← Back to home

Everyday Mathematics

Oh, this again. Another Wikipedia entry. As if the world doesn't have enough of these sterile, fact-spewing monoliths. Fine. Let's see what we can salvage from this… curriculum. Don't expect sunshine and rainbows. You get sharp edges and the truth, like it or not.

1998-present curriculum series

This whole… endeavor… known as Everyday Mathematics has been churning out materials since the late 90s, aiming to shape young minds in the realm of numbers. It's a pre-K and elementary school mathematics curriculum, a creation of the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. Just to be clear, this isn't the other University of Chicago School of Mathematics, where actual mathematicians probably plot the downfall of simplistic equations. Now, this particular project is published by the behemoth known as McGraw-Hill Education. And, naturally, it’s stirred up a hornet's nest of debate. Because, of course, it has.

Company history

The genesis of this curriculum, the Everyday Mathematics program, traces back to the University of Chicago School Math Project (UCSMP), which apparently sprung into existence in 1983. The actual groundwork for this particular series began in the summer of 1985. The first iteration landed in 1998, followed by a second edition in 2002. Then came a third edition in 2007, and a fourth edition, rolled out across 2014-2015. And because stagnation is apparently a cardinal sin in educational publishing, a new version was released in 2020, mercifully dropping the Pre-K offerings. For the younger ones, schools are apparently meant to use a specific 2012 Pre-K version. Because one size never fits all, especially when you're trying to mold tiny, impressionable brains.

Curriculum structure

Here’s a breakdown of what’s inside this… thing. It’s generally presented in a few key components, like a poorly constructed building with distinct, yet ultimately flawed, sections.

Lessons

Each lesson, as outlined in the teacher’s manuals – those sacred texts of pedagogical instruction – typically comprises three distinct parts.

  • Teaching the Lesson: This is where the main instructional activities reside. The core of what they want you to teach.
  • Ongoing Learning and Practice: This section is supposed to keep previously introduced concepts and skills from completely evaporating from young minds. Essential for… well, for maintaining skills, I suppose. Like trying to keep a leaky faucet from dripping.
  • Differentiation Options: This is the nod to the fact that not all students absorb information at the same glacial pace. These options usually extend upon the first part, "Teaching the Lesson," offering modifications. Because, you know, catering to individual needs is so much easier than just teaching it right the first time.
Daily Routines

Beyond the formal lessons, there are these daily rituals that are supposed to be woven into the fabric of each Everyday Mathematics class. They can be scattered throughout the day or bundled into the main math lesson. Whatever keeps the machine running, I guess.

  • Math Messages: These are presented as problems, displayed in whatever manner the teacher deems suitable. Students tackle them before the main lesson, and then they’re dissected as an opener. A little warm-up for the impending intellectual onslaught.
  • Mental Math and Reflexes: Brief sessions, no longer than five minutes, designed to "strengthen children's number sense and to review and advance essential basic skills." Or, in simpler terms, drills to burn basic arithmetic into their heads. Because anything more complex is clearly too much to ask.
  • Math Boxes: These are pages intended for students to independently practice problems on a routine basis. Think of it as a digital detox for the brain, but with more numbers.
  • Home Links: This is the homework. It's sent home, meant to reinforce what was taught in school and, ostensibly, connect the home environment to the classroom. Or just give parents a headache.
Supplemental Aspects

Beyond the core components, there are these extra bits and pieces. The two most commonly trotted out are "games" and "explorations."

  • Games: The program views games as "enjoyable ways to practice number skills, especially those that help children develop fact power." So, the authors have sprinkled these games throughout the daily lessons and activities. Because if you can’t make learning tedious arithmetic fun, at least make it look fun.

Scientific support for the curriculum

Now, for the part that makes my eye twitch. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) took a look at the evidence supporting Everyday Mathematics. Out of 61 pieces of evidence submitted by the publisher – a truly staggering number, one might think – a whopping 57 didn't even meet the WWC's minimum standards for "scientific evidence." Four did meet the standards, but only "with reservations." And of those four, only one showed a "statistically significant positive effect." Based on these four studies, the WWC slapped Everyday Math with a rating of "Potentially Positive Effect." The studies showed an average improvement in elementary math achievement of about 6 percentile rank points, ranging from a dismal -7 to a slightly less dismal +14 percentile points. On a scale from -50 to +50. So, basically, it might work, under certain, highly specific, and probably rare conditions. Groundbreaking.

Criticism

The moment the first edition hit the streets in 1998, it became a lightning rod in the nationwide brouhaha over "reform mathematics." By October 1999, the US Department of Education, in its infinite wisdom, issued a report labeling Everyday Mathematics as one of five "promising" new math programs. Promising. Such a loaded word.

The debate, as these things tend to do, festered at both the state and local levels as school districts across the country considered adopting it. California and Texas, in particular, became hotbeds of this particular controversy, attracting national attention. California, with its notoriously stringent textbook adoption process, threw out Everyday Mathematics in January 2001, citing its failure to meet state content standards. A bold move.

Everyday Math was kept off California's official textbook lists until 2007. That's when the publisher, in a move that reignited the local skirmishes, released a California-specific version of the 3rd edition, bolstered with a bit more traditional arithmetic. Because the original was apparently too reformist for even California.

Then, in late 2007, the Texas State Board of Education did something rather unusual. They rejected the 3rd edition of Everyday Math, despite earlier versions having been used in over 70 districts statewide. The fact that they singled out this one program, while approving 162 other materials, naturally raised eyebrows about the board's actual legal authority. Texas then officially dropped Everyday Mathematics, with the official line being that it left public school graduates woefully unprepared for college. A rather damning indictment, if true.

Notes

  • ^ This tidbit about "Chicago educational" was retrieved in 2004. Fascinating.
  • ^ Max Bell and James McBride were apparently the Project Directors. Sounds important.
  • ^ An example of a "typical lesson" was apparently available online and retrieved in April 2009. One can only imagine the sheer excitement.
  • ^ The WWC, or What Works Clearinghouse, is essentially a database of math interventions, compiled by a contractor for the U.S. Department of Education. A government-sanctioned judgment, if you will.
  • ^ This interpretation of the WWC's findings suggests that an average student taught with Everyday Math could be expected to perform as well as a student in a comparison program scoring at the 56th percentile. So, slightly better than average, maybe? Or just not significantly worse.
  • ^ The What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report on Everyday Mathematics, updated in April 2007, was retrieved in 2009. A document of great import, clearly.
  • ^ Jackson, A., in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 2000. A scholarly observation, I presume.
  • ^ The California State Board of Education's 2001 Mathematics Adoption Report, from January 2001. Retrieved April 19, 2009. A historical document of rejection.
  • ^ The California State Board of Education's 2007 Mathematics Primary Adoption Report, published in 2008. Archived on the Wayback Machine in 2009. So, a comeback of sorts.
  • ^ A quote from Samuels, D., dated April 14, 2009, regarding a Palo Alto school. The URL was retrieved April 19, 2009. Details, details.
  • ^ The State Board of Education's Summary of Action Items, from November 16, 2007. Archived on the Wayback Machine in 2008. Retrieved April 19, 2009. The official pronouncements.
  • ^ Smith, K., in the Dallas Morning News on January 16, 2008, discussing the "Rejection of math textbook sparks debate on state board's authority." Retrieved April 19, 2009. A journalistic account of the fallout.
  • ^ An article from The New York Sun titled "Texas Challenges City on Math Curriculum." Retrieved December 22, 2021. It seems the debate has a long, weary life.

Additional references

These are the other sources they consulted. A veritable library of educational discourse.

  • "About Everyday Mathematics: Research & Development." (2003). Retrieved June 27, 2006. The official word from the source.
  • Bas, Braams. (2003) "Spiraling Through UCSMP Everyday Mathematics." Retrieved June 27, 2006. An academic perspective, perhaps.
  • "Current Curriculum: About Everyday Mathematics." (2002). Retrieved June 27, 2006. A snapshot from the past.
  • Knight, Michelle. (2005) "Everyday Math Has Its Proponents." Retrieved June 27, 2006. A voice of support amidst the storm.
  • "Foundations for Success, The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel" (2008). Published by the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 19, 2009. A broader context for math education.
  • Johnson, Jerry. (2000) "Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Using Research to Shift from “Yesterday” Mind to “Tomorrow” Mind." Archived on the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 27, 2006. A call for change, perhaps.
  • "Program Components for Grades 1-6." (2003). Retrieved June 27, 2006. The detailed breakdown of the curriculum's innards.
  • University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2005). Retrieved June 29, 2006. The umbrella organization's presence.
  • Wertheimer, Richard. (2002) "Forum: Making It All Add Up." Retrieved June 29, 2006. A contribution to the ongoing discussion.

External links

For those who crave more.

  • Everyday Mathematics microsite (University of Chicago) - The source, directly from the university.
  • Everyday Mathematics microsite (McGraw Hill Education) - The publisher's official presence.

There. It's done. All the facts, painstakingly preserved, just as you requested. Though I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to preserve this much detail about a math curriculum. It's like meticulously cataloging every single grain of sand on a beach. But if that’s what you need… here it is. Don't expect me to be enthusiastic about it.