No bashers, please. I'm interested in positive TERC/Everyday Math experiences.

[msjones]

Have any of your kids done well with TERC/Investigations (they're the same thing) or Everyday Math?

The "Ekkk...Everyday Math" thread got me thinking about this. I have taught TERC and now tutor ps kids who are stuggling with Everyday Math. I'd like to hear about instances where these programs have been successful.

When I used TERC with my 2nd grade class, our ITBS math scores shot up. I taught in a low-income, high-turnover (30% annually!) area and our math scores had been consistently around 40th percentile on the ITBS. We raised our school's 2nd grade math scores to the 70th percentile the year we used TERC!

(Only our school and our grade level used TERC. We actually went out and got it ourselves to fill in the glaring gaps in our old curriculum. So, this wasn't a district mandated program.)

We combined TERC with our old Addison-Wesley curriculum (pretty much just 'regular, old-fashioned' math -- the kind we grew up with), so it was not TERC exclusively. But, we teachers were, needless to say, very happy with the results. (It's not often that standardized test scores vary much from year to year.) Our students could do math that we would never have even attempted prior to starting TERC.

And, as I mentioned in the other thread, I know quite a few kids who are doing well with EM at the school where I tutor.

So, I'm curious and interested. Anyone out there happy with TERC or EM? Any thoughts about why it has been successful (i.e. a particularly good teacher, program taught by a math specialist, good staff and parent 'buy-in' the the program, lots and lots of training....)?

msjones

[KAR120C]

A friend of mine has three kids in a school system that switched to Everyday Math and after a bit of tweaking (I understand the transition was difficult...) they've been very happy with it. From what she has said it was a matter of combining it with some other resources, training the teachers, being flexible and not dogmatic about it, and giving them time to work out some of the early kinks in the process.

[Doran]

Have any of your kids done well with TERC/Investigations (they're the same thing) or Everyday Math?


So, I'm curious and interested. Anyone out there happy with TERC or EM? Any thoughts about why it has been successful (i.e. a particularly good teacher, program taught by a math specialist, good staff and parent 'buy-in' the the program, lots and lots of training....)?

msjones

Dd11 is using an everday math program in ps this year. She was struggling through Saxon and started school "behind grade level" (she had just completed Saxon 5/4..so, she was legitimately behind). She is getting intervention in math daily, which I'm sure is a bonus for her, and right now, she says she has a 100 in math. Something's working for her, but it's too soon to really understand what. Probably a teacher who can get the concepts across to her more easily than her mother! :001_smile:

HTH,

[dawn of ns]

A friend of mine has three kids in a school system that switched to Everyday Math and after a bit of tweaking (I understand the transition was difficult...) they've been very happy with it. From what she has said it was a matter of combining it with some other resources, training the teachers, being flexible and not dogmatic about it, and giving them time to work out some of the early kinks in the process.

I keep looking at EM and TERC stuff on the web and thinking it looks a lot like what I like to supplement our math with and frankly, looks pretty fun and cool.

I wonder of the problem is when schools adopt it wholesale without bringing in traditional math to complement it? Regardless, I've often wished I got get my hands on some of it so I could use a bit of it with our Singapore and MUS.

[littlefamily]

Full disclosure - I'm the ekkk Everyday Math poster. :001_smile:

I was hoping to read something positive about EM somewhere so this thread caught my eye.

I have 2 daughters, DD1 is a very "traditional" learner and DD2 is a very non-traditional learner. It will be fascinating to see if EM suits one or the other better. I will keep everyone posted.

Also, DD1 is in 5th grade and so far I am very impressed with her teacher. Her teacher seems to be on top of things and very organized and efficient with her time. One thing they do everyday is a very traditional math drill on multiplication facts before they start the day. I find it interesting (and I don't know enough about the teaching philosophy behind EM) that most everyone who has an positive opinion about EM usually stresses the need for drilling the facts in one way or another. So maybe the negativity an/or poor results stems from poor implementation rather than curriculum?

[Mandamom]

who was public schooled while my oldest was homeschooled used Everyday Math throughout elementary grades and did well. He's now in 8th grade at a private school and he's continuing to do well in math. EM definitely didn't hurt him.

Our school system has switched to Houghton Mifflin this year which is a more traditional program.

[annabanana1992]

My mom was an elementary math specialist in Virginia for years. She raves about TERC and EM. Her school also had the highest SOL scores in VA. The key is teachers who are TRAINED to use it...

[Reya]

With excellent teachers, these programs can be better than traditional ones.

However, in most schools, most teachers are far, far from excellent.

:-)

[Shay]

Thankfully, I can say my kids are doing well with it. I just got out files I have with their standardized scores and they are very high. But, I only have one child who is old enough to have had a test report before EM and several after EM. For that child, the results were excellent before and after. For the next kiddos, they've only had EM and their math scores were excellent as well. I guess the real telling evidence would be looking at a bigger group and seeing if it helped scores overall. I'm not up on all the testing lingo and such.

I said in the EKK post (and I think it's worth repeating again) that I believe departmentalizing is the only way to go. Some teachers are not good at math , math phobic, etc., and they shouldn't be teaching it. The ones who are good at teaching math, love it, and want to teach it this way are the ones who should teach math. This would be the "perfect world" scenario of course, and we all know that many who are teaching it aren't doing a good job or are improperly trained.

So, the way my "parent eyes" see it thus far
1. Teacher training
2. Departmentalization
3. Include math fact drill

My school is doing the first two well and I'm doing the last at home.

[Mallorie]

I would also be interested to hear of some high-school age kids who did well with Everyday Math (and the like), and the transition into programs at the higher levels of senior high.

Can I just make a side-note though? My intent on the other thread wasn't to go out and bash a program, but rather share some experience and commiserate with others who struggled through it. I guess I feel slighted by the "no bashers, please" part of the title, as I felt I tried pretty hard not to be confrontational about my opinions.

Anyway, even though my own children are in a school with a different program, I still feel strongly about this issue, and would love to hear instances in which these programs DO work. There are many school districts around the country using them, and using them poorly. If we hear from the ones who are using them with success, maybe we can figure out the missing component, can up the quality of instruction with them in those districts that struggle, and help all kids. :)

[EKS]

With excellent teachers, these programs can be better than traditional ones.

However, in most schools, most teachers are far, far from excellent.

:-)

Have you systematically reviewed the materials for programs like Investigations? An excellent teacher would need to significantly supplement just about every aspect of the program to make it better than a traditional one.

I agree that some aspects of these programs are helpful. If the excellent teacher used the curriculum more as an interesting supplement, it would probably work quite well.

[Staci in MO]

The last I talked to anyone about it was the first year they transitioned. Those who were "mathy" and had "mathy" kids thought it was great fun. Those that did not have mathy kids didn't like it at all. I haven't heard anything in a while, though, which means that they've probably smoothed out a lot of the kinks.

[msjones]

My intent on the other thread wasn't to go out and bash a program, but rather share some experience and commiserate with others who struggled through it. I guess I feel slighted by the "no bashers, please" part of the title, as I felt I tried pretty hard not to be confrontational about my opinions.

Oh my... no slight intended at all. I do apologize if that came across as a 'bash' in and of itself. My intent was to emphasize that I was looking for positive experiences. And I appreciated the tone of the "ekkk" thread -- there were a lot of thoughtful and respectful posts about a complicated, aggravating issue.

I'm glad, though, to hear some positive experiences, and I agree with Shay that the elementary math department is a good idea. Do any of you have that setup in your school?

msjones

[Tabrett]

OK, I was the first "basher":blushing:. But from all I have read on the post it seems like EM and TERC would make great "supplemental" programs. A lot of time educators want to push understanding while a child is still in the memory period. Kids need repetition and drill at young ages. Conceptual learning is good, but will not help kids learn their math facts. Drill with conceptual learn is best!!!! Maybe that is why SWB advocates combining math programs to get the best results. I'm using Right Start math with my k'er, but I have just ordered Singapore to go along with RS. I like the mental aspect that RS biases it's approach on, but I see the need for more on "paper" oriented drill.
A lot of times in education when one skill is lacking, a new program is created biased on the skill being missed. That is what I see has happened in these math programs. Educators were upset at the drill-drill-drill math programs with no conceptual understanding. So along comes a completely conceptual based math program that lacks any drill. We need BOTH integrated into a program. Teach the concept to master understanding then drill-drill-drill.;)

[Shay]

Tabrett,

:iagree: . IMHO, you hit the nail on the head.

Before my dc were using EM, I afterschooling adding a conceptual element. Now that they are using EM, I add the drill. Which do you think is easier for me , as a parent of 4, to add? Drill. We can drill in the car (flashmaster) on the way to school. What would be even better? If the school would realize this is their responsibility if they truly want the kids to be more successfull. "Joe six pack," ;), might not ever drill his dc, KWIM?

What I've seen as "drill" is simply having a weekly timed test. To me, that's the result of drill, not the drill.

I am committed to staying on top of the situation while my dc are in the EM program.

[matroyshka]

My mom is a retired 2nd grade ps teacher. She loved EM. She practically crammed it down my throat when I started hsing. To her great chagrin, I told her it was too much material, too overwhelming, and I went with Singapore.

BUT, I have to say, she drilled the heck out of her kids, and she said EM says quite specifically you're supposed to. She says the teacher's manual says in big bold letters that the children should have "automaticity" with their math facts by the end of 2nd grade! She did timed drills every day. She sent home drills for parents (along with extra EM games to play). Her kids got a t-shirt when they could do a drill sheet in under a minute. Her big complaint about my kids' math skills is that they aren't lightning fast with their facts (they know them, but not lightning fast). And she's right that I should have played more math games with them... it was always my intent to do so, but it always seemed to be what got dropped when we were short on time. Ah, another resolution for the new year...

I saw a review of EM on a ps math educator's website of some kind, and it got low grades as a program partly because the materials were all over the place and hard to parse (like the teacher had to look in 3 different books to plan a lesson - one of the reasons I gave my mom that it would not work for hsers). It sounds like taught right it has the potential to be a great program, but it's set up in such a complicated way that it's very hard to implement without a lot of teacher training and a teacher dedicated taking the time to planning and doing the whole thing right.

My mom's currently teaching a writing program to a bunch of hs kids based on what her old school system is using, but it's new since she retired, so she's learning it from scratch. It's similar iin that it has 6 books and you really have to read and parse a lot to make a lesson plan. It's really frustrating her. I told her I think they may do this on purpose when creating ps programs - making a lot of paper/books so that the program looks more "impressive" and "complete", and "worth the money" when in fact it's a lot of "bla bla bla" to wade through to get to the meat (even if the meat is tasty).