BilikFamily.com

Let me guess.... Claire was taught using Everyday Math, right?

I saw how they teach division and I couldn't figure it out! Granted, I'm no math genius- but geez- what is wrong with the classic method and Everyday Math if that's what a system chooses to use.

Sorry- my little rant about EM is done.

Hi Erica,

Yes, it is. I remember when our school first talked about using it you had the same opinion. The things that bother me are two fold:

1. Parents have a hard time helping their kids with their math homework. Granted, if one looks over the textbooks, one can learn about "the new ways", but how many parents are going to do that?

2. (and this is more important) The middle school teachers didn't buy into the it. They didn't drink from the Everyday Math Kool-Aid. So you taught the kids all these ways to do their math that they later can't use in later grades because the middle school teachers aren't on the same page.

Thus ends my rant about Everyday Math(tm).

Hey guys- it's not useless math! I teach Everyday Math, and it works-it teaches your kids how to think- your problem is your middle school- no apparent transition- and your own lack of understanding it- don't your teachers supply you with the parent newsletter each unit that explains all of it? Adapt, learn, change... or should we all only do Dick and Jane for Reading, and have the Bluebirds and the Redbirds for reading groups too? Different is not bad.
My own kids were not taught using Everyday Math, and I like their programs too, but it's not like they are math geiuses because they learned it our old way. Deal with it, because apparently your kids have to, and bashing it isn't gonna help Abby and the boys- it's what they know. And maybe bash your middle school for not figuring out how to help you deal with it. My rant is done.
Lys

Hi Alyssa,

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I went to the training. I saw the materials. The reason I call it useless is because of the Middle School expectations. If the elementary school taught computer programming and insisted on language X, and then the Middle school expected them to use language Y, I'd call teaching them language X useless. Did they learn something by using X, sure. But if the Middle School says, 'We expect you to use Y', not 'We're going to teach you to use Y' then the prep is useless until the Middle School accepts X.

What I'm saying is that the school system did this big push to get parental buy-in with Everyday Math, but didn't get the teachers all on board. You can blame the school system, the teachers, or the program. In any case we're now giving Claire crash courses on 'Old School' math methods because that's the expectation now. And it's not just one cranky old teacher...

If you can't get Middle School teachers to adapt, do you expect parents to simple read the newsletters and adapt that easily? If it's your profession to teach the stuff, it may seem simple to you. Different is not bad. I agree. But when I see you use a computer, I don't expect you to write computer scripts. Should I say, "hey, adapt, learn! It's not that hard"? "I'll give you handouts that explain how. Didn't you read them?"

The majority of folks can only use a browser, an email client, and perhaps Word or a chat client. Am I a computer snob if they don't know how to use an RSS aggregator and expect them to? It only takes 5 minutes to show someone how they work and how *incredibly* handy they are for the average user, but still only a small portion of the computer users use them.

As good as the Everyday Math program is, it still annoys Claire that most of the time Michelle and I can figure the answer in our heads before she even gets the problem scribbled down. And Claire is pretty darn good at math...

So my complaint to the school system is, use what you taught them. I don't want to get into a battle of statistics and studies of 'this method is better than that one'. We have the same battles all the time in the computer world with computer languages. But in the end we choose our languages, warts and all, and stick with them until the project is done. If we start a project in one language and then shift to another, most of that time spent in developing with the first language is useless, even if it was a good, valid approach to begin with.

Thus ends my rant for this posting... ;-)

I agree- I don't even know what you are talking about with the computer stuff, but I know it is valid for you. But math is used everyday by everybody in some way, and your exact words were "Abby has to learn this useless stuff"- I think that was a strong statement- useless? Come on! I am not saying one is better than the other- but I would be mad at your school systems...they need to get these teachers to work it out- Also, let's face it, even if the kids learned the traditional way, you & Michelle would still probably know the answers before the write out the problem-we usually get better at math the more we use it...I'm sure it drives Cass crazy that i can solve and equation before she figures out how to even write it out, and she learned our way. Claire will be fine- like you said, she's smart, but I'd be worried about any kids who struggle in math and have to deal with it, or the kids whose parents don't/can't help...your school system can have a big problem. I have to say I don't know how far up my school uses Everyday Math- but I hope we deal with it so parents aren't left stuck dealing with it. Something for me th look into.

I'll reiterate. In our computer world we have many languages we develop in and all of us nerds have our favorites. If we start a project development in one language and then switch midway to another, the first effort was useless. I fully agree that the decision to switch is a stupid one, but the effort in the first language was useless, regardless of the merits of the language.

In this case it is even worse, because we *know* that unless we do something to make them stay consistent between the Elementary School and the Middle School, Abby's current and ongoing instruction will be in vain. It is in that respect that I consider it useless. Please keep in mind that when entering those Twitter updates, I'm limited to 140 characters per post, so I don't always have a lot of room to go into lengthy exposition on my feelings. Useless is how I felt when I first heard the news.

More to follow in a minute...

In my current office everyone develops their computer scripts in a language called Perl. When I came on board, I was aware that there are other languages that are out there that could be arguably better than Perl, notably Python. But there are more important factors than just what is better. I could have still written everything I did in Python, but besides initially developing a script, there are other issues. The most notable among these are whether my peers can understand the code and maintain/fix it if necessary. So even though I knew I could do things more effectively, cleverly, etc. with Python, in the long run, it's how thing interact with my peers that has a heavy weight.

Now I'm falling under a new group and development that uses Python. That's fine. It's a new development project and they'll be better for it and all of those guys (I'm working with a different group of guys) are fluent in the language.

So it's not about which is better. It about consistency and making sure your peers who will work together with you can help out. While it may be great job security, I really don't want to write in a language where I'm the only one who uses it, even if it makes me more productive. It's not all about what I'd prefer... There are other things to take into the big picture.

So whether Everyday Math is a good curriculum or not, it requires educating the whole math teaching staff and educating the parents. In our business world something has to be *a lot* better for such a shift to occur. Googling the words [everyday math protest] leads me to believe there are many other districts who've experienced issues with it. In our offices new techniques are brought in incrementally and rarely replace things wholesale. There are gradual transitions of things. Everyday Math was a complete replacement of admittedly an imperfect teaching method for math. It requires more than simply teaching it at the Elementary level. It required more than the school committed to.

Scott & Alyssa,

I've taught using EM... used it for 6 years straight in Texas. Hated it. I taught it- it was the approved curriculum, however, and this is a big however, I also taught the "traditional" methods.

EM rushes through things too much in my opinion and not every child can pick up the "new" way to get the problem solved. By using both methods, I was better able to prepare each child for future math (I hope). Yes, EM spirals and you pick up the concepts again- but if you didn't get it the first time- you were so far behind by the 2nd time that the kid was totally frustrated. At least if they understood the 'traditional' method, they had a grasp of the concept and could sometimes pick it up the 2nd time around the 'EM Way'.

Being in inner city- EM was a hinderence at times with their expectations that every kid could read (2nd grade) and use manipulatives (we didn't have most of them).

I liked the hands on stuff- we did that quite often- but the kids still needed to learn the "traditional" methods because that's what is still used in the "real world".

Some kids did great with EM. Some didn't. I felt better teaching both ways.

Maybe if that was done in your elementary schools- both ways taught- Claire wouldn't need the crash course now.

yes, both ways need to be taught- Scott, I think your school may need some help if they haven't been doing that- there is no one curriculum that works for everybody at all times- language differences, parental support, low income (no manipulatives), different learning styles and abilities- all issues that affect any curriculum..you need to mix it up to try to reach all students- neither approach works best for all students...but you need to get all/most the teachers and parents on board if it's gonna work!
I really don't care one way or the other...and I really don't think it's the same as all the computer stuff, at least not yet, my main problem was with the comment "useless", which you explained...so who cares...I just hope Claire picks up on division...I'm sure she'll be fine- she's had a solid background...

I don't mind teaching Everyday Math...don't love it either- a bit foreign at first, but I am lucky that my district has the money to provide us with all of the materials and training we need, unfortunately, most of the parents couldn't help the kids even if it was the traditional way- we have many low-ability, uneducated, non-English speaking parents...but it's okay- the kids get it for now...today we measured with feet...I'm sure Michael and Daniel did that recently too!
Now I am working on the committe that chooses the next Social Studies text...that is more fun to me!
Have a great weekend!

My point with the computer stuff depending (on which you meant) was:

a) Everyone who uses a computer connected to the internet knows how to surf the web with a browser. I would consider it a daily activity. Few realize that with five minutes of training you could be far more effective using an RSS aggregator to "distill" and organize the web for you the way you want it. You simply use the phrase "RSS aggregator", and peoples' eyes glass up because it *sounds* hard, and they won't go there. It *sounds* like something only techie's know how to do. Your comment above proves the point. Well, that's the way some parents feel when their kids stop talking about carry/borrow and instead talk about regrouping. Meanwhile the establishment is saying, hey, adapt and learn.

b) The EM program is effective and expensive. Not every district has it and/or can afford it. And it is promoted by one distributor. In my world of verification there was a language that was all the rage called Vera. It made it easy to prototype powerful tests in less time. It was expensive and came from one vendor only. We had to abandon it because we didn't want to expect our customers to purchase an expensive license to this language. In a similar way, EM is an 'outside the paradigm' and proprietary curriculum. As an engineer, I'm fine with the way they do the math, but it puts the burden on a lot of people to change to it, all the while they make money while telling everyone to get with the program.

In my world we lean towards using open and standards for interoperability. This is what makes us competitive on the market. You can buy a graphics card from Intel, nVidia, or ATI and know that because they comply with cooperatively written standards agreed upon by the computing community, your game will work. If we had a design that was significantly better, but didn't comply with Microsoft's and Apple's expectations and standards, it would not matter.

So I hope you know that I don't mind the method. But there's more than the method alone that goes into my evaluation of the product and whether it should be implemented. Betamax was better than VHS. ;-)