We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
Hi, I wanted to chime in about Math Investigations. Yes I suppose fuzzy might be an ok term for it - it is one of those curricula which offer kids a broad variety of strategies for problem solving and not quite as much rote work on plain old addition, subtraction, etc. Some of the parents in our county are very opposed to it. This seems to be due mainly to the idea that the child is building too broad a base, taking too long to move forward to newer topics. I suppose I also was not sure of things in 1st and 2nd, but I think now in 3rd grade things are coming together and my ds is gaining momentum and learning to winnow out the strategies which don't click for him and showing a fairly flexible approach to solving problems. The teachers seem to like it, for the most part. I have not heard any grumbling, anyway... Having a good, experienced teacher who recognizes which methods are working for which kids is key with this sort of curriculum, I think. Sure, they have to practice them all, but allowing some you-pick-the-strategy problems only makes sense!
Our ds has demonstrated some issues in the past with math fact 'regurgitation', however, so I sort of cheated and had him do timezattack to build knowledge and confidence before he got into the multiplication unit. He has done pretty well this year in multiplication.
Sounds like she is shut out of the gt program in #1 school (for now), not that everything depends on it, but I would be inclined to make the leap and give #2 a try. Have they stated she would be included in that gt program?
The GT coordinator has stated that, with where her IQ falls alone, she will at a minimum be a "watch and enrich" kid meaning that, while she wouldn't necessarily get a gifted id unless her achievement comes up or something else warrants it, she'd get some attn from the GT coordinator in an effort to get her achievement up.
School#2 doesn't really have much of a GT program in that there is no acceleration for math and limited to no pull out for reading. The GT coordinator comes into the classroom to help work with the kids and the teachers group the kids w/in the classrooms. So, there isn't much to exclude her from.
At school#1 (current school), the kids with a GT label in reading/language arts go to a separate classroom with the GT teacher every day for an hour in replacement of the regular classroom reading block. Otherwise they have no interaction with the GT teacher who doesn't come into classrooms.
I just want to say that my dd used EM from K-3 grade and really enjoyed the curriculum. It has built a strong math foundation. She is 8 and is starting on pre-calculus this coming fall and credits EM for her start in math. I think if you give EM a chance, it might work out for later.
That is NOT how the Everyday Math thing is supposed to work! The whole point of it is that there are different ways to do things, and there should be a way in there for every kid. They should NOT be marking things wrong because a kid uses one method over another, as that is what the system is designed to avoid! That said, I am not a huge fan of it for anything except that point. I think most of the methods are ridiculous and there was nothing wrong with the methods that have been around for centuries that we were taught. But that's because I already know how to do math that way and am too old a dog to be taught new tricks. Umm, I digress.
I would move a child for the reasons you state, if it were necessary. I would also discuss with the teacher that you know, the wrongheadedness of the last teacher's approach to the fuzzy...err...Everyday Math program, and see if you can't get a better approach to your needs where you are. Do what you gotta do.
Edited to add: Having reviewed the link in the post above mine, and read all the comments there, I must say that I think the only reason I have not gone rounds with the school over Everyday Math is that my son didn't actually need to learn any of the math this year. If he hadn't already known the stuff they were doing (and I have only been exposed to it at the first grade level), we would have been fighting with the school all year. I also believe that his teacher may have been doing a better job with that curriculum than what it calls for, from what I saw this year and what the parents in that post have experienced. I look forward (with dread) to the following years, and we'll see what happens.
Last night I read a thread on the Well Trained Mind Afterschoolers forum about Everyday Math and many chimed in that EM is one of the reasons they are homeschooling. I watched the youtube video "Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth" as well as the response by a math professor. I also had DH watch so he'd understand EM's different approach and where problems can occur. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57981
My son's previous school used Everyday Math. He hated, hated it.
I analyzed the curriculum and I think I understand the idea of what they're trying to do. If my interpretation was correct, EM's goal is to teach children to understand mathematical concepts by showing variety of ways to solve a problem. This was a response to what was perceived as poor outcomes that came from depending too heavily on learning one or at most two algorithms. It's a good idea in some ways, but I think it's poorly implemented.
I have a few main criticisms of the program:
1. There are too many areas where there is no correct answer. Example: when kids are learning to use a ruler, they have to measure a few things at home. Because the teacher has no way of knowing the lengths of the objects each student measures, s/he has no way of knowing if the child is using the ruler correctly. There were a lot of instances of this sort of thing through the grade 5 books.
2. There was a lot of busy work: e.g., cut out pictures of triangles (in the second grade!), name the presidents on the coins and one thing they did, write a story. I found myself writing "This is not mathematics!" every week or two on homework assignments.
3. There were flaws that could lead to confusion. Overall, I thought that the people who designed the curriculum didn't realize that things that look obvious to adults don't look obvious to kids seeing something for the first time.
Example, one of the methods for teaching addition uses a chart that looks like a calendar (numbered up to 100). Each new 10 starts at the end of a line, rather than the beginning, so 20 is on another line from 21-29. This could make understanding the concepts of new tens confusing (they're a beginning, not an end).
Kids were supposed to learn to add, say, 15 + 7 by starting at box #15 and "jumping" 7 spots with their fingers. This assumes that kids intuitively understand that moving to the right and down a line is "more" and moving left and up a line is "less."
EM didn't use manipulatives, which seems to me to show the whole point of addition/subtraction ("I get more blocks/chips/whatever" when I add).
4. Finally, the spiralling nature of EM (do method #1 for a few days, move to method #2, then to #3 then back to something more complicated with #1) can mean that kids who get confused early on, stay confused.
Overall, I think the system can lead to serious misconceptions about the foundations of mathematics. I've it works for some kids, but I'm concerned about its overall effect.
I have said this before - EM has worked for my DD and DS. I agree with Val that it has its faults, no question. However, as my kids have progressed through the curriculum, they have transitioned to algebraic concepts very easily, because EM introduces concepts and word problems early in the curriculum. DD has had no problem with Algebra 1 (we are doing at home/afterschooling)and is moving on to geometry. My observation is - the traditional algorithms we were taught work for many kids to a certain point (i.e. computation), but the jump to concept-based disciplines (algebra and geometry) is more difficult. I've seen it in another kid my DD's age, same HG++ level, who is doing poorly in algebra in part because it is a big conceptual leap for that kid who was taught more traditional methods.
I agree that EM does not emphasize "drilling" facts enough, and I personally think EM needs to be supplemented with repetition of facts.
EM has become like the New York Yankess - everybody loves to hate them.
Inky, my reading of the article about Singapore makes it sound conceptually-based, similar to EM (the so-called "fuzzy math" programs). Am I reading it right?
Anyway, EM has worked for my kids, so do not despair if your school is using it. There is no perfect way to teach math.
I confess, when we first introduced EM, I read all the horror stories and was near panic. But on the other side (all have "graduated"), I think it was a pretty good fit for my kids (although DS really needed to step through it at a double time pace).
This was my issue with EM - it was just really slow for our HG+ kid. It may have been different if we could have been able to skip up.
I do feel like we've been able to move a little "slower" with Singapore at home. I'm kind of hoping not to reach algebra until 4th grade if we can keep working steadily on Singapore and supplementing with math facts and more conceptual work (and doing things like programming and logic).
Inky, my reading of the article about Singapore makes it sound conceptually-based, similar to EM (the so-called "fuzzy math" programs). Am I reading it right?
Despite how it sounds in the article, my understanding is that Singapore math is closer to traditional math than reform math. Pacing and level were probably my biggest issues this year with DD7 and EM. It'll be interesting to see how including Singapore math affects things.
Glad to hear from those whose DC have made it successfully through EM. I'm pressing on with teaching DD7 the traditional algorithms for multiplication and long division in any case.
Umm, I digress.
