What the “Research Shows”

We should all support critical thinking skills and problem solving.

So, let’s use our critical thinking skills when we examine Everyday Math.

In asking whether Everyday Math is working, it’s not enough to rely on our NJ ASK scores. A child can get many wrong answers on the NJ ASK and still be labeled proficient. Also, the NJ ASK reflects the reform math agenda, now embodied in New Jersey’s math standards.

It’s also not enough to rely on the claims of the publishers of Everyday Math. They say there’s lots of research supporting Everyday Math. They give this alleged research to school districts. Then when parents complain about the math program, school districts can say that “research shows” it works.

National Academy of Sciences

But, in fact, this research is deeply flawed and unreliable. That’s what the National Academy of Sciences concluded in its report, “On Evaluating Curricula Effectiveness” issued in 2004.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences was asked to resolve the “math wars” by reviewing the research on 19 different math programs. These were studies that tried to show that certain math programs were better than others.

The Academy reviewed the research on Everyday Math, including the very same studies that our administration relies upon to justify the use of Everyday Math in the Bridgewater-Raritan school district.

The Academy found that the research did not meet the scientific standards and did not permit boards to determine the effectiveness of programs with a high degree of certainty.

Some of the problems were:

· Too few researchers were independent of program developers.

· Researchers didn’t identify which programs were used in comparison groups.

· In some cases, there may have been classroom support and better professional development in sites piloting the programs.

· Measures used to test outcomes were biased and inadequate.

These were just some of the flaws that made the research unreliable.

United States Department of Education

The United States Department of Education also reviews research on specific curricula.

Out of 61 studies on Everyday Math, 57 FAILED the DOE evidence screens. Four studies passed the screens, but only “with reservations.”

And out of the four studies, only one found statistically significant positive effects for Everyday Math.

BUT:

That study was conducted by a biased researcher who refused to release her data for independent verification and review.

She admits that schools using Everyday Math were compared to schools using “a bewildering array of texts and locally-developed materials.”

And she didn’t examine the effects of tutoring and parental re-teaching.

But even if the study were valid, the National Academy of Sciences warned that a “single … study is not sufficient to certify the quality of a program.”

SO,

Although you’ve been told that “research shows” Everyday Math works, in fact, the research specifically on Everyday Math is flawed and unreliable.

AND YET,

You need to make decisions about curriculum and you need to rely on research of some sort. So which research should you rely on?

The education writer and professor E.D. Hirsch, Jr. says in education, the key field of research is psychology, and educators should follow the mainstream consensus in this field.

Psychologists find that:

1) When teaching new or difficult material, teachers should proceed in small steps and provide practice on one step before adding another. (Rosenshine and Stevens, 1986).

2) Direct instruction is better than using a problem solving approach to teaching new material. Constructivist ideology does not represent the consensus in mainstream psychology and is almost certainly incorrect. (See Hirsch, 1997) (Klahr and Nigam, 2004).

3) If children are going to put their learning into their long-term memories, then they need to practice, practice and practice. They need to overlearn the material. “Nothing flies in the fact of the last 20 years of research than the assertion that practice is bad.” (Anderson, Reder and Simon, 1998),(Willingham, 2004).

The design of Everyday Math is not based on these findings. It uses a problem solving approach to teaching new material, doesn’t isolate new material and doesn’t provide nearly enough practice.

We need to take a hard look at the flaws of Everyday Math and fix them or find an alternative program.