Sunday, July 13, 2008

ZERO seems to have changed for SPS Everyday Math

Here is what was contained in the School Board Action Report in regard to Everyday Math. It is one thing to be uninformed and accept this piece at face value in May 2007, but in light of NMAP to continue to base a k-12 math program on Everyday Math is total ignorance. Lets have a vote.... oh no 7-0 guess I am wrong.


• Continuous review of basic skills throughout curriculum
• Introduces math concepts and builds algorithmic efficiency
• Supports use of technology
• Continuous review and pre-teaching is a strong component

• Level of math is rigorous and accessible at multiple levels
• Enables teachers to differentiate for a variety of learning styles and needs.
• Uses the launch, explore summarize lesson design that is fundamental to CMP2

• Menu of assessments – both formative and summative
• Reading level is accessible
• Practice is embedded throughout units
• Student reflection piece is strong

Student Needs
• This program is very engaging for all students
• Data for Everyday Math schools is convincing that this programs has a significant impact on student achievement for all students.
• All materials are available in Spanish and includes a multilingual handbook in 5 languages
• Use of white boards helps teacher see students thinking during the lesson
The program is easy to use for teachers and easy to understand for parents
• This program was developed through an NSF grants and is the only math program shown to impact student achievement by the US Dept of Education. (see attached)



• Curriculum’s use of spiraling does not align well with middle school approach
• Some concepts are addressed earlier than they are in the GLEs
• Parents are skeptical about both Everyday Math and Investigations due, in part, to a lack of emphasis on familiar algorithms.
• Lessons are not multi-day and teachers will need to work to make connections clear to students.
• Organization of materials will require teachers to use different resources to plan and organize lessons and to do lot of copying.
• Units are not modular – so there is no flexibility in moving units around to different grade levels.
• Cost to replace consumables is high



Cost for student materials and teacher materials for grades K-5 for all schools is $1.3 million Professional Development is free for the first year for regular ed, special ed, ELL, AOL, multi-age classrooms, coaches and administrators.

Replace costs are approximately $370,000 annually



Anonymous said...

Who would have thought Lollardy and the Black Prince would return to the 21st century disguised as math educators.

Zero never existed in the vocabulary of a Lollard. Lollards don't think for themselves, so their zero-sum list is off the back of a cereal box.

Anonymous said...

I like your lists of things you have to show for us - it definitely helps to define the problem.

Nice work.

I'd like to see a hyperblog that organizes the topics we discuss, so it makes it easier to find individuals, like Dorn and Brock.

Anonymous said...

High tech high is a great example -lots of technology (very progressive), but the math program sucks; its not any better than at public school. This is not going to help their AYP.

Still not convinced its the curriculum?

US education = cart with square wheels driven by sheep - I don't care if they're red or blue, both are seriously deluded...