“The Everyday Mathematics curriculum incorporates the belief that people rarely learn new concepts or skills the first time they experience them, but fully understand them only after repeated exposures. Students in the program study important concepts over consecutive years; each grade level builds on and extends conceptual understanding.”

This does in fact make sense considering that for most people a particular concept or task starts to make more sense after they have moved on to the next level. But this phenomenon occurs when there is mastery at each previous level. ... Each previous bit of learning seems that much more apparent at the next level of understanding. In EM, however, students are exposed to topics repeatedly, but mastery does not necessarily occur. Topics jump around from day to day. ...

A casual glance at Everyday Math’s workbook pages does not reveal that there is anything amiss. The problems seem reasonable, and in some cases they are exactly the same type given in Singapore Math. What the casual observer doesn’t know is what sequencing has preceded that particular lesson...

Every time I see the term 'spiral' with Maths education I mentally picture the penny rolling around in those science museum black hole models LOL

Many teachers do not realize that they have been given an unenviable and impossible task. In fact, I have spoken with new teachers who speak of EM and other poorly conceived programs in glowing terms, speaking of them as leading to “deeper understandings of math.” Some have said “I never understood math until I had this program.” But it is their adult insight and experience that is talking and creating the illusion that the math is deep. Children cannot make the connections the adults are making who already have the experience and knowledge of mathematics.

I've bemoaned EXACTLY this thing-- it's not really reasonable to expect autodidactism from students who have no foundation (yet) to even tie things to.

Administrators and teachers seem almost willfully stupid about this. I mean, it COULD work-- if 9 year olds had the life experience and background of 25 year olds who have already "learned" this material before, or seen many, many real world applications of it over a long period of time. But 9yo children don't have that.

Administrators and teachers seem almost willfully stupid about this. I mean, it COULD work-- if 9 year olds had the life experience and background of 25 year olds who have already "learned" this material before, or seen many, many real world applications of it over a long period of time. But 9yo children don't have that.