1985 by a group called the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP). It is legendary for its lack of a textbook, incredibly frustrating "games," heavy use of the demoralizing practice of spiraling and oddball methods such as "lattice multiplication."
• "Chicago" Math by Mary Damer. A dissection of "evidence" offered in support of Everyday Math, a.k.a. "Chicago Math".

• If Math Were A Color...: A classic on Everyday Math and other modern fuzzy math programs, written by Elmhurst parent Marcia Tsicouris, and printed by the Elmhurst Press.

• The folks at District 96 have unintentionally performed a public service by creating a set of Quicktime movies to illustrate some of the methods taught in the notorious Everyday Math program. Take a look! In particular, watch with amazement as we see how fourth graders are taught to do 352 times 241 using the Everyday Math method of "lattice multiplication". Then, after pausing for reflection, go on to see how fifth graders are instructed to figure out how 1876 crayons can be put in boxes of 64 each -- not by doing a normal division, but rather by torturing themselves with something that Everyday Math calls "Partial-Quotients with Double Digits". It's hard to see how anyone can get out of this class without a lifelong dependency on calculators.

• How NOT to Teach Math by Matthew Clavel, City Journal, March 7, 2003. The author describes his experience as a Teach for America volunteer in a Bronx classroom, forced to use the Everyday Mathematics curriculum against his and his fellow teachers' best judgement. Clavel takes issue with the program's over-emphasis on cooperative learning; its placement of "critical thinking" skills before basic knowledge; the haphazard, spiraling, movement between topics; the sudden jumps to advanced topics for which students have not been prepared; misguided homework assignments; and an over-reliance on calculators.

• Put Two and Two Together By Elizabeth Carson, New York Daily News, October 16, 2006. Excerpts: "Here's a math problem for you: Count the excuses people are trotting out for why schoolkids in New York City and State did poorly in the latest round of math scores. ... If, like me, you're running out of fingers - and patience - there's a reason. Nobody spinning the test scores is zeroing in on the single biggest reason math achievement ... lags and will continue to lag: Our schools use a far-too-fuzzy curriculum that fails to give kids rigorous instruction in the basics. ... In New York City, the program required in the vast majority of schools is called Everyday Mathematics. ... If you ask administrators to explain it, they'll use just enough jargon to make it sound decent.
       "But the truth is, Everyday Math systematically downplays addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, which everyone knows are the foundations for all higher math. Instead of learning those basic four operations like the backs of their hands, students are asked to choose from an array of alternative methods, such as an ancient Egyptian method for multiplication. Long division is especially frowned upon. There are no textbooks; that would just be too traditional. Instead, the idea is that kids ought to sit in groups, while a 'facilitator' - that's the teacher - helps. And, oh, one more thing: Calculators are introduced in kindergarten.
       "Not every single piece of the program is hogwash. But taken in total, the curriculum is soft enough to let down thousands upon thousands of our children. That's why it was rejected - twice - in the careful curriculum analysis process they use in California."

• Spiraling Through UCSMP Everyday Mathematics (March 2003), by Bas Braams of New York University. The program's spiral nature and the concept of distributed practice is illustrated by the fourth grade coverage of whole number multiplication and division.

• Dueling Brochures: Everyday Math vs. Saxon Math by Charles E. Breiling, December 24, 2003. "We'd heard good things about both 'Chicago Math' ... and 'Saxon Math' so we wrote to both, asking for more information." Wow -- read what they discovered!

• In her book Angry Parents, Failing Schools Elaine McEwan reports on two college professors who examined the research presented in an Everyday Math brochure and concluded "the research was seriously flawed. The snazzy packet was 'smoke and mirrors' and unfortunately a lot of parents and educators were fooled."

• Evaluation of Everyday Mathematics by David Klein, Professor of Mathematics, California State University, Northridge, July 5, 1999 "I was asked by the California State Board of Education to review materials submitted by Everyday Learning Corporation which are intended to address shortcomings of its K-6 basic adoption submission, Everyday Mathematics. I was also asked to consider the program as a whole. ... My recommendation to the State Board of Education is that the K-6 Everyday Mathematics submission be rejected."

• A Critical Review of the New Constructivist Math Program by Tsewei Wang, Ph.D., professor of chemical engineering at UT Knoxville, March 4, 2001. "[Everyday Mathematics] is very weak and incomplete in its coverage, and it will not prepare high school students to take college math courses upon entering college without first taking a heavy dose of remedial math courses. Implementing it at the lower grade levels will undermine the students' ability to take traditional college preparatory math courses when they enter high school."

• Review of the Everyday Mathematics Curriculum and its Missing Topics and Skills, by Tsewei Wang, Ph.D., professor of chemical engineering at UT Knoxville, April 9, 2001. A more detailed review of the program. The report also criticizes two major longitudinal studies that have claimed effectiveness of Everyday Mathematics.

• Weaknesses of Everyday Mathematics K-3, by David Klein, November 2000. The author finds that Everyday Mathematics K-3 should not be adopted for classroom use. Among the major shortcomings are: (1) The failure of Everyday Mathematics to adequately satisfy 12 of the 17 major grade level standards for grade 3 in his home state of California. (2) The failure to develop the standard algorithms of arithmetic and to require memorization of basic addition and multiplication number facts at the grade levels specified in those standards. (3) The excessive and detrimental use of calculators in each of the grades K, 1, 2, and 3 curricula.

• I'm Failing First Grade by Elena Beyzarov (a doctor of pharmacy and a parent), May 8, 2007. "As I came home from work on Friday afternoon, I just had to yell out to my daughter the one prevailing thought that I had since the minute I woke up that morning. 'Yeah it's the weekend, NO HOMEWORK!!!!!' To add to the effect, I even jumped up and down in my heels. ... You see, my child has been designated by the board of education as one of many 'subjects' who will be undergoing an experimental treatment called Everyday Math."

• Looking at Everyday Mathematics, a collection of teacher reports from a Pittsburgh Teacher Institute seminar in 2003. NYCHOLD calls our attention to the following PDF reports from that collection:
  • Exploring Geometry through the Everyday Mathematics Curriculum, by Roseann Y. Casciato.
  • Games - Are Students Learning or Just Having Fun, by Tawnya Ford.
  • Tracing the Development of "Fact Power" in Everyday Mathematics: Grades 1-5, by Susan Juffe.
  • Operations and Everyday Mathematics, by Vita Nemirovsky.
  • Fractions and Everyday Mathematics, by J. Jay Slosky.

• Reading Mastery Is New Requisite For Solving Math, by David J. Hoff (Education Week, Dec 5, 2001). Offers conflicting views on the amount of reading and writing required in reform mathematics programs, drawing on the Everyday Mathematics program for examples.

• Conflict of interest? McGraw Hill, the publisher of Everyday Math, also owns CTB McGraw Hill which publishes the Terra Nova and other tests used to determine whether teaching has been successful. Several math reformers have commented on the seeming impropriety of the same company selling both a curriculum and the test used to determine whether that curriculum is working.

• Weighing the Factors - Does [New York]'s Standardized Math Curriculum Measure Up?, by Amy Sara Clark, YouthMatters, Columbia University Journalism Program, 2004.

• The Effect of Chicago Math on Everyday Students, by Karl Dahlke (2004?). An open letter to the Troy school district, Troy MI.

• Everyday Math = 'Someday' Problems, by Karen Jones-Budd, posted April 25, 2003, on PBSfx: Parents for Better Schools in Fairfax County, VA. "Some elementary teachers and principals do not deeply understand the ramification of a math education that is poor in content and mastery. They love the warm, discovery-oriented nature of Everyday Math. They also see opportunities for teachers and children to be 'creative' in a group setting. Little do they know that some of the children will not be able to pass by the gatekeeper that is algebra. Or, if these students make it through a less rigorous algebra, then college math stops them dead in their tracks."

• An Email Exchange about the Quality of Mathematics Education Research and "Everyday Mathematics" (March, 2003). This contains comments by David Klein about mathematics education research in general, with special reference to a study by Riordan and Noyce concerning Everyday Mathematics.

• Joel Klein's Math Problems, by Bas Braams (op-ed, the New York Sun, Feb 6, 2003). About the choice of Everyday Mathematics as the standard curriculum for NYC elementary schools. "Mr. Klein would do well to reverse himself and listen to the advice about successful curricula that mathematicians and others have provided to him and his staff."

• To Pittsburgh Public Schools Board of Education, by Wayne Bishop (April 10, 2002) and To Ms Colaizzi and the Pittsburgh Public Schools Board of Education, by Wayne Bishop (Mar 12, 2002). Two letters about reform mathematics programs in the Pittsburgh public schools. The letters provide a very critical look at some of the research cited in support of the Everyday Mathematics curriculum in Pittsburgh.

• My Experience with Everyday Mathematics, by Karen S. Jones-Budd (Feb 12, 2002). A letter to Superintendent Till of Broward County, FL, describing the author's experience with the need to supplement her childrens' Everyday Math education.

• Constructivist Mathematics in the Oak Ridge Schools, by Tsewei Wang and J. Douglas Birdwell (updated April 10, 2001). A letter to the public and to local officials opposing the adoption of Everyday Math in the Oak Ridge, TN, schools system. The letter summarizes some of the concerns, nationwide, over the Everyday Mathematics curriculum, and introduces a critical review by one of the authors.

• A Review of Everyday Math, by Tse-Wei Wang and J. Douglas Birdwell. Transparencies for a presentation to the Head of Curriculum, Oak Ridge Schools, March 26, 2001.

• Concerned Parents of Reading (MA) to the State Board of Education. A letter of Feb 13, 2000 from Dr. Bob Mandell on behalf of a group of parents concerned about the implementation of the "Chicago Math" Everyday Mathematics in their local elementary school. The letter includes an analysis of declining test scores on Stanford-8 and Stanford-9 in the school.

• Concerned Parents of Reading, MA, Letters. A record of correspondence of the Concerned Parents of Reading with their school administration about concerns over UCSMP's Everyday Mathematics. The page also links to letters to parents and to the press. We highlight the Letter to the Editor of June 25, 1997, which expresses the CPR's disappointment over the lack of cooperation from the district administration.

• Reading Mastery Is New Requisite For Solving Math, by David J. Hoff (Education Week, Dec 5, 2001). Offers conflicting views on the amount of reading and writing required in reform mathematics programs, drawing on the Everyday Mathematics program for examples.