Everyday Math

[admin]

Hate it? love it? Discuss it here.

I just found an example of lattice multiplication. What was wrong with the way we were taught?

[jenrik2714]

I don't like it.....

I hate lattice multiplication...how is it going to teach my daughter to think on her toes? What if she needs to use multiplication right away?

I think memorization is the key..but I guess they leaned against that..

wasn't there a poster on the voteno204 webboard who had a website who had info on EM and how it wasn't any good?

[admin]

mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52468.html

Explained

[fence]

We moved here when my son was in 2nd grade, and that was the year they introduced Every Day math. He had never done it before, and seemed to get it just fine. Now that he's in middle school, they don't use EM anymore, but he's still in accelerated math and still does just fine. I will say that I think he has NOT learned multiplication as fast as he might have doing the traditional memorization.

Anyway, EM is supposed to be good at breaking down the steps of math into understandable components. Most of it makes sense to me. Some of it seems like it takes too long to figure things out.

The only problem I ran into, and depending on the student, this could be a pretty big problem, is that I personally didn't "get" EM. Some of the units didn't make sense, especially division so I had a pretty hard time helping my son with his homework at certain points.

This caused some frustration and confusion in our household because I'd only be able to help him with the problems the way I knew how to solve them. And since he had to show his work the EM way, I clearly wasn't much help.

They do go over and over this stuff though, and they keep integrating and re-integrating different areas throughout the program. I thought this was great because they never just forget a unit after they're done with it. They keep reintroducing concepts like geometry, fractions, etc. until the kids master them.

I did learn that lattice is not really a new concept as my CPA geek brother pointed out to me. Apparently we were exposed to it when we were in grade school but I don't remember it. We were part of some of the totally hip 1970s elementary math program, a new format that apparently went well with bellbottoms. It couldn't have lasted long because I have no memory of it at all. Probably went away with that metric system phase thank heaven.

[gatormom]

Okay, I'll bite. I do like EM for the reasons that fence stated. What I don't like are some of the cumbersome tools the children are given to work with. When my daughter's 4th grade class was learning to add and subtract neg.s, it was pretty hard to work with the concept. Imagine you are on a number line and if you are adding face this way and subtracting face that way, walk backwards or forwards, whatever.

The teacher was struggling teaching it. She went back to tried and true rules. If you have this, do this. Trust me it works. Her class is brilliant when it comes to that concept. One of her students even taught an older brother this year how to do it.

I think that the teachers have to trust their ability to teach and find what works for the most children. If you stay in the box, you might miss someone. My daughter's teacher is very gifted. She moved to 5th grade this year and took her whole class with her. We are very fortunate to have her teach our daughter. This is my 3rd year with this teacher, my son had her too.

I should add that I volunteer in the classroom and lucky me, its math.

[title1parent]

I just wanted everyone to know about a new math program over at Still. I went to a Breakfast for Instructional Math students on Wed. morning. The math dept was honoring this group of 7th/8th grade students that were picked for this program this school year. It is a pilot program. It is a traditional math program but most of the 7th graders were already exposed to EM. THe teachers showed what great strides these students have been making and are anxious to see how they will test with the ISATs. I felt this was a great story for all of us to know about regarding this SD.

[Avenging Eagle]

Topher,

Lattice multiplication seems pretty good to me. My daughter(4th grade) can confidently multiply 2 numbers of any size without blinking. It is almost like solving a puzzle for her.

Compare that to the way we learned where you have to carry the numbers, and start creating a huge list which you end up needing to add together in the end.

The old way seems to be more error prone if you have bad handwriting, and the old way doesn't help you think on your feet either.

[admin]

I found an example and now understand the logic.

[momof3]

The older my kids get and the more I read about Everyday Math, I like it less and less. I'm in favor of a more back - to - basics approach. Sounds like The National Council of Mathematics Teachers agrees. Hopefully 204 will rethink EM.

Latest `new math' idea gets back to the basics
Chicago Tribune (IL)
September 21, 2006
Author: Stephanie Banchero, Tribune staff reporter.
Estimated printed pages: 3

For nearly two decades, a battle has raged over the best way to teach elementary and high school math.

On one side sit fundamentalists, who prefer old-fashioned drilling and a focus on the basics. On the other side are the so-called "new math" proponents, who care more about understanding the concepts than performing the calculations.

On Wednesday, a national organization of math teachers meeting in Chicago publicly unveiled a document that the group's leaders hope will turn the profession away from the controversy and toward teaching basic, key math skills.

But, by its very focus on the fundamentals, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics document has already pushed the math wars back into the spotlight and given new ammunition to those who believe that educators in recent decades have given short shrift to educational milestones such as learning one's multiplication tables.

The document, "Curriculum Focal Points," lays out the specific math concepts elementary students should know at every grade level.

First graders, for example, should know how to add and subtract whole numbers. Fourth graders should be able to quickly recall the multiplication tables. And 8th graders should be able to use linear functions to solve problems.

It's the first time the well-respected group, which represents 100,000 math teachers from elementary school to college, has crafted a blueprint that outlines the math skills students should know in pre-kindergarten through 8th grade.

Francis "Skip" Fennell, president of the council, said the group created the document to help rid the nation of a math curriculum that has become "a mile wide and an inch deep."

He hopes that state and district officials use the curriculum guidelines to align their math standards.

"Everyone wants to talk about the math wars because it's a sexy topic," Fennell told a group of math teachers during the council's regional conference in Chicago. "But this document is about curriculum. We are saying that the math curriculum should be coherent, focused and well articulated across the grades. That's what people should be focused on."

Despite those sentiments, the so-called math wars were a hot topic of conversation among the hundreds of math educators who wandered the McCormick Place Convention Center, checking out the new math textbooks, computer programs and games that vendors were peddling.

"I don't think the math war will ever end because there are a lot of people out there who have a lot of passionate feelings about how to teach math and how students learn," said Sharon Rak, who taught 5th-grade math in DuPage County schools for years and now teaches it at Roosevelt University.

"There isn't a math teacher out there who does not agree that all kids should know the basic math facts," she said. "But I think people can disagree about how to teach them."

One Downstate high school math teacher stood up Wednesday after Fennell's presentation and complained that the widespread use of "new math" and a reliance on calculators has resulted in his students not knowing how to perform advanced math skills.

The man declined to give his name, saying he feared reprisal.

"I've seen abandonment of quick recall and that means kids arrive in my class and I have to backtrack and teach them the basics," he told his fellow teachers. "I hope [this document] addresses that and convinces more people to go back to the old way of doing things."

The debate comes as politicians, business leaders and educators nationwide are focusing increased attention on improving math education. Many worry that the nation's schools are not properly preparing students to compete in a global market. Teenagers in the United States consistently underperform on math exams when compared to their international peers.

President Bush, who wants the federal government to take a more active role in promoting math instruction, has created a National Mathematics Panel to provide recommendations for improving math instruction in public schools.

The so-called math wars began 17 years ago when the math council released a report that some viewed as license to back away from the basics.

Critics contended that the document promoted "fuzzy math," by placing little emphasis on mastery of basic skills, while promoting exploration and conceptual understanding. It also recommended that students use calculators.

That document gave rise to "new math," which exploded in popularity nationwide and across Illinois. Many districts, including Wilmette and Oak Park elementary schools, use a math curriculum that some categorize as new math.

Fennell argues that that the 1989 report never suggested that students not memorize multiplication tables or learn long division.

Still, many educators and mathematicians argue that the resulting sea change in instruction led to colleges filled with students who can't do basic math.

Margaret McIntyre, a former Wilmette District 39 board member, said she hopes the council's report gives ammunition to those who support traditional math instruction. The mother of two spent years railing against the district's math curriculum, which she called "extra fuzzy."

"Maybe the math wars aren't over, but we (traditionalists) are in a better position than we've ever been in," McIntyre said. "I don't have any faith that Illinois, as a state, will take steps to align to the new standards. But I have faith that the national pressure to go back to the more traditional method is going to increase. Maybe, hopefully, Wilmette and Illinois will follow suit."

John Carter, a former math teacher and current assistant principal at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, said he thinks the new document could make a big difference in Illinois.

"The fact that they are so concise, so specific about what students need to know--that's the key," said Carter. "People can fight about whether this ends the math wars or re-ignites the math wars. But what we should focus on is how to use [this document] to deliver better math instruction to students."

[blankcheck]

Reminds me of the whole language approach that my older son was taught. After the figured out that did not work, they went back to a phonic style of teaching. That was one of my biggest questions I asked when we moved here many years ago.

[lacy]

Kids need strong computation skills to succeed in higher math. Everyday Math has it's strong points, but it teaches too many approaches to computation for some kids to nail skills they will have to have later.

The lattice method is "cool", but impractical. I made sure my kids could add, multiply, and divide in their sleep (the old fashion way). Because they'll need that for success in algebra, trig, calculus, statistics, etc.

I too hope that they'll go back to basics somewhat. Although I do like some things about everyday math. (it exposes them to higher concepts at an earlier age)

[cantretirehere]

blankcheck said:

Reminds me of the whole language approach that my older son was taught. After the figured out that did not work, they went back to a phonic style of teaching. That was one of my biggest questions I asked when we moved here many years ago.

lacy said:

Kids need strong computation skills to succeed in higher math. Everyday Math has it's strong points, but it teaches too many approaches to computation for some kids to nail skills they will have to have later.

The lattice method is "cool", but impractical. I made sure my kids could add, multiply, and divide in their sleep (the old fashion way). Because they'll need that for success in algebra, trig, calculus, statistics, etc.

I too hope that they'll go back to basics somewhat. Although I do like some things about everyday math. (it exposes them to higher concepts at an earlier age)

Not everything "cutting edge" idea is necessarily good. My oldest child (out of HS) is still suffering the effects of whole language. Since he is my first (and admittedly my own experimental) child, I figured the schools knew more than I did and I did not bother to incorporate phonics into what I was teaching him at home. It was a big mistake that he still pays for.

I learned from my (and the school's) mistakes and taught my other two kids phonics at home and they consistantly score at least two grade levels higher than the grade they are in.

I love phonics! I say if it isn't broken don't fix it!


My kids just missed the everyday math boat. (Whew! picture me wiping my brow in relief.) My youngest kid was in 5th grade when it started, but he was accelerated so he was then doing the 6th grade math and everyday math was only used for elementary. I have spoken with several friends with younger children who tell me that their kids are confused by the constant back and forth that takes place.

For instance, they touch on something in 3rd grade that is studied more in depth in 4th grade and then review it again in 5th grade. In 3rd grade they don't understand how it fits in with what they're learning, so they get frustrated. In 4th grade they remember seeing it before but get upset because they think that they were supposed to have learned something but had forgotten it. Then, in 5th grade they review it again and it bores them because they already know it. At each grade leve they are reviewing old, learning in depth stuff they touched on in the previous grade and also jumping ahead to touch on stuff they will be learning next year. I have a headache just thinking about it.

What is so hard about learning something well, then reviewing it in the context of how it will be used in the next math process you will be learning and then learning that concept well? Did that method really fail us so badly? When I look at our space program and medical advances I would have to say, "No". Will it fail us miserably in the future? Probably not.

Parents have also told me that learning umpteen amount of ways to multiply (or whatever) confuses the kids because instead of just multiplying, they get befuddled trying to determine which way of multiplying would be best for the numbers involved. What a waste of time and energy!

I can understand the teachers having to know all the different methods of solving various math problems so that if a traditional method doesn't work for one kid, they have other ammo up their sleeves to help out the nontraditional learners. But to subject EVERY kid to EVERY math learning method under the sun seems unproductive, confuses kids and may actually be counterproductive to the goal of getting as many kids as possible to actually like math.

Don't get me wrong and think I am against change. I think there are subtle yet meaningful changes that can be made that will help our kids mathematically. The simplest one I can think of is the addtion of letters to mathematical equations right from the get go.

Instead of 1+1=_____ Let's do 1+1=a, a=_____
Do this right when they start learning math. Something simple like this would solve the HUGE problem of kids freaking when they are first introduced to letters in an algebraic equation. Algebra is when kids really start hating math. Why? THE LETTERS CONFUSE THEM! It's a simple change to the learning experience with huge effects in math comprehension a few years later.

IMHO

[204parent]

Lacy and CRH have touched on the single biggest problem with Everyday Math. Trying to learn a dozen different methods of multiplication and division is confusing and counterproductive. The lattice method is by far the most useless method I've seen.

[wvhsparent]

I guess the big question is what is 204 going to do about it?

[bob]

The Trib just did a big article on the lattice method.