math program

I cannot speak personally of this program, but in my reading on curriculum, this one has many negative comments.

Janis

Janis: Could you elaborate on your view please? I am using this program for the first time this year. I have been told (by the curriculum director and director of special education) that special education students in our district must use what the regular education students are using. Of course, I am bound by the goals and objectives on the IEP, but the materials I use are Everyday Math. I have found the pace to be extremely fast, and my mainstreamed students are struggling so much that just about every regular education teacher wants those kids removed from the mainstream because they can’t keep up. I teach second grade. This program has a host of manipulatives (great) but the pacing and the philosophy of not teaching to mastery is a struggle.
Nancy

Nancy,

I just went back and found another discussion from another board and I will give you a couple of quotes about the program. But I totally disagreee with the philosophy that the resource room must use the same math program. If the child could be successful in the regular curriculum, why would he need resource to begin with???

“If this thread refers to the University of Chicago math program, our
school—a recent Blue Ribbon winner—just dumped that program after using it
for some years. I heard the teachers hated it as much as the parents—too
theoretical, not enough emphasis on math basics, plus the awful “Math Boxes”
that were sent home as homework that parents couldn’t figure out. I know
that my son got very little out of the program and learned his math with his
special ed. teacher, using a basic program. (and Touch math).”

“My non-LD daughter did “Chicago” Everyday Math for two years. Even though I was a great math student, I struggled to understand the objective of many questions on her homework. This program gets low marks from a group of math professors (Mathematically Correct) on the look-out for dumbing down, not unlike the whole language craze got from linguistics and English professors and dyslexia experts. Just the same, its “practicality” is sweeping American schools and I can quickly see why kids with LD issues aren’t going to do well in it. It is a “spiraling” curriculum… not enough review or practice for
our kids. Even our “progressive” school added math fact drills to EveryDay Math.”

I hope this input helps. It does not sound like a good program for LD students.

Janis

My non-LD daughter had this math program for two years — her school is now implementing a different program, yet to be identified. This was a horrible program for even a “traditional” student. This program is built upon a concept of spiraling. That means that, for example, one week they would touch on multiplication, the following week division, the following week fractions, the following week measurement, etc. Then, at some point, they recycle and return to multiplication. The manner in which this program is presented does not allow the children to develop a full understanding of the math concepts presented, its philosophy was one of exposing the children, with the belief that each time they revisited the material they would grasp a little more and would finally understand. There was a total lack of continuity, certainly not enough depth to “master” the concept, and must frustration on the part of all. We ended up paying a tutor to work with our daughter to teach her the math concepts and get her back to grade level. My younger DD would never have been able to handle this!

Well hi Janis!!

I’m the one who posted on another board (that Janis & I are on) about my son’s school district—the blue ribbon-award winning one—just having FINALLY dumped the U of C math program. We have replaced it with a Harcourt-Brace series that is so much more comprehensive and really pounds on the basics. However, my LD son, who, like so many of his LD-peers, only had the U of C program from 1st-3rd grade (he’s now in 4th) really missed out on getting those basic skills down—a huge complaint from teachers and all parents alike. So my son has a lot of catching up to do which I truly blame on the U of C program which is simply not appropriate for every child—just like, as someone correctly analygized—the same way not every child can learn from whole language approaches—gotta get those phonics pieces in place. And IMHO, the U of C program is truly the whole language of math.

With No Child Left Behind requiring only methodologies that are proven, why don’t you see if you can get any info on the validity of this approach, especially for LD kids. I don’t know the incidence of school adopting then dropping the U of C program but perhaps some data might strengthen your argument that it’s not effective. Good luck! I’m glad we don’t have that anymore!

Mary

Hi, Mary! Hope you didn’t mind me quoting you! I just remembered those complaints about the Chicago math and thought I should warn Michele.:-)

Janis

This program is failing my children.The material moves so fast and is reintroduced later.They never master the material.

I have three children using this and each child has brought home notes asking if we could work with the kids at night.Two of the children have problems with subtraction.It is funny how one calls it regrouping and the other calls it borrowing.Each child is learning different ways to say the same thing.For a laugh…I asked each to show me how they learned to subtract.Well…each approached the same example different ways.One child took so long..she added 5 more steps then the other two.Maybe it is time to go back and let the children master a task before moving on.

Gee, how often do they observe you? I would have that text… and build my *own* program with the manipulatives and lots more practice and review in a structured, sequential way instead of in a scattered, spiralling way.

My son’s school just got this program. My son is in fifith grade and all the resource room math classes had to start one grade level below the actural level they were at last year because it was so hard.

Will they never hear us? You are bound by the IEP and how dare a disrict insist that you use this. I really feel badly for students who have to suffer at the uninformed hands of the powers that be- it’s discouraging!

Here, Here, Cindy! Our district has used the Chicago Math (Everyday Mathematics program) for years. For the kids who are mainstremed, I help modify the math boxes as needed. One of my kids with severe disabilities actually likes the multiplication methods and is able to calculate. For children who have severe sequencing problems, I take them out of the regualr classroom and do a traditional math program with them, because as a team we decide what basic skills the child needs and work off of the IEP. I do have to say that I have fun with the chicago Math and even when the time comes that we will look at a new series, I will continue to use a few of the tricks and games I learned from this program. I have one child w/ ld and two non ld kids. All three of them have thrived and really enjoyed math.

Nancy, Michele, and others,

I just found 2 articles on the Chicago Everyday Math, and in the event any of you are still linked to this topic, I thought you might want to read the articles:

http://mathematicallycorrect.com/bishop4.htm

http://mathematicallycorrect.com/everyday.htm

It makes you wonder if school districts read any research before they order a program like this!

Janis