Letters
The Bedford (NH) Bulletin
Oct 6, 2005
By Ann Marie Banfield
To the Editor:
After reading an article in The Bedford Bulletin on Sept. 22, I felt it was necessary to reply with information that contradicts Chip McGee, superintendent of the Bedford schools, and the endorsement of the Bedford School Board, on the plans to expand Everyday Math through fifth grade.
The Bedford School Board, along with Mr. McGee, gave the residents of Bedford the idea that Everyday Math has been such a success that it needed to be expanded through fifth grade. I'm surprised that the school board voted unanimously on expanding this program, given the fact that this program has been criticized for its many failures.
A simple Google search on the Internet will give parents and taxpayers all kinds of information that contradicts the claim by school officials that this is a program worthy of teaching in the Bedford School District.
The article reported that many schools are using this program, but what they failed to state was that this math program was rejected in California based on the recommendation of mathematicians.
"Most of the math programs under consideration by the administration of the Pittsburgh schools for the high schools and all of the math programs now used in the elementary and middle schools (Everyday Math ...) were rejected by the California State Board of Education on the recommendation of a panel of mathematicians (article).
It seems to me with so much information that shows how this program has been a proven failure in other school districts, this school administration would be hesitant at expanding this program.
Several math programs, including Everyday Math, were endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education in 1999. However, according to Leah Vukmir, in her article, 2+2 = 5 Fuzzy Math Invades Wisconsin Schools, "... Two hundred mathematicians wrote to Education Secretary Richard Riley asking him to withdraw his recommendation of these programs that they found to have serious shortcomings."
To obtain a critical review of Everyday Math, I would suggest a visit to NYC HOLD Reviews of UCSMP Everyday Mathematics, where you will find a long list of sites that are highly critical of the Everyday Math program. David Klein writes an extensive critique of its failure, grade by grade, at this Web site.
I hope all parents and taxpayers will look at all information on Everyday Math, allowing them to make an educated decision as to whether or not they want their school using a program plagued with programs.
For good math alternatives, I suggest Mathematically Correct. You can scroll down to "Mathematics Programs and Textbooks - Reviews and Information," which will give you an analysis on several math programs. These texts and programs are analyzed by mathematicians and scientists devoted to concerns raised by parents and scientists about the New-New Math and the need to restore basic skills in our public schools. They are an advocacy group for the improvement of mathematics education in America's schools.
Should parents accept a math program that has been proven a failure, only to find out it was a failure when their children go off to college and are required to take remedial math courses? Or should we expect better for the students of Bedford schools?
Ann Marie Banfield
Bedford
Return to the NYC HOLD main page or to the News page or to the Letters and Testimony page.