Did you ever wonder how we ended up with Everyday Math? Did you ever wonder why we never saw a detailed analysis of Everyday Math compared with other math programs like the state of Texas has? Well I did wonder, so I asked Jim Harmon who is on the Board of Education and voted against adopting Everyday Math when it came up for a vote. Here’s what Jim told me, edited of course by me (it is so much better not being a candidate now)
The adoption of EM in the first place was done after it was presented by the Education Committee after the Education Committee had evaluated the program out of view of the full board. When I noticed the new math curriculum on the agenda I researched it myself prior to the board meeting and, based on my preliminary research (which included the information from 2001 that Eric circulated this week with quotes from math professors and experts) I raised a major concern. Michael Rubright, an educator and a Principal joined me in voicing concerns. I demanded the following data before the next board meeting:
- A briefing on the process the administration undertook to come to the point where they recommended the EM program as the “best program for the district after thorough review of the data”, as was quoted.
- A report on what other districts across the country had implemented EM and a report on what kind of performance changes (up or down) resulted from the new curriculum.
- What other curricula had been considered and what was the objective and data driven rationale for rejecting all other options and settle on EM as the one to recommend. I want to see a side by side apples to apples, data and real experience evaluation and assessment of all options and why EM was chosen versus others.
- What are the weak points and gaps in EM and what was the detailed plan for addressing the weaknesses and gaps so that, if it is implemented in our schools, the administration can supplement and add elements so that we don’t lose value (if indeed EM was proven to actually have value).
- An explanation on why we were choosing a curriculum that is so obviously controversial and so roundly rejected by so many highly competent and highly educated professionals around the country. How will we overcome the controversy if it is implemented so that we do not suffer from lack of confidence by teachers and parents if some of the substantial criticism’s prove valid?
- Describe the implementation plan so that the board can be assured that teaching staff are well prepared to teach from day one and substitutes and aids are also familiar. Spiraling leaves kids behind if a few days are missed or an EM clueless sub is in the classroom.
In response to the questions and data requested of the administration noted above, they brought in a McGraw Hill salesperson and consultant to “sell” us at the next meeting. Finally, the books had already been purchased and were sitting on the dock at Flocktown before the discussion and vote of the Board had been taken.
Interesting huh? The least we can do now is keep the heat on the new Board of Education and ask them to recall this before any more kids are taught confusing and really useless math algorithms.
Sign the petition to get Everyday Math recalled.Eric
2 responses so far ↓
Missy // April 17, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I think in full disclosure you might want to add the fact that Michael Rubright, an educator & Principal later apologized publicly for voting against everyday math once he witnessed its positive effects.
He admitted voting “no” was a mistake on his part, and that his wife & kids loved everyday math….Ask Mr. Harmon if he remembers that.
ericfrenchman2008 // April 17, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Missy,
I don’t know if your comment is true or not, but I posted it anyway. Thanks for the information.
Eric