DALLAS ISD

Posted by PagosaKid @ 11:36 AM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

Yes, the Everday Math text needs to be eliminated entirely. Qualified math professionals and instructors, without fail, say that the Everyday Math curriculum is seriously flawed.

Posted by A Classroom Teacher in Dallas @ 1:43 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

I am in favor of getting rid of Everyday Math. My biggest problem with it was the independent sheets that were supposed to be used for homework. They purposely contained material that students had not been exposed to in order to "challenge" the students to "discover" math concepts on their own. Students who had no support at home were lost and many, many more were frustrated. Discovery should be under the watchful eye of an instructor. The books are horrible.

Posted by Someone who was there @ 3:34 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

Mrs. Miller ,your Dallas SBOE board member is not being truthful . She voted to reject a science book several years ago because it was also a lousy book not unlike this math book. Nothing illegal with that vote.

Nothing more than a temper tantrum by those who object to kids memorizing the multiplication tables in the 3rd grade. What if their calculator needs a battery?

Posted by nancy wilson @ 3:50 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

my daughters 3rd grade teacher who has taught for over 25 years likes this book because it encourages higher level, multiple step thinking. People complain their kids aren't memorizing multiplication tables. Heres an idea for you, practice them at home with your child.

Posted by Somewhere @ 4:30 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

In my opinion, as a whole, this program is poorly designed. On the other hand, there are bits and pieces of the curriculum that are good. I use it in my classroom, but have to do a lot of work supplementing the program. Also, the way the program is designed does not give the students enough time to master an objective, even though they claim it "spirals". Also, the way the problems are laid out and presented look nothing like they way they ask questions on standardized tests, so teachers have to familiarize students with the way the concept will be asked on a test. I give it a D-.

Posted by Mister Teacher @ 6:18 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

We've used Everyday Math ever since I've taught in Dallas. And ever since I've taught in Dallas, I have despised Everyday Math. It's frequently too difficult (NOT challenging) for the kids, it's inconsistent, and it leaps around from topic to topic more than a frog on Jolt Cola.
Also, and I can't verify this, but I once heard that Everyday Math was responsible for the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. Don't quote me on that.

Posted by Jean Pierre @ 6:36 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

I guess the verdict from the teachers commenting here is get rid of it.

Posted by Glendon Plumton @ 6:37 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

I am a student whose school used Everyday Math textbooks, and I was more than prepared for higher level math courses. However, this is because my math teachers had us put the books under our desk, and passed out real math textbooks, like Saxon Math instead. Because of the strong basic math foundation imparted by the traditional method, I have already been able to take both AB and BC calculus, and passed both AP tests with a five. I did see many other students struggling with the class not because they didn’t understand the theory, but because they were unable to perform the basic math operations. Everyday Math had crippled their basic math skills, and those are critical foundations for higher-level math.
Mrs. Wilson, you say that parents should help their kids review math, and I agree with you there. But the sad truth is, many parents don't care. The majority of students receive instruction solely in the classroom, and never receive the benefits that your daughters received. You should not focus on problem solving skills and "higher level thinking" if it prevents the students from actually learning any math. Removing Everyday Math from everyday usage is one of the best things possible for DISD's math scores.

Posted by chris @ 7:09 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

DISD math scores are bad, DISD uses everyday math, therefore Everyday math is bad? Classic example of the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.

Many people think that our problem with education is that we are so worried about whether you have memorized the 12x12 math tables, that no one is teaching basic logic.

Posted by John Dewey @ 7:27 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

Mister teacher said: "Also, and I can't verify this, but I once heard that Everyday Math was responsible for the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. Don't quote me on that."

Well, I'm no big fan of Everyday Math, but the assassination attempt was in 1981 and I don't believe it came out quite so early, but...what the hell. If it gets it out of the schools, let's go with it. Hey, Connected Math was responsible for 9/11!

Posted by envious mom @ 8:32 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

My kids went to school in a suburb of Chicago which used Everyday Math for elementary school. They are still paying the price for the crummy math education they received at the hands of EM -- and not just in terms of multiplication (which I ended up teaching them at home). Fractions, long division, ratios....the list goes on of subjects that EM dabbles in -- but never requires students to master. Dallas is smart to drop EM. Wish my kids' school board had been so wise.

Posted by M. Bliss @ 8:46 PM Tue, Jan 22, 2008

I have lived through Everyday Math with 3 children who are now in high school and beyond. In my community students flock in huge numbers to Kumon math or other tutoring services because of the deficiencies in Everyday Math. Everyday Math does a woeful job of preparing students with a sound math education. Students who are taught by this curriculm are typically calculator dependent, and unable to perform basic math functions because they are deemphasized. Greater emphasis is placed on making math "fun" and expecting the students to discover how to solve math problems on their own. Everyday Math students arrive at middle and high school without the foundation of the basic math facts unless they have had a superior teacher, or parents who have supplemented the program in order to stress the basics.

Posted by Kent Fischer @ 9:28 AM Wed, Jan 23, 2008

Chris,

I get your point. But, for the record, I didn't state that the two were linked -- the district's math czar did. (Click the first link in the above post.) That's what got me thinking about asking for teacher evals on the texts:

"In Dallas, officials rolled out Everyday Mathematics books in kindergarten through sixth grade at 19 schools with low math scores during the 2000-01 school year. By the end of the year, only two of those schools still had low scores; a year later, none of them did, said Camille Malone, DISD's director of mathematics. ...

"The TAKS test is a test of concepts as well as skills," she said. "Had we not had a conceptually based program, I'm not sure we would have had the achievement we have had on TAKS."

While linking the text with the scores might be a "logical fallacy" it's a fallacy the district is promoting.

Posted by tractatus @ 11:48 AM Wed, Jan 23, 2008

"DISD math scores are bad, DISD uses everyday math, therefore Everyday math is bad? Classic example of the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy."

It's also a fallacy to conclude that because the phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" exists, there cannot possibly be a causal link between crummy programs and instruction, and student proficiency.

Posted by Ann Marie @ 3:45 PM Wed, Jan 23, 2008

It's the JOB of the school to teach kids to memorize basic math. Why is it now acceptable to place this on the parents' back? We pay large sums of taxes to these schools to teach our kids. If I want to teach them myself, I'll homeschool. The fact that I'm paying for their education means they deserve to be taught the basics in math. Everyday Math leaves out these critical basic skills. Stop looking to the parents to do the job of the school

Posted by park @ 4:36 PM Wed, Jan 23, 2008

Not sure the kids ever really got the conceptual approach to math. I think they were given TAKS worksheets to memorize to indicate their understanding of conceptual math. The problem with this approach is that without the basics, they will fail their math classes going forward.
This is a great reason to get rid of TAKS, TEKS, etc and replace them with a good, old-fashioned content end of course exams.

Posted by Kent Fischer @ 4:45 PM Wed, Jan 23, 2008

This came in over e-mail. Posted here with permission of the author:

I am a retired D.I.S.D. teacher. Everyday Math is an exercise in futility. Everyone who has any sense knows that it does not provide the basic foundation for a child to succeed. It is the responsibility of early childhood teachers to lay the foundation for learning. Everyday Math does not allow the teacher to lay that foundation. At most, it is confusing and time consuming to most students. Beginning teachers who use Everyday Math,totally, have students that end up weak in the basics. Veteran teachers know better than to completely use Everyday Math. You need supplemental textbooks. Most teachers spend a lot of their time and money copying practice math sheets. If a child doesn't learn the 100 basic addition facts, then he will probably not be successful with subtraction. If a child does not learn his multiplication facts, then he will likely not be successful with division. Then this child will struggle with algebra, geometry, modern math and even trigonometry. The question teachers often ask each other about Everyday Math is" Who got paid to force us to use this text?" Then they hold the teachers accountable. Please give the teachers a break. Let them decide on the textbooks and supplemental materials. Stop letting those who get their palms greased make the decision.

Posted by First Grade Teacher in Hill Country @ 7:44 PM Wed, Jan 23, 2008

I test drove Everyday Math in First Grade with my students as a possible adaption. My team and I have decided that the lack of focus on topics and the lack of basic addition and subtraction facts (other than domino addition/subtraction) will not work for us. We have discontinued the use of EM.Our students could not add by December. We freaked out!!

Posted by Diane Birdwell @ 9:44 PM Wed, Jan 23, 2008

As a World History teacher, I can't tell you which book is better than another, but I can tell you this much: my 10th graders can't do simple three digit math. We grade a quiz, and I tell them to take off 5 points for each wrong answer, and you would think I asked them to calculate the square root of 35,918!

When I served on the Dallas ISD's Curriculum Advisory Committee, I would often remind other members and leaders about wandering away from basics as we ran towards "increased rigor."

"Chris" posted above that logic was more important than memorizing times tables. I would agree, except that one can only use logic IF they know the basics of the subject. If my 15 year old students cannot immediately and quickly determine the score for a quiz where they missed 7 questions at five points each, what else are you doing?

..By the way, the answer is: Your grade is a 65.

Memorizing basic things IS a skill. Med students memorize every bone, joint and muscle. Soldiers memorize orders, ratios, and such. Cooks memorize ingredient lists.

We need a math book and curriculum that teaches ONE concept until it is mastered. THEN you go to the next and master it, then you build from there.

Isn't that how we learned Math back in the Stone Age?

Posted by AW Reed @ 10:08 AM Thu, Jan 24, 2008

John Saxon's math series from kindergarten through high school is still the strongest and most comprehensive series of math books I have ever encountered. The books not only give students confidence in their ability to understand the necessary concepts of mathematics, but they teach students mastery of these concepts and not just how to memorize them to get a good test grade.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that, throughout my more than twelve years' experience in the classroom teaching with Saxon math books, I observed how this math series has helped students who struggled with math, average math students, and National Merit Scholars as well.

I have kept in contact with many of my former students, hearing how well prepared they were for college math and science classes. And I have seen many of them advance into professions requiring strong math backgrounds.

Posted by Arthur Hu @ 5:38 PM Thu, Jan 24, 2008

There are actually WORSE books than everyday math. TERC has absolutely no arithmetic instruction at all. Connected Mathematics has units on adding fractions and area of circles where the textbook has NO complete explanation of how to do either (the student develops their "own" algorithm, which might, but then might NOT be the right one) EM is only one of a series of no-math math textbooks based on the misguided NCTM standards which basically set out make sure that ALL kids got high level math in low grades, and somehow figured that you could add all this terrific new stuff by guttin arithmetic with calculators around. Except they still spend even more time teaching everything BUT the correct way to do basic math. Result is kids spend twice as much time, work twice as hard to learn NOTHING. Zero complaints from parents from Saxon or Singapore. All of these texts were driven by education reform movements at the state and federal levels as a great excuse to spend lots of taxpayer money on "innovative" math programs.

Posted by Janice Donan @ 3:46 PM Sat, Jan 26, 2008

Experienced elementary teacher of 25 years. Last ten years were spent rehabilitating students of a visually/verbally handicapped generation who had not been taught conceptually or analytically from the ground up. Nor were they given the "time" to master the basics. The veteran and master teachers of the 90's saw "discovery" math marching over the horizon to join up with the abused "whole language" scene. Some teachers laughingly termed it the "whole math" fiasco. In assessing possible math texts for adoption for a ten year tenure, we decidedly voted against series such as Everyday Math because we could see that the "spiraling" idea was simply teaching math a "mile wide and an inch deep". The decision-makers in our district saw it only as a progressive, higher-level thinking program; and yes, it might have been appropriate for G.T. classes "AFTER" initial teacher instruction. A colleague and I developed our own math program, authored a book/manual for teacher use, and gave state presentations demonstrating its merit with all students. The book is now extended into two more instructional texts with a set of worksheets. It is being publicized as an "auxillary" program--"auxillary" meaning a "power booster". Endorsed by our principal, we "saw" that this would be a necessary addendum for districts who had adopted the "discovery/fuzzy" math programs. Many districts who have wisely stayed with the traditional math publishers are asking for the auxillary math because of its unique nature of developing verbal/visual skills as children are exposed to "directed discovery". They are being taught outside the context of the "strictly structured" methodology. Students are engaged and learning in an environment of fun, excitement, and acceptance thereby developing a sense of worth and confidence. YES, "rehabilitation" must be the focus in order to salvage a neglected generation of potential mathematicians.

Posted by Terri Leo @ 3:59 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

Ms.Miller's memory needs prompting. In 200, Miller voted to reject a textbook. This case became known as Chiras v. Miller. Ms. Miller the "Miller" in the legal citation. Three Federal Judges on the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of Ms. Miller's right to reject a textbook. They said: "Designing the curriculum and selecting textbooks is a core function of the SBOE. It is necessary for the Board to exercise editorial judgment over the content of the instructional materials it selects for use in the classrooms, and the exercise of that discretion will necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Board members. The purpose of the Board is not to establish a forum for the expression of the views the various authors of textbooks and other instructional materials might want to interject into the classroom. Further, the Board has a statutory obligation under Texas law to exercise that discretion in order to promote the state’s chosen message through the Board’s educational policy." Ms. Miller can't have it both ways. Either she agrees with their decision or she does not.

-Terri Leo SBOE member

Posted by Terri Leo @ 9:43 PM Thu, Jan 31, 2008

The SBOE debated Everyday Math (Grade 3) for two days, Thursday and Friday, Nov. 15 and 16, 2007. Reasons were given as to why the majority of those SBOE members present rejected the textbook.

Any member of the public who would like to listen to those deliberations may do so by going to the Texas Education Agency web site (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/audio_archived.html) where the audio tapes for board meetings are archived.

Mrs. Miller, a member of the SBOE, has been quoted saying "I can tell you that this action and failure to follow the law is unprecedented as it is shameful". Ms. Miller's memory may need to be prompted.

On Nov. 9, 2001, Miller herself voted with the SBOE majority 10-5 to reject an environmental science textbook written by Daniel D. Chiras. She felt rightly that this textbook was unsuitable for Texas public schools.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice sued the SBOE on behalf of Daniel Chiras in a case that became known as Chiras v. Miller. Ms. Miller is the "Miller" in the legal citation.

Three federal judges in Chiras v. Miller issued an opinion & I quote:

"Designing the curriculum and selecting textbooks is a core function of the SBOE. It is necessary for the Board to exercise editorial judgment over the content of the instructional materials it selects for use in the public school classrooms, and the exercise of that discretion will necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Board members.
The purpose of the Board is not to establish a forum for the expression of the views the various authors of textbooks and other instructional materials might want to interject into the classroom. Further, the Board has a statutory obligation under Texas law to exercise that discretion in order to promote the state’s chosen message through the Board’s educational policy."

Ms. Miller cannot have it both ways. Either she agrees with the Chiras v. Miller ruling which states that the SBOE has the authority to reject a textbook, or she does not.

Also as a point of clarification, while Ms. Miller was chair, she sought an opinion from the Attorney General's office on the definition of “majority.” The AG said that a majority is composed of those members who are present and voting -- not a majority of the total number of elected SBOE members.

TEC § 31.024. , the State Board of Education shall:

(1) place each submitted textbook on a conforming or nonconforming list; or
(2) reject a textbook submitted for placement on a conforming or nonconforming list.

In summary, SBOE members did present publicly their objections to Everyday Math (Grade 3), the 5th Circuit Court has ruled that the SBOE does have the authority to reject a textbook, the AG has clarified the definition of “majority”, and the TEC makes it very clear that the SBOE has the right to reject a textbook.

-Terri Leo SBOE member.

Posted by Marian Rosenvinge @ 9:38 AM Tue, Feb 19, 2008

So,

I am a high school Algebra II teacher. Our elementary schools have been using EM for quite some time. Here us what I have observed.

Students can not perform basic operations. They can not add, subtract, multiply, or divide. They are terrified of even the word "fraction". They insist on using a calculator. Instead of graphing systems and finding intercepts they use the $130 electronic device to add anything more than 1 digit. They do one digit calculations on their fingers. 70% of the classes are failing.

Now what?

M