Kids doing better with Everyday Math
By Michelle Knight
knight@theacorn.com

Responding to complaints from parents, the board of education briefly reviewed last week how students were doing with its two-year-old Everyday Math program.

Everyday Math (EM), or what some call fuzzy or whole math, has been taught in Conejo Valley elementary schools since the 2002-03 school year. The district had to apply for and was granted a waiver to teach it because EM is among those programs the state Board of Education doesn’t sanction.

After several parents complained, the school board earlier this year asked staff to review the program. As a result, 600 Conejo Valley teachers were polled and statistics gathered regarding how students are faring under EM.

According to the survey, the district’s teachers say their students are higher-achieving with Everyday Math than with the previous math program, which was state-approved. And teachers said students are more motivated by EM.

Moreover, two years of data from a state math test showed that since EM was adopted, the percentage of the district’s students who scored Proficient or Advanced—the two highest categories of the test—increased. This was true for all students in these categories, including economically disadvantaged students and those whose native tongue isn’t English.

No results were given for students who scored in the lower categories of Basic, Below Basic and Far Below Basic.

A teacher from Manzanita Elementary School told the board that Everyday Math helps English learners because it forces them to use academic language, which is essential for math success.

Martha Mutz, director of curriculum, said that at certain points in the curriculum EM is behind California standards and at other places it’s ahead. Mutz said such program variances also exist in other subjects, such as English and science.

Nonetheless, parents expressed concern about EM’s nontraditional approach to math.

Bill Faust said that one of his three sons, who used to have strong math skills, was reduced to tears out of his frustration with Everyday Math.

Faust said he’s enrolled all three sons in an after-school math tutoring program, costing him more than $3,000 a year, because of his dissatisfaction with EM.

Hinting that many other parents feel the same, Faust told the board, "Judging by the crowds at the local Kumon (math tutoring) center, their enrollment has increased."

The nature of EM is at the heart of the debate: what one side views as a virtue, the other sees as a flaw.

Proponents say Everyday Math fosters a collaborative, rather than competitive, environment, teaching students through logical deduction. Opponents say EM fails to teach math basics because it doesn’t require students to memorize basic addition and multiplication facts.

Everyday Math deemphasizes right and wrong answers in favor of allowing students to draw their own conclusions. Supporters—many of whom are in the business of educating future teachers—say students will understand math through seeing recurring math patterns. That element of EM is an asset, they say, because students then realize there are many different ways to solve a problem.

Critics, on the other hand, call the deemphasis on correct answers one of EM’s major flaws. The group, which is comprised mostly of professional mathematicians and scientists, reiterates that children must grasp basic math facts and number sense first, something that EM fails to provide, and that children will pay for that omission later on.

Also last week, the school board, in an effort to minimize classroom interruptions, voted to limit the time visitors can spend in a classroom. Parents and others who want to observe or visit a classroom now are limited to one hour a month. Parents had been granted as much as two hours a month.

Parent volunteers are excluded from the new policy.