In May 2005 Stafford County adopted the Everyday Mathematics curriculum
for grades K5. Everyday Mathematics is a fuzzy math program that dumbs down children, making them incapable of
solving basic math problems.
Strange
(Fuzzy) Math
Reviewing the fifth grade Everyday Math
book reveals some ridiculous methods used in that book for teaching math. There is a 23 page chapter that teaches
nothing but how to operate a calculator. Why would a fifth grade math book devote that much space giving instructions
on how to operate a calculator? The reason is that the odd algorithmic methods taught in the book for solving math problems
are so confusing and unworkable that the students must resort to using a calculator in order to solve math problems.
As if that is not bad enough, the book devotes a 43page chapter to games. That's right, there is page after page of
rules for math games. There is no math instruction given at all in that chapter.
It gets worse. There
is a 56page chapter titled 'American Tour' that simply provides statistical data about the United States.
It contains silly things like train and plane schedules and many different maps of the United States. One
U.S. map on page 312 shows the main roads and trails in the U.S. from the years 18401860. The chapter does not even belong
in a math book. It is a complete waste of space and was obviously put in the book by the publisher as a filler. Did anyone
in the school administration sit down and read this book before they wasted our tax dollars on it?
There
are odd and unorthodox algorithmic methods used in the EDM reference book, which only serve to confuse a young mind.
One method taught in the book is the Lattice Method for multiplying. The Lattice Method is a convoluted way of multiplying
two numbers. However, the authors were apparently not satisfied with the confusion engendered by the Lattice Method, so they
decided to add to the confusion with another even stranger and more convoluted algorithm, which they call the PartialProducts
Method. The PartialProducts Method defies description; it is complete nonsense. The standard multiplication algorithm is
ignored. There is no instruction whatsoever given on the standard multiplication algorithm taught throughout the rest of the
civilized world.
Furthermore, the book teaches a very strange method of division called the PartialQuotients
Method. The PartialQuotients Method ultimately gets the child to the right answer. However, it is so unorthodox and confusing
that no child could ever hope to master it. Even when the book teaches the proper standard column division method it devotes
one page at the end of the chapter and does a poor job of explaining it.
The instructions in the book include
other strange algorithms such as LefttoRight Subtraction, CountingUp Subtraction, PartialDifference Subtraction, SameChange
Rule Subtraction, PartialSums Addition, and ColumnAddition. The algorithms taught in the book are ridiculous.
The most surprising thing is that the total number of pages in the book devoted to teaching algorithms using whole
numbers is 11 pages! That's correct, there are only 11 pages in a 400 page book devoted to explaining algorithms using
whole numbers. Only 3 of those pages offer instruction on standard algorithms. The nonstandard algorithms taught
in the book are so convoluted that by the time the students begin working with decimals and percentages the book instructs
the students in the alternative method of solving a problem by using a calculator. That is no joke. On page 50 the book states:
"Finding a percent of a number is the same as multiplying the number by the percent. Usually, it's easiest to change
the percent to a decimal and use a calculator." The book further explains that "if your calculator has a % key,
you don't need to rename the percent as a decimal." We do not send our children to school to learn how to use a calculator!
Calculator Use Encouraged
The Everyday Math consumable workbooks are just as bad as the reference books. In a survey of volume 1 of the
fifth grade consumable Everyday Mathematics Student Math Journal (volume 2 was not available to be reviewed), a calculator image
surrounded by a circle with a line through it on 72 of the 210 pages of the journal workbook. The following paragraph explaining
the calculator image is found on the Everyday Math official website:
"Everyday Mathematics teaches students
how to use technology appropriately. The curriculum includes many activities in which learning is extended and enhanced through
the use of calculators. At the same time, all activities intended to reinforce basic computation skills are clearly marked
with a no calculator sign." http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/about.shtml#research
The Everyday Math curriculum is based upon the assumption that calculators are to be used.
The sections where calculators are not to be used are marked with an image of a calculator with line through it. If
there is not a "do not use calculator" image, the student is given the implicit permission to use a calculator.
That means that children are permitted to use calculators to solve almost twothirds of the problems in volume 1 of
the fifth grade workbook. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the appropriate use of technology. That
is tacitly allowing a child to be lazy and to ingrain in him the habit of using a calculator as a crutch.
Mind Crippling Crutches
The preferred Everyday Math methods are crutches.
The crutches are needed because the children are not taught the standard algorithms. The lack of skill in standard algorithms
ends up crippling their ability to solve math problems without their crutches. The EDM crutches become cumbersome and hold
children back when the they are later exposed to more advanced math problems. Their crippled minds are unable to sprint ahead
in math, because they trip all over the crutches imposed upon them by EDM. An example of this was demonstrated during a recent Everyday Math quiz administered in a Stafford fifth grade class.
Half the class flunked the quiz. There was a lone child who earned 100 % on the quiz. The quiz required solving problems with
fractions. Everyday Math contains some instruction on common denominators, however, the use of common denominators is not
emphasized; they are only mentioned in passing. The preferred methods for solving fraction problems in Everyday Math involve
using calculators, charts, and visual segmented boxes. The significance of the lone student getting 100 % is that she was
able to do so because her parents instructed her to disregard the primary methods for solving problems with fractions taught
in class and in the EDM book. Her parents showed her how to find the common denominator in order to solve problems with fractions.
Using this simple method, it was easy for her to solve any problem with fractions. The child was able to sprint ahead unencumbered,
while the other children struggled with the EDM crutches of calculators, charts, and shading in segmented boxes.
Two Con$sumable Workbook$
It is notable that for the first through fifth grades there are not one, but two consumable
workbooks that must be purchased for each student in grades one through five each year. That means that each year the Stafford
County taxpayers must fork over approximately $162,266.25 for those workbooks. The CEO of McGraw Hill was interviewed on CNBC
in January 2008, and he predicted a 5 to 6 % growth in income this year. The Stafford County taxpayers can take pride in helping
McGraw Hill increase its profits for the next 6 years by purchasing two workbooks per child that contain problems, most of
which their children are allowed to solve using a calculator.
The Strange Philosophy Behind Everyday Math
One might wonder where the Everyday Math authors got their ideas for their rather odd and counterintuitive
algorithms. In at least one case it was admitted that the idea came from a first grader. On the official Everyday Math website
there is a paper titled "Algorithms and Everyday Mathematics" by Andrew Isaacs, one of the listed authors of Everyday
Math. In that paper, Isaacs states:
"In Everyday Mathematics, as students explain, compare, and contrast their
own invented procedures, several common alternative methods are identified. Often these are formalizations of approaches that
students have devised. The columnaddition method, for example, was shown and explained to the Everyday Mathematics authors
by a first grader." Andrew Isaacs, Algorithms in Everyday Math, http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/educators/Algorithms_final.pdf
.
That admission is quite simply astounding. One of the alternative algorithms that is a standard method
taught in Everyday Math was authored by a first grader!
Reading on in Isaacs' paper, we learn that
the Everyday Math has an agenda of replacing the standard algorithms with alternative algorithms. Isaac states:
"If paperandpencil computation is to continue to be part of the elementary school mathematics curriculum, as the
authors of Everyday Mathematics believe it should, then alternatives to the U.S. standard algorithms should be considered."
Id. at 5.
Why replace the tried and true standard algorithms? Isaacs blames learning and attitudinal issues with
mathematics on traditional standard algorithms. Isaacs explains:
"The prevalence of math phobia, the social
acceptability of mathematical incompetence, and the avoidance of mathematics in high school and beyond indicate that many
people feel that mathematics is difficult and unpleasant. Researchers suggest that these attitudes begin to be formed when
students are taught the standard algorithms in the primary grades." Id. at 2.
Among the alternative algorithms
are those that are known as focus algorithms. "All students are expected to learn the focus algorithms at some point,
though, as always in Everyday Mathematics, students are encouraged to use whatever method they prefer when they solve problems."
Id. at 3.
Did you catch that? Students are "encouraged to use whatever method they prefer." What exactly
does Isaac mean by "whatever method?" You will not believe this, but the students are expected to invent
their own algorithms. Adding to the silliness, the authors of Everyday Math expect the children to invent their own algorithms
before they are taught any standard algorithms. Isaac states:
"When they are first learning an operation,
Everyday Mathematics students are asked to solve problems involving the operation before they have developed or learned systematic
procedures for solving such problems. In second grade, for example, students are asked to solve multidigit subtraction problems.
They might solve such problems by counting up from the smaller to the larger number, or by using tools such as number grids
or base10 blocks, or they may use some other strategy that makes sense to them. This stage of algorithm development may be
called the invented procedures phase." Id. at 3.
This algorithm invention scheme is the mathematical
equivalent of throwing a child into the deep end of a pool and expecting him to figure out how to swim on his own. Before
any guidance is given to the child, he is given a problem and told to "invent" his own algorithm. That is not just
silly, it is cruel.
Oddly, Isaac advocates studentinvented algorithms to be used to replace the standard
algorithms.
"Such alternatives may have better costbenefit ratios than the standard algorithms. Historical
algorithms are one source of alternatives. Studentinvented procedures are another rich source. A third source is mathematicians
and mathematics educators who are devising new methods that are well adapted to our needs today. The Everyday Mathematics
approach to computation uses alternative algorithms from all these sources." Id. (emphasis added)
Isaacs states
that the purpose of replacing traditional algorithms is efficiency. "Mathematics advances in part through the development
of efficient procedures that reduce difficult tasks to routine exercises that can be carried out without effort of thought."
Id. at 7
Notice what Isaacs states is the most efficient method of calculating:
"The U.S. standard
algorithmsthose that have been most widely taught in this country in the past 100 yearsare highly efficient for paperandpencil
computation, but that does not necessarily make them the best choice for school mathematics today. The best algorithm for
one purpose may not be the best algorithm for another purpose. The most efficient algorithm for paperandpencil computation
is not likely to be the best algorithm for helping students understand the operation, nor is it likely to be the best algorithm
for mental arithmetic and estimation. Moreover, if efficiency is the goal, in most situations it is unlikely that
any paper andpencil algorithm will be superior to mental arithmetic or a calculator." Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
Did you catch that? The Everyday Mathematics advocates admit that the standard algorithms used for the past 100 years
are "highly efficient." One might ask: if the traditional algorithms are "highly efficient," why replace
them with invented and other nontraditional algorithms? The reason is that the Everyday Math advocates are not satisfied
with a "highly efficient" method. They want the "most efficient" method. In their view the most
efficient method is "mental arithmetic or a calculator."
That's right, the agenda
of the Everyday Math advocates is to train children to figure out math problems in their heads. If the students are not able
to that, then the next most efficient method is using a calculator. That is why the fifth grade Everyday Math Student
Reference Book devotes an entire chapter to instructions on how to use a calculator. According to the Everyday Math crowd,
both mental arithmetic and using a calculator are "superior" to any paper and pencil algorithm.
The
purpose of the alternative algorithms advocated by Everyday Math is not to teach a efficient paperandpencil method of calculation.
Isaacs admits that point. He states that the whole point of the alternative algorithms is to bring children to understand
the operation of the numbers so that they can be more efficient at performing "mental arithmetic and estimation."
Do not miss the significance of the word "estimation." It has very real meaning in that context. One who engages
in "mental math" is often forced to resort to estimation. Estimation is a shortcut when accuracy is unattainable.
Teaching someone to estimate in math calculations is like teaching someone to be lazy and imprecise.
There
you have it from an official publication of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Center website, http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/
, they have an agenda to replace the traditional algorithms, not to substitute better and more efficient algorithms,
but rather to use those replacement algorithms as a means to teach children how to figure out problems in their heads, and
if they cannot figure them out in their heads, how to use a calculator to solve the problems.
Since most
children (and adults for that matter), only develop the ability to calculate the simplest math problems in their heads, students
are relegated to using a calculator for challenging math problems. That is because the alternative algorithms taught in Everyday
Math are impracticable for actually solving math problems with pencil and paper. The purpose of the alternative algorithms
taught in the Everyday Math textbook is to teach children how to work out math problems in their head. Everyday Math has been
pitifully unsuccessful at accomplishing that goal.
The Everyday Math curriculum is based upon the assumption that
calculators are to be used. The sections where calculators are not to be used are marked with an image of a calculator with
line through it. If there is not a "do not use calculator" image, the student is given the implicit permission to
use a calculator. The following paragraph is found on the Everyday Math website:
"Everyday Mathematics teaches
students how to use technology appropriately. The curriculum includes many activities in which learning is extended and enhanced
through the use of calculators. At the same time, all activities intended to reinforce basic computation skills are clearly
marked with a ‘no calculator' sign."
As
indicated earlier the children using the fifth grade workbook (volume 1) find that only onethird of the pages are marked
with a "no calculator" image, which means that the children are implicitly permitted to use calculators to solve
almost twothirds of the problems in volume 1 of the fifth grade workbook.
The following quote from NCTM that
appears in a separate colored box on the Everyday Math website, makes it clear that the Everyday Math authors feel that calculators
should be used in elementary school level math instruction.
"Calculator use has been shown to enhance cognitive
gains in areas that include number sense, conceptual development, and visualization. Such gains can empower and motivate all
teachers and students to engage in richer problemsolving activities." Id.
In a evaluation of Everyday Math
for the State of California Board of Education, David Klein, Professor of Mathematics at California State University made
the following findings:
"The Everyday Mathematics curriculum makes clear its hostility to proficiency
in arithmetic through the standard algorithms, its opposition to drill and practice, and its support for reliance on calculators
in arithmetic." David Kein, EVALUATION OF SUBMITTED CHANGES FOR EVERYDAY MATHEMATICS, July 5, 1999, http://mathematicallycorrect.com/everyday.htm
(last visited on January 20, 2008).
One of the criticisms of
the Everday Math program is its emphasis on using calculators. The EDM publishers proudly proclaim: “In the Everyday Mathematics program, emphasis is placed on using the calculator as a tool for learning mathematics.”
http://communityed.stma.k12.mn.us/curriculum/_documents/EMFAQS.htm . Dr. Klein had this to say about the use of calculators
in the Everyday Math program to teach math:
"I strongly recommend against the adoption of Everyday Mathematics
either as a basic or partial program for any grade ranging from K to 6. Everyday Mathematics dramatically fails to meet the
California Mathematics Standards in the important strand Number Sense. The high degree of integration of calculators in the
curriculumeven as devices to teach Kindergarten children how to countdefies common sense and could cause significant educational
harm to children." Dr. David Klein, supra.
This cannot be overstated, Dr. Klein concludes that the
emphasis on using calculators in Everyday Math "could cause significant educational harm to children."
Parental Objections
Stafford parents have objected to the Everyday Math curriculum. One parent wrote in a community forum:
"I AGREE COMPLETELY!
I also have a 5th grader who has struggled through the Everyday Math program for several years. I've complained to the
school but it seems to fall on deaf ears. There are too many methods given to students and they only end up confused and never
master the basic skills. My child has to draw elaborate graphs in order to solve simple multiplication and division problems.
There is also too much emphasis on estimating answers and not enough on actually solving math problems. It is a ridiculous
program and wastes valuable time."
Another Stafford
parent echoed that sentiment:
"I agree with you both. I have a fourth grader who is having the same issues concerning the method being in
everyday math. He had to complete a simple division problem and it took him ten minutes to work the problem out the way he
was instructed to at school. I asked my son did he understand how to work the problem out the old fashioned way like I was
taught in school. I got a dazed look from him. So it took me two days to really get him to understand how to work both multiplication
and division problems the everyday math way and the real world way. This is really getting ridiculous, and then these schools
try to hold these kids back when to don't score perfect on the SOL test."
A frustrated Stafford
parent had this to say in response to the socalled studies conducted by the Everyday Math publishers and cited by the Stafford
School District showing the supposed benefits of Everyday Math:
"Well,
I could care less about 'reviews' and 'stats.' All I know is my 4th grader has been performing miserably
in math since 3d grade. She began Everyday Math in 2nd grade and did OK; however, 3rd grade was terrible and 4th grade is
even worse. My once happy little girl now dreads school everyday, BECAUSE OF MATH. I'm convinced that the creators of
this socalled math either never had children or their kids were grown. Because anyone with young kids knows you don't
give them too many choices, it only frustrates and confuses them; welcome to Everyday Math! . . . The first part [of
the school Parent Night] was the Math Specialist singing the praises of Everyday Math and quoting the stats that it is a widelyused,
tested method. When I noted that she didn't have the stats listed for how many counties/states had dropped the curriculum
because it was so terrible, she was floored. She didn't know how to respond. Every parent in that room, with
the exception of one, agreed with me."
Virgina Approved List
Examine the list
of books approved by the State of Virginia for the fifth grade mathematics at http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Instruction/textbookadoption/mathematics_k12/grade5.html The state of Virginia
reviews the books only for adequacy in accomplishing the mathematics standards of learning. It lists 22 standards of learning
for the fifth grade and rates the course materials as either adequate, limited, or no evidence. The Everyday math materials
were rated limited in 5 standards and no evidence in one standard. That essentially means that everyday math was rated inadequate
in covering 27 % of the Virginia Standards of learning. Compare the
Everyday Math ratings with the ratings for the Scott Foresman/AddisonWesley Materials. The Scott Foresman/AddisonWesley
materials were rated 100 % adequate for all 22 standards of learning.
Reviews and Achievement Test Scores
The graph below shows what happened to math achievement test scores after Anne Arundal County, Maryland, changed
their math curriculum from Everyday Math and Mathland to Saxon Math.
One finds that when Everyday Math materials are subjected to qualitative reviews, they do poorly.
For example, in a study sponsored by the Education Connection of Texas, Everyday Math fifth grade materials were given a rating
of "poor," on a scale of good, fair, poor. http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/19990101textbookmath.pdf
The Educational Research Analysts at www.textbookreviews.org reviewed 8 third grade math programs. They rated the Everyday Math program the
"worst" of the 8 math programs. http://www.textbookreviews.org/index.html?content=nl_05_07.htm .
The third grade
Everyday Math program was found so deficient that the Board of Education for the State of Texas completely rejected the program.
"One board member, Terri Leo, who is also a Texas public school teacher, called the textbook 'the very worst book
that we had submitted.' This year, the board of education received 163 textbooks for consideration." Elizabeth Green,
The New York Sun, November 20, 2007, http://www.nysun.com/article/66711 . Search the internet
and read what teachers are saying about Everyday Math.
'The curriculum's failure was undeniable:
not one of my students knew his or her times tables, and few had mastered even the most basic operations; knowledge of multiplication
and division was abysmal. Perhaps you think I shouldn't have rejected a course of learning without giving it a full year
. . . But what would you do, if you discovered that none of your fourth graders could correctly tell you the answer to four
times eight?' http://www.cityjournal.org/html/eon_3_7_03mc.html
Please watch the video that is embedded
in the article at the following link, which explains the methods used to teach Everyday Math. Any sane person will be shocked
at the lunacy of Everyday Math. http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/28/fuzzymathanationwideepidemic/
Defunct Source
So, where did Everyday Math come from? Answer: the University of Chicago. One
would think it came out of the Math Department at that University. No. It was produced by the University's Department
of Education, which by the way, no longer exists! That's right, the Department of Education at the University of Chicago
was formally closed on June 30, 2001. http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/divisions/educ.html
The entity that created Everyday Math was deemed so unnecessary to the University that the school
closed it down. Stafford County has decided to use a Math book created not by mathematicians, but by a defunct education department.
So why would the publisher, McGraw Hill, even sell such substandard Math books? The answer is money. The book
comes with two workbooks for grades 15, out of which the students work their math problems. They write their answers in the
workbook. Consequently, a new workbook for each student must be purchased each year.
McGraw Hill has figured out
a way to defeat those states, like Virginia, that have put an end to the gravy train for textbook publishers by prohibiting
the repurchase of textbooks more often than once every six years. McGraw Hill requires the school district to purchase the
workbook for its students every year. The school district is right back to buying books from the publisher each year. Those
purchases do not technically violate the law, because they are workbooks and not textbooks.
In order to make up
for the space in the book that would ordinarily be taken up with work problems, the Everyday Math book has filler chapters,
like the chapter on math games, and the chapter devoted to a statistical analysis of the United States, which I previously
explained. In fact the 'American Tour' chapter contains approximately 25 maps of the United States of one sort or
another, that take up lots and lots of space in the book. The Stafford County taxpayers are getting fleeced.
No Textbook in the Everyday Mathematics Program
Take out your
child's Math book and the first thing that you will notice is that it is not a textbook but is rather a supplemental reference
book. Believe it or not, the Stafford School district has adopted a curriculum that has no textbook. The school district readily admits the fact that the EDM
reference books are not textbooks. The distinction between the two types of books is a very real one. A textbook is a pedagogical
book used by a teacher as a manual of instruction, that usually follows an orderly progression of instruction. The teacher,
student, and parents have a very good idea of where they have been and where they are going next with a standard math textbook.
However, with a reference books there is no continuity
and the teacher, student, and parents lose a sense of where they have been and where they are going. A reference book is only
a store of information, organized in some fashion, but not necessarily in the best way to inform the teacher, child or parents
of the progression of learning.
Examine your child's
Everyday Math book closely, you will discover that it is titled: "Student Reference Book." The fifth grade Student
Reference Book describes itself as being similar in concept to "dictionaries, encyclopedias, atlases, cookbooks, even
telephone books." The Student Reference Book states that it is not designed to be read in sequence (which would be the
case with a typical textbook). The Student Reference Book, as denoted by its title, is a mere reference book and not a textbook.
Stafford County elementary school children have no textbook!
Did The School Board Know?
Stafford elementary school
children receive a Student Reference Book and a Student Math Journal, which is a paperback workbook, with over 200 pages of
problems designed to be used in conjunction with the Student Reference Book. On May 24, 2005, the school board approved a
request by the school district for expenditures of $361,576.35 to purchase Everyday Mathematics textbooks for grades K5.
There is little question
that the school board authorized the purchase of textbooks, and not reference books, for Everyday Math. According to
the agenda for the May 24, 2005, the school board was asked to approve the "Adoption of Textbook: Mathematics Grades
K5."The May 25, 2005 "Action Consideration" for the adoption of textbooks for mathematics grades K5 refers
to the "Projected Cost for K5 Mathematics Textbook Adoption FY 2006" as being $361,576.35. It refers to the funding
source as the "Textbook Fund." Throughout the Action Consideration there is reference to the purchase of "textbooks."
There is no mention of purchasing reference books. The minutes of the May 24, 2005 school board meeting clearly state that
the school board approved "Adoption of Textbook: Mathematics Grades K5."
The textbook recommendation forms, which were apparently attached to the action recommendation do
list the reference books as "Student Reference Book/hadback," however, the recommendation forms are titled
at the top in bold type: "STAFFORD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEXTBOOK RECOMMENDATION FORM." That would clearly suggest
to any reader that the books listed were textbooks. Unless a person actually spent time going through the books,
they would have no way to know the significance of fact that the books listed on the form were titled "Student Reference
Books." There is a clear issue whether the school board truly understood that, instead of textbooks, they were
authorizing the purchase of reference books.
The school district
obtained authorization to purchase textbooks, and yet it seems that there were no textbooks purchased. The Action Consideration
for the purchase of the K5 Everyday Math "textbooks" was prepared by the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction
and Technology, the Executive Director for Instructional Services, and the Supervisor of Mathematics and Science. The Action
Consideration states that the textbooks for Everyday Math were subjected to an evaluation. In that regard, the Action Consideration
under the Key Points section in pertinent part states:"Recommended textbooks and supplementary materials were evaluated
on the degree to which they supported the local Stafford County Public Schools curriculum for mathematics as well as the Virginia
standards of Learning for mathematics. The Everyday Mathematics instructional design was developed to capitalize on student
interest and to maximize student learning."
The evaluation
of the textbooks was deemed of sufficient importance to be listed as a "Key Point" justifying the purchase of the
textbooks. The Student Reference Books are not textbooks. The school district purchased mere reference books instead of textbooks.
School District Thinks that Reference
Books = Textbooks
In
correspondence with a school district official, a school district official admitted that the Everyday Mathematics Student
Reference Book is not a textbook, but stated that by virtue of the fact that it is issued to the students to be used instead
of a textbook that it can be referred to as a textbook. If one follows the logic of the school district, the school district
could issue any type of book in place of a textbook, and the book could be referred to as a textbook, not because it is a
textbook, but because it is used in place of a textbook.
There
are many types of books, just as there are many types of vehicles. all would agree that motorcycles and sedan automobiles
are not the same. While they are both motor vehicles and are used for transportation, they are clearly distinguishable, just
as a reference book is distinguishable from a textbook. When a person decides to ride his motorcycle instead of his car on
the highway, the motorcycle does not suddenly become equivalent to a car. Similarly, a reference book does not become equivalent
to a textbook when it is used by the teacher during class. The children of Stafford County should not be made to suffer from
the deficiencies in the Everyday Math reference books, simply because the school district wrongly thinks that they are the
equivalent of textbooks.
The Everyday Math curriculum
must be stopped and replaced with a standard mathematics curriculum. Our children are being dumbed down, and we are being
fleeced.
The following links offer more information about Everyday Math.
Mathematically Correct
Illinois Loop
New York City Hold
Textbook Reviews
Where's The Math?  State of Washington Parents Group
Review of The Everyday Mathematics Curriculum and Its Missing Topics and Skills
Ten Myths About Math Education And Why You Shouldn't Believe Them
Open Letter From Mathematicians to The Secretary of Education About EDM and other Fuzzy Math Programs
K12 Calculator Usage And Its Effect on College Grades
The Effect of Using Calculators on Computational Skills and Achievement
Judging the Quality of K12 Mathematics Evaluations
Weapons of Math Destruction
Teach Math Right in Prince William County Schools (TERC Investigations)
Fuzzy Math: A Nationwide Epidemic
Everyday Math = Junk
Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth  Video
Division the Everyday Math Way  Video
Everyday Mathematics Parent Handbook
