Welcome to the site for concerned Palo Alto (PAUSD) parents!

We hope that you will find useful information here so that you are able obtain a better understanding of the process behind the selection of the Math Textbook adoption at PAUSD.  As concerned parents, we want to understand why this selection may not be the best choice for our children, given that there were other preferred textbook options available, and were not given a more thorough and wider review. We also feel that Every Day Math has not been fully evaluated, given that there is data available, which does not wholly support its stated merits.  We feel that the process must also be revisited so that it is inclusive of PTA, parents and educators alike.

Thank you for your support.

Concerned Parents of Palo Alto


The following is history of the EM controversy in the Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD):

CVUSD has been suffering declining enrollment since the unsuccessful parent revolt against EM in May of 2005 when a few parents united in an effort to get the school board to provide for a choice of math programs.

CVUSD lost 500 K-5 students in the fall of 2005, after the district refused to offer parents an alternative to the use of EM.  While there are no exit polls to determine the reason for the abrupt drop in K-5 enrollment, certainly a percentage of those students left because of the use of EM. I am privy only to the names of those that took the time to contact me personally over the matter.

The following year (fall of 2006) an additional 400 plus K-5 students left the CVUSD schools.  In August of 2006 (an election year), letters to the editor focused parent attention on CVUSD’s low API similar schools scores which contradicted administrator’s continuous claims of excellent district schools..  CVUSD’s wealthy neighborhood of Meadows was a 1 out of 10 in the 2005 similar schools ranking (10 being best), and other wealthy neighborhoods ranked 2, and 3.

40% of the API similar schools score is weighted to math scores.  Following the disclosure of the poor similar schools ranking, instead of improving CVUSD math scores as had been suggested in the letters to the editor, it appeared administrators instead worked to have the rankings modified so that most CVUSD schools would be measured against districts that used Everyday Math such as Poway and El Segundo.  From 2006 on, most CVUSD schools would not be compared to Manhattan Beach schools which used Saxon Math.

The severity of the decline in K-5 enrollment during 2005 and 2006 was masked by an increase in the number of middle school and High School students that enrolled in CVUSD.  Newspaper reports that spoke of declining enrollment never focused on the existence of a problem with elementary enrollment.  The declines in K-5 enrollment occurred in all grades and all schools.  Job losses due to a poor economy didn’t begin until 2007, so the district’s notion that the enrollment declines occurred because of the high cost of housing in this area don’t hold much water, since enrollment was at its highest when housing costs were at their apex in May of 2005.

The exact number of students comprising the K-5 enrollment declines in the fall of 2005 and 2006 were not made public until October of 2007 when the school board began to hold hearings to close 2 (and possibly 4) elementary schools.  The actual figures for the decline in K-5 enrollment (nearly 1,000 students over a 2 year period) were provided in those hearings by CVUSD’s Jeffery Barstead.

In the spring of 2008, amid an uproar of parent dissatisfaction, Meadows and University Elementary schools were designated for closure.  Parents whose students attended Meadows Elementary organized to form a charter school and in 2008 had their charter approved by the Ventura board of education (CVUSD refused to grant the charter).

Meadows Arts and Technology Elementary School (MATES) has filed a law suit against CVUSD in an effort to locate the MATES charter school at the original Meadows campus slated for closure.  The matter is still pending.  The MATES curriculum director has indicated they will pilot Saxon and Singapore math programs.  The MATES charter school will draw an additional 200 plus students out of the district.

Mr. Dunn indicated in his email that 175 students left for other districts.  I believe this is the current number of students that have applied for permission to attend public school districts other than CVUSD.  The number he gave you does not reflect the over all total number of students lost since the 2005 math revolt.  His figure does not include private, home school, or online charter schools that local students attend.


In the spring of 2008 CVUSD was in the process of reviewing math textbooks for adoption (and contending with outraged parents over school closures).  Of the piloted programs Harcourt and Everyday Math were the 2 chosen for a vote.

While EM has been used for the past 6 yrs in all K-6 grade levels, the 6th grade teachers voted to drop EM for the fall of 2008.  In public comments one CVUSD middle school teacher (a committee member on the 2007 CA DOE Curriculum Review Panel for math textbooks) urged that 4th and 5th grade math instruction should move to a program that would provide a better transition to middle school math and algebra, specifically pointing to the lattice method of multiplication as one problem with EM.

When teachers’ votes for the math textbooks were tabulated by grade, over 60% of the 5th grade instructors voted to drop EM in favor of Harcourt.  4th grade teachers split evenly between Harcourt and EM.  In grades K-3, which has a higher number of teachers due to small class size mandates, the majority went with EM.

The CVUSD vote indicates EM did not have the support of teachers in higher grade levels.  Fewer 4th 5th and 6th grade instructors chose the EM program over a more traditional Harcourt offering.


The CA Dept of Education Curriculum Review Panel approves textbooks for adoption in CA.  In the most recent adoption in the fall of 2007, the CA CRP rejected the 5th grade EM textbook.  The full EM series had been rejected in two previous attempts at gaining approval (1998 and 2001).  I am not aware of the changes that were made to gain approval of EM’s 5th grade textbook, and would recommend extreme care to supplement it heavily in order to ensure student mastery of material.

The shortcomings that I am aware of with EM are as follows:

In CVUSD there has been a wide difference in the math instruction between classrooms.  Teachers that prefer constructivism choose to use only the EM textbooks and avoid supplementation.  Instructors that follow a more traditional approach, such as the ones teaching at Wethersfield Elementary, chose never to use the EM textbooks except as a supplement on occasion.  This creates a wide variation in the type of math instruction students receive.

On one occasion a parent has reported that his child’s entire class (according to the teacher) had failed an exam.  The teacher then decided to give credit for wrong answers (if you got within 10 of the actual answer).  So a child who had initially received a score that would be an F was actually given a B grade.

EM promotes the use of calculators beginning in kindergarten.

EM has inadequate skill and drill practice problems, students can fail to obtain mastery of math facts or standard algorithms, and are weak in computational skills.

The EM spiral moves much too quickly through far too many concepts, leaving students merely exposed to a myriad of math concepts rather than mastering the basics.

EM introduces a multitude of problem solving methods rather than focusing and practicing with the standard algorithms to automaticity.  This causes a great amount of confusion for students.

Parents are not able to help with homework, especially when the unfamiliar EM algorithms are used (lattice method of multiplication etc.)

Previous textbook reviews have indicated that EM failed to provide adequate instruction in fractions, EM did not teach the standard long division algorithm, and EM did not provide adequate instruction of division with decimals.

EM can leave students woefully unprepared and lacking in an understanding of decimals.

The pitfalls of EM suffered by CVUSD students are not due to a lack of teacher professional development.  CVUSD provided ample teacher support for use of EM in order to acquire the waiver to use EM from 2002 -2007 before EM had received state approval for classroom use.


The current controversy over EM has caused significant declines in enrollment, and school closures, and is proof that history often repeats itself.  In an earlier decade, controversy over the adoption of whole language reading textbooks in CVUSD created declining enrollment which resulted in the closure of 2 schools.  Wethersfield Elementary is where many of the teachers who had supported phonics ended up after that decade’s round of school closures.

During CVUSD’s 2008 math adoption, Wethersfield teachers indicated they have never used EM except as a supplement.   100% of Wethersfield’s teachers voted against using the EM program.  Wethersfield is one of only 2 elementary schools in CVUSD’s district of 22,000 students that was able to get a 10 on their similar schools scores in the most recent API listings (other high SES CVUSD schools were below 5).  I would provide a link but the API similar schools reports which were readily available on the CA DOE and CVUSD websites yesterday, has magically disappeared.

Parent participation in the math revolt in Conejo Valley was very minor in comparison to what I gather is occurring in Palo Alto.  Very few CVUSD parents participated openly in the May 2005 efforts to gain an alternative math program to EM.    If CVUSD’s conflicts are any indication of what to expect when a district adopts EM, Palo Alto must be prepared for a decline in enrollment, and the potential for the necessity to close schools.  It will only take a few highly motivated parents to increase the likelihood that a charter school will enter the equation.


Jo Anne Cobasko
Thousand Oaks, CA
Conejo Valley Unified School District

…then please write to your PAUSD  Board Members now to please ask them to not vote to adopt “Every Day Math” for your child’s math education.


From the NYCHOLD (“Honest Open Logical Decisions on Mathematics Education Reform”) Website (http://nychold.com/em-arith.html):

These are the various EDM methods your child will use to do Addition and Subtraction, for example.  (Multiplication, Division samples are in the above link) – Hope you will know how to help them.  (More info on the website link for NYCHOLD):


Partial Sums Method (EDM Method)

     148            678
   +  67          +  67
   + 266          + 266
     ---            ---
 ->  300        ->  800
   + 160          + 190
   +  21          +  21
     ---            ---
     481        ->  900
                  + 110
                  +   1
               ->   etc

Column Addition Method (EDM Method)

       1| 4| 8
     +  | 6| 7
     + 2| 6| 6
   ->  3|18| 1
   ->  4| 8| 1
   ->  481

Opposite Change Rule (EDM Method)

    185   ->    200
  + 266       + 251
    ---         ---

–  –  –  –  –  –  ————————->>>  Or just have your child learn the…


       (12 )
      +  67
      + 266


Left to Right Subtraction

     - 50
     -  8

Counting Up

      58      and then
   +   2
      60             2
   +  40         +  40
     100         + 200
   + 200         +  25
     300           ---
   +  25           267

Partial Differences

      - 58
      - 30
      -  3

Same Change Rule

    325   ->   327
   - 58       - 60
    ---        ---

–  –  –  –  –  –  ————————->>>  Or just have your child us the…

Traditional Method (Carrying  & Borrowing – called ‘regrouping’ these days)

      | 1|15
     3| 2| 5
   -  | 5| 8
     2| 6| 7

Most recent press on the Textbook Issue

Daily_Post_Article (April 17, 2009)



April 14, 2009


Tentative submission date: April 23rd, 2009

Signatures as of 10:52pm April 16th, 2009: 466

Dear PAUSD Board Members and Superintendent Skelly,

We appreciate the dedication, time and efforts of the Elementary Math Adoption Committee.

Unfortunately, we do not agree with their choice of either Every Day Math or Envision/Investigations. We need to prepare our students better to compete with their peers from Asia, Europe and the rest of the world.

The 2008 Final Report of National Mathematics Advisory Panel clearly recommends:
1. The mathematics curriculum in Grades PreK–8 should be streamlined and should emphasize a well-defined set of the most critical topics in the early grades.
2. Use should be made of what is clearly known from rigorous research about how children learn, especially by recognizing a) the advantages for children in having a strong start; b) the mutually reinforcing benefits of conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and automatic (i.e., quick and effortless) recall of facts; and c) that effort, not just inherent talent, counts in mathematical achievement.

Nationally, several school districts have abandoned Everyday Math. The most recent ones include: Brandon Valley, SD and Poway, CA. Dr. Skelly joined us from Poway which has very similar demographics as ours.

The minutes of the Elementary Math Adoption Committee meetings suggest that a minority group within the Committee raised the very same issues as the parent community has expressed.

In light of the fact that several districts are abandoning Everyday Math, we need to revisit the recommendations of this minority group. All the teachers on the Committee wanted to pilot SRA Real Math which they did not have an opportunity to evaluate. We were not able to consider Singapore Math or Saxon Math for another set of reasons. Since this topic is extremely important to our community and for the well being of our students, our children, let us reconsider our decision. We need to be working in unison with teachers, parents, and administrators.

Therefore, we petition that the PAUSD School Board:

1. Seek a waiver from the State until next year
2. Recommend that the Textbook Adoption Committee
a. revisit their recommendation following the process laid out by the strategic plan which requires a survey of the community
b. pilot one or more of the following math programs: SRA Real Math, Singapore Math and Saxon Math in the coming school year to consider for adoption in the following year, along with the pilots of EDM and EnVision
c. in coordination with the PTA of each school, add one parent representative with significant math experience from each school to the Textbook Adoption Committee, such that parent representation is at least 25% of the committee members
d. develop a wider communication plan for the committee’s work including at least three community meetings throughout the year, not at the end of the work, along the lines of the successful strategic planning community meetings

We hope that the Board will consider all the issues and support our petition to revisit the decision about adopting a math program that we all agree is the best for our students, our children.

NOTE TO PETITIONER: Please note that if you choose to keep your name and address anonymous, it will not display on this site but it will be included when submitted to the PAUSD Board for consideration.

NOTE #2 TO PETITIONERS: Sometimes iPetitions website may ask you for a donation. It is NOT mandatory to make a donation for you to sign the petition. If you don’t want to donate, you may abandon the page where it says “Your signature is recorded” and asks for the donation. If you donate, please know that ALL the money will go to the iPetition website operator.

The Undersigned

Sign Petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/PaloAltoMathTextbooks/



We appreciate the dedication, time and efforts of the Elementary Math Textbook Adoption Committee.

As the minutes of the Committee meetings clearly document, SRA Real Math won unanimous support from all the Committee members. But, it was not piloted.  The review of the communication with McGraw Hill Sales Rep and Regional VP of Sales Sharon Lane, who oversees both EDM and SRA divisions, indicates that made the decision not to send SRA books to Palo Alto to pilot because she did not know that SRA was the Committee’s most highly favored program.

This McGrawHill VP made the decision to “push Palo Alto to pilot EDM”. Clearly the decision to not pilot SRA was made on the basis of a miscommunication and is not based on the unanimous preference of our Textbook Adoption Committee for SRA Real Math.

McGraw Hills’ Annual Shareholder Report calls EDM a “specialized niche program” which led the market in sales only in New Mexico, which begs the question, is this a sales pitch by McGraw Hill for a niche program ?

Given this background, we request that the Board consider all the issues and postpone the adoption for a year. The authors of SRA Real Math (1 of whom is local) have offered to present to PAUSD and answer in detail any questions you might have. We request you to at pilot SRA Math during the year or better still, adopt SRA Math – which was clearly the unanimous first choice of the Math Textbook Committee.



I am a parent of 2 boys.  I have degrees in Math and Computer Science from Caltech and UCLA.  Math is a subject that I love, and I hope to pass it on to my sons.

However, I believe that the adoption of Everyday Mathematics goes against this goal.  EDM does not place enough emphasis on standard algorithms.  I have read the analysis of the 2nd edition of these books.  The standard way to add is taught in the 5th grade, which is too late.  The standard way to multiple is taught in a watered-down form in the 6th grade.  Subtraction and long division are not taught at all.  I understand that for the edition that’s currently considered, standard algorithms are only slapped on in the student’s edition, and barely mentioned in the teacher’s edition.

These algorithms are simply too important to ignore for our students’ future education.  Many other mathematical concepts are built on top of these standard ones – for example, the multiplication and division of polynomials.  If we don’t teach them now, they would have trouble catching up when they are in middle school and high school.

Instead of standard algorithms, EDM demands that students master other less efficient ones.  In fact, EDM expects students to learn completely different methods for the same operation at different grade levels.  There are 4 for addition, 5 for subtraction, 4 for multiplication, and 2 for division.

By placing emphasis on a shotgun sample of these alternative algorithms, it would only confuse students, especially the poor performing ones that have trouble mastering even a single algorithm.  Kids that can learn them would wonder why they should.  This is also distracting for teachers and parents.

EDM also claims that “one method is not better than another”.  This is simply false.  Computer scientists spent a lot of time comparing different algorithms to see which one is better.  This is why Donald Knuth put in many different algorithms in his classic computer science textbook, “The Art of Computer Programming”.  He was not trying to make students learn different algorithms.  He was trying to make them develop the skills to compare different algorithms.  This is a point that is completely missed by EDM authors.

I also understand that teachers might provide standard algorithms as a supplement.  But this is only done after they have spent valuable time on teaching the ones in EDM.  And, we can no longer be sure that every student masters them.

I believe that standard algorithms should be placed before alternatives.  They should receive the most attention.  Alternative algorithms should only be taught as a supplement to kids that have mastered the standard ones and have an additional desire in understanding how and why it works.

I urge the board to approve our petition – delay the adoption of EDM and consider other textbooks.


Everyday Mathematics uses a “spiral” approach in its organization.  While other parent concerns could potentially be addressed, the spiral is an inherent and fundamental part of program.

What is a spiral?  Spiraling means that concepts are introduced but not necessarily mastered before new concepts are introduced, then the previously introduced concepts are revisited, etc.  In this curriculum, a multitude of ideas is thrown at the kids without giving them time to create a solid groundwork.

This approach goes against the top recommendation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s which says:

“Elementary math text books should have a focused, coherent progression of mathematics learning, with an emphasis on proficiency with key topics … Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided.”

This is exactly the approach taken by Everyday Math.  Why would we go against the recommendations of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel?  What research does PAUSD have on this that would support going against this recommendation?!

From a process point of view, the Elementary Adoption Committee did not include the Panel’s recommendations in its discussion or criteria.  Why wouldn’t you?  I feel this is a major concern about the process and that we need to go back and include the Panel’s recommendations in the criteria.

What does EDM materials say about spiraling?

    “What we want teachers to do is to bring it up, drop it, bring it up again, let it go, bring it up again, let it go, and then at some point, aim for mastery. That’s built into essentially every part of our program. …
    “Everyday Mathematics is a spiraling curriculum with repeated exposure to objectives throughout the year. If teachers are struggling with the pace, they may be trying to teach to mastery instead of “trusting the spiral”. “

Do the teachers like it?  No.  Spiraling was a major concern brought up by the Adoption committee members.  Pittsburg schools recently decided to replace Everyday Mathematics.  Spiral was a major concern for the teachers.  One teacher said:

    “The set up of each lesson in regards to trying to keep the spiral moving teaches mathematical concepts in limited bursts and or chunks. A lesson may focus on addition, then time, then a number story, and data collection. Due to so many different concepts, students do not have the opportunity to truly practice basic skills and become secure in using them.”

Many parents and kids are confused and frustrated by the spiral:

    “Our daughter had very negative views of the text (problems were not necessarily relevant to the lesson; lesson explanations were confusing and/or shallow; organization is poor such that, as presented, the students had to hop around the text to get a holistic presentation of any single topic)”

Dear Board Members, if done right, mathematics teaches lifelong skills of clear thinking and problem solving.  With Everyday Math’s spiral approach, our kids will internalize that it’s ok to walk away without understanding something.  Is that what we want our kids to learn?

In the last month, I talked with dozens of parents whose kids use or used Everyday Math, including many in the districts mentioned in the staff report.  I have yet to find a parent who likes the program, and there are many who are strongly negative on it.  We can do better here.

Everyday Mathematics has serious flaws, and the process to get us here was flawed.  I urge you to look at other options.  Thank you.


I understand that the board is considering the approval of Everyday Math, which places heavy emphasis on the use of calculators.  To me, this is a serious concern, because I would like to ensure that my kid grow up being fully confident to perform fundamental calculations mentally and using paper and pencil.

By emphasizing the usage of calculators at such an early age, students would learn to rely on it, instead of developing solid fundamental skills.  I have heard of horror stories from other teachers and parents about kids that cannot count by 7, as in 7, 14, 21, without using a calculator. I hate to see my kid not being able to do the addition of simple fractions without calculators. They would feel they need calculators beside them all the time.

I don’t understand why students have to consume more time for calculators when teachers often complain they don’t have enough time to cover the grade level materials.  Using calculators will further reduce time for mastering more important math skills.  Therefore students will have to rely more heavily on calculators later on. Also they don’t need to be taught how to use calculators in this computer age.

I believe that frequent use of calculators and less mastery of math skills may also prevent students from developing number-sense.  A teacher once told me that this little girl insisted that 6 times 7 is 279,936.  She had hit the exponent key instead of the multiply key, but she insisted that her answer is correct because the calculator told her so.  This may be an extreme case, but it does show the nature of the problem we may encounter.

At last, the California Mathematics Framework clearly states, and I quote, “it is imperative that students in the early grades be given every opportunity to develop a facility with basic arithmetic skills without reliance on calculators”.

I believe for this reason, we should not make a decision at this moment. As it is said in our petition, I would like the board to postpone the decision for the textbook adoption for another year.


Good evening .. Is spending money on EDM the best thing to do?

Direct cost of EDM to Palo alto school district :

First year cost estimate for EDM is $150K for teacher training. Each teacher will have at least 3 days of training which translates to $90K in substitute teacher pay on days the 200 elementary teachers receive EDM training. The teachers could very well end up requiring much more than the 3 days of training. That brings the grand total of first year EDM spending to $245K.

Poway school has an annual EDM expense of $250K after 5 years of adoption. Newton,MA school district  after 10 years of EDM implementation, still requires 8 hours of training for its Kindergarden teachers. So potentially we will need to continue to spend additional money on EDM teacher training for the next 7 years. If we have a new teacher we will have to spend additional money on training.

EDM  cost  to Palo Alto in subsequent years will be $192K which includes teacher training and cost of substitute teachers.

The district has committed to Noyce Summer Session for teacher training. The costs associated with Noyce Summer Session which is $1,000/teacher, PAUSD has over 200 elementary teachers. So if even if 50% of the teachers attend it would cost $100K. The current recommendation has budgeted $150K over two years.

Where is the money going to come from? In this recession period the Palo Alto school budget deficit will be much greater than the 2.2 million forecast.

Is the plan to cut some other programs?

What is the Direct cost of EDM to parents:

Since parents are not familiar with EDM, they will need to spend additional time or money to help their children.

Indirect cost of EDM to school district:

Addition cost incurred by parents will translate to lower contributions/donations to schools. Parents contributed 1.92 million to PIE

EDM will make Palo Alto less desirable place to live which will lead to lower revenue from property taxes

EDM does not make fiscal sense, so please no fuzzy math.

Data derived from:

Poway school district annual expense in the 5th year around 250k. Since our school district’s enrollment is 38% that of Poway’s which would put annual expense for everyday math at 102k per year. Newton, MA after 10 years of EDM implementation, still requires 8 hours of training for K teachers

Cost of EDM derived from: http://pausd.org/community/board/downloads/item_013.pdf

Cost of substitute teacher: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=2397 Palo alto has over 200 elementary teachers. EDM Training for 3 days a year per teacher, 200 teachers, 150 per day for each subsitute teacher, which amounts to 90K in additional costs for substitute teachers.

EDM Cost estimates derived from http://pausd.org/community/board/downloads/item_013.pdf

PA school budget: http://www.pausd.org/community/about/downloads/BudgetBook.pdf Total for elementary schools 43.318 million


 EDM experience in other districts from parents and students


I will be talking about the EDM experience in other districts from parents and students:


  Please see the experience from parents and students:     


     We personally talked to our friend in Chicago area and her daughter was using EDM for five year, please see the following comments from her:


·         EDM introduces too many concepts in one year and kids only can master one or two method at most, it caused a lot of frustration every year and both kids and parents are easily get lost all the time. ( My friend has a graduated degree in U.S)

·         Every day she needs to spend almost one and half hour to work with her daughter for EDM. She did mentioned if it is traditional text book, she only needs to spend about ten or twenty minutes (She compared with Singapore Math) ( Her daughter’s math skill is one of the top students at her class)

·         After five years of EDM, she found out her daughter is lacking basic math skills.

·         She mentioned that the program was intended for kids who are more mature than their real age.

·         The success for teaching EDM is very dependent on teacher’s good understanding of the whole program.   (Does this mean it will equal to two or three times of teacher training compared with SRA or Singapore math? )


“Every Night Math” EDM require one or one and half hour of parent involvement every night. I am a working mom, everyday I pick up my daughter from school around 6:00pm. Then after bath and dinner we only have one hour left before she goes to bed around 9:00pm, then how can we finish reading book, EDM homework and Piano in one hour? If we adopt EDM, shall I quit my job? Then how can we afford the sky-high mortgage in Palo Alto?  What if one family has two or three kids in K-5? What if there are some single parent families.


Please, Please, Dear school board members, there are so many families with two parents working outside the home in Palo Alto, Please Please save both parents and Children’s Life and do not approve EDM. I am really begging you, life is already too tough and stressful for parents in Silicon Valley, are we going to make them even worse than ten times now? Please think about the pressure our kids and parents will be facing with EDM!!!!!!!!!! 


If you vote “No”, you already saved lots of families already. Trust me, you will be remembered from our hundreds of families and Children!!!!!!!!



Please see other emails from other parents whose kids are using EDM from other school districts:



Please see why a father burst into tears for tutoring EDM with his son:
> Facts:
> – I was a math tutor for 8 years, and a math professor for 7 more, so I’ve taught a lot of math, ranging from the basics (addition, subtraction, fractions) to differential equations and integral calculus.
> – I help my 2nd grade son with his homework every night.
> – Our school district adopted “Everyday Mathematics”.
> – NONE of the 2nd grade teachers at the school use the textbook.
> Opinions:
> – The teachers I’ve talked to say that “Everyday Mathematics” is “not a very good book”, which is why they hand out photocopies of math work from other books instead, and don’t teach from the book either. (The kids are doing their work using the old-fashioned algorithms that have worked for hundreds of years).
> – My son was sick for a week, so I decided to give him some homework to keep him up to speed. I tried to find useful problem sets in the “Everyday Mathematics” workbook. There were none. I had to create my own problem sets. Reading through the book, I was nearly brought to tears by the absolute lack of ANY rote learning techniques. The opinion of the authors was clearly that “rote is bad, touchy-feely is good”. Unfortunately, there is indeed value in doing problems enough times that you learn to recognize them. (Integral calculus, anyone? Differential equations?) Having students do double-digit subtraction five or six times and then having them write about how they’d solve problems instead of actually doing them is a severe disservice.


> Conclusion:

> – A math book that is useless to teachers, useless to parents, and useless as a source of problem sets, seems like an awfully big waste of money.

Comments from PaloAltooneline:

My nephew uses Everyday Math in his school in PA and it is not helpful. My brother cannot help his son with his math homework because it is so ridiculous. My sister-in-law who is a math teacher with 30 yrs. experience and currently advises on curriculums has told me that Singapore Math is excellent. I have also heard this from other soures. I don’t know who is pushing Everyday Math, but it is really not good (lousy)…


With Everyday Math, children will not be able to go to the store and calculate in their heads the price of a sale item on sale for 30% off.

I have heard Everyday Math referred to as “Every Night Math” because every night parents are teaching their children the math they should be learning in school or driving them to tutoring centers to supplement their education.





Dear Board members, School staff and Community members,

For the next 3 minutes, I would like to request the 5 board members’ undivided attention. Because of your hard work, Palo Alto School District has earned an incredibly positive reputation of taking sound decisions for the benefit of our school kids.

The Math Textbook Selection will be an important decision that you will make individually in the next 2 weeks. There are a plethora of reasons on why a large community of over 380 Palo Alto wide residents is recommending via a petition that you vote on postponing the selection for one more year. I’d like to focus your attention on those reasons that relate to process & communication.

I sincerely respect the time and hard work that the committee has dedicated to this process, however there were four major gaps that should peak your interest

  1. The first one was lack of wider communication of this process to parents and inviting them into the Selection Committee. The only invitation and notification of this process was limited to an inclusion of a flier within student’s Friday Folders. This created a major issue of under representation of parents in the committee. Given the importance of this matter, this should have raised a red flag. There was an opportunity to increase awareness. However, no further effort was taken to solicit parent’s participation.
  1. The second reason to postpone this important selection is for you to ensure compliance of your Internal Policy AR6161 which states that “At least two to five parents should be included and PTA Council Exec Board should be consulted…” Pls. note that the PTA Council president, Mr. Dan Dykwel, confirmed that PTA was not consulted during the selection process. Four parents applied and one was rejected due to two parents being from same school. That was strange because parents were already underrepresented, whereas there were many teachers from the same school. These three parents could not justifiably represent the wide spectrum of Palo Alto students that include GATE students, Special ED and ELL students and students from different socio-economic and diverse backgrounds. These 3 parents were not given an opportunity and time to solicit any feedback from wider community. The only general parent input that was solicited prior to committee’s recommendation, turned into a fist to five battle. Clearly, more time was needed and parents felt left out in the decision process.
  1. The third reason was the miscommunication between McGrawHill and Committee regarding SRA which resulted in elimination of a favored program that did not get piloted. The fact that McGraw Hill is willing to support an SRA pilot, my request is for you to consider options on how that can be fulfilled without derailing the entire process, possibly by voting for additional time.
  1. The fourth reason for you to seek additional time is a shortage of independent research and analysis on textbook comparison. Especially, when such a controversial decision is being requested from you, you have the right to ask for deeper analysis that supports why National Math Panel’s recommendations were ignored and request rebuttals of the wide criticisms of EDM. It is no surprise that additional time and communication will reduce most of the discontent.

There is absolutely no requirement on your side to enforce a new math textbook this year.

By voting for a deferral, you are not just requesting additional time but you are supporting:

  • Increased collaboration between district staff and parents that represent a wide spectrum of students from different socio-economic and diverse backgrounds.
  • There is a lot of research on EDM that the committee would like to share with community and a lot of anecdotal data that parents wants to share with committee. You will achieve that goal by requesting for additional time.

In the past, your decisions have brought Palo Alto credibility and reputation as one of the best school districts in the country. Your votes have increased collaboration between educators, students, parents and community as a whole.

Let me say this as clearly as I can: This Math Adoption process is NOT a philosophical war.

Fortunately, in this case, it’s just a lack of communication due to lack of time. Your vote to buy more time will fix this and provide an opportunity to increase collaboration in this community for the good of our kids.

Thank you.


I want begin with saying that we all appreciate the dedication, time and efforts of the Elementary Math Adoption Committee, Members of the District Staff, Superintendent Skelly and the Board Members.

I would like to bring three main topics to the attention of the Board

  1. Issues with EDM
  2. ESL and Special Needs Students
  3. Process issues

We all are aware of the fundamental issues surrounding Everyday Math: use of non-standard algorithms, spiraling and use of calculators. Everyday Mathematics requires at least one hour a day and Andy Issacs, one of the authors of the program, recommends 1.25 to 1.5 hour per day for the program to work.   In addition, the district is promising to spend additional time on basic skills and standard algorithms.  Where is the time going to come from?  What will be dropped from other subjects in the curriculum?

We have to be concerned about the “grand canyon” size gap between 5th and 6th grade math proficiency.

Some of us that manage large financial budgets are concerned that the proposed 2-year $150K implementation budget is too low. Experiences of Dr. Skelly’s prior district Poway shows that the actual costs will run over $100K annually. What else will we have to cut to make up for these additional costs?

Everyone agrees that EDM uses spiraling. Spiraling is known to frustrate children with special needs. How is EDM going to work for children of special needs? We don’t know, because the Committee had one representative with Special Needs experience who was not even present at the meetings when pilot results were shared or when the Committee voted for EDM.

EDM has a very heavy language component. How are our ESL students going to do with EDM?

The experiences of other districts have not been stellar. There is more evidence of districts that have abandoned the program than evidence attributing success in mathematics to the use of EDM. Expert mathematicians from UC Berkeley and Stanford have openly voiced their concerns about EDM.

We all know that the Committee wanted to pilot SRA, but we narrowed our list down to two programs based on the decision of the Western Regional Sales VP of McGraw Hill who also runs EDM division. She did not know that our Committee wanted to pilot SRA.

Our Math Adoption Committee has a fantastic background and experience in teaching mathematics. But the parents in this community also have world-class education and mathematics. If they are so concerned about the adoption of a specific program, I believe that we should listen. Let us not rush in. We don’t have to. Delay the decision on selecting a math program. Pilot another program or two. Let us over-communicate. Let us leverage our parent community and arrive at a decision together.

Thank you.



Imagine the Every Day Math approach applied to Driver’s Education.
The goal wouldn’t be to master driving but to explore all the different ways of driving.
So on Sunday, you would drive a Corolla.
Monday: 4WD SUV
Tuesday: Ferrari
Wednesday: Semi truck
Thursday: Prius
Friday: Tractor
Saturday: Lawn mower
But wait, there’s spiraling. So you would do this all over again the next week but on a mountain road. And so on.
After 6 weeks of this, you would get your driver’s license and could apply for a job as a cab driver. Problem is, you’d be competing with a lot of people who learned on one car but learned to do that well, driving in city traffic every day. Any guess who would get the job?


This is an Open Letter sent from Stanford Professor (Department of Mathematics), Gunnar Carlsson.  It is being republished here with his permission.

You can download the letter below (PDF File) or view it below (slightly unclear version):

Carlsson-Letter (.pdf file)



 Dear School Board Members:

Many districts have abandoned the EDM after using it for a number of years.  Here are some examples that we discovered:


Notes from St Joseph’s School in Menlo Park re Everyday Math ( based on a telephone call last week with the Menlo Park  curriculum director)

St. Josephs recently decided to drop EDM after using it for 7 years, a change that was made at the behest of its teachers.  While the teachers were initially drawn to Everyday Math because of its focus on higher order thinking, the negatives of the program once brought into the classroom outweighed the positives.

Problems identified:

– Per middle school teachers, students who have learned EDM in elementary schools were not prepared for

middle school math.

– EDM does not provide good mathematical foundations, this was not obvious in lower grades but became a problem by 5th or 6th grade


          In Grades 1-3, teachers ended up having to use EDM very loosely because it required lots of supplementing for students to be able to master grade level math. 


– Other problems teachers found with Everyday Math:

   – The spiral was quite problematic and, though teachers supplemented to try to make it work for them, there was no way to standardize the supplementation between classrooms so what was taught and how it was taught was very difficult for the administration to monitor for consistency.  Also, it spiraled too quickly.  The spiral was particularly problematic for struggling students.

  – EDM takes a lot of time to implement.  Because their school has a rich program that focuses on subjects in addition to the standard 3 Rs, their teachers were not able to give it the time needed to do it well (i.e., time needed to finding and teaching with supplemental materials)

   – Everyday Math does not teach basic math facts well, which need to be really strong for the student to succeed in math.  The calculator is introduced too early.  For example, the brain v. calculator game is used in 2nd grade when students should be working on mastering automaticity with basic math facts (intimated that some children’s take away from this game was that since the calculator does it so easily there is no need to memorize the facts on your own).

– EDM has its own vocabulary which did not transfer well when students had to be familiar with common terms for standardized tests.


2. New Jersey’s Bridgewater District




New Jersey’s Bridgewater-Raritan school district’s has abandoned EDM just recently. Please see the cons they have found after many years of using EDM.


     1) Language-intensive-based program

     2) Stresses the use of calculators

     3) Does not teach the traditional algorithms,

     4) Does not advocate drill of basic facts in any form

     5) Does not fit into the time constraints of a school

         day on all grade levels

     6) Some topics are covered quite well, while other

          topics are given weak treatment

     7) Not all topics are intended to lead to mastery


3. Texas sinks Everyday Math


In Nov 2007, the state of Texas has dropped a math curriculum that is mandated for use in New York City schools, saying it was leaving public school graduates unprepared for college.


One board member, Terri Leo, who is also a Texas public school teacher, called the textbook “the very worst book that we had submitted.” This year, the board of education received 163 textbooks for consideration.




“EM has been implemented district-wide since the 1993-1994 school

year Results from the 5th and 8th-grade level PSSAs show that only

37% of district 5th-grade students and a meager 28% of its 8th-grade

students could demonstrate math proficiency at these grade levels

last year

It’s clear that the math programs in the Pittsburgh

Public Schools have woefully failed to prepare many of its children

in mathematics for years

2008 the Pittsburgh math committee dropped Every Day Math and selected enVisions instead.

Some of the problems that Pittsburgh teachers and parents found were:


– Many teachers were unprepared to teach the curriculum and needed “substantial content preparation”
– EDM can exacerbate weaknesses in classroom management that principals could not help with
– Pittsburg had to provide support to parents who didn’t understand the program


5. When Maryland removed Everyday Math from 14 of their poorest performing districts and substituted a traditional program, the scores in every district climb dramatically in one year.


"Reading's math performance was in the 80 percentiles in the years 
1993-1995.  A downward trend appears in 1996 and 1997.  The first 
students utilizing the "Chicago Math" program were tested in 1997 
with the Stanford 9.  This downward trend continues in the Everyday Math program with computational skills dipping to 67% in 1997 and 
Total Math dropping to 73%.  The same group of 1997 students were re-
tested in 1998 and the data shows a continuing drop in computational 
skills."  (Dr. Robert Mandell, Concerned Parents of Reading, 2-13-
2000 @ http://mathematicallycorrect.com/cpr.htm )


"As far as the nation-wide Iowa testing system is concerned, 
Stoneham students in grades 3, 5 and 7 are at the 35 percentile when 
it comes to math computation, announced Michael Kennedy, program 
supervisor of mathematics  "  ("Calculators Add Up Trouble," 
Stoneham Sun, 11-3-1999).
 "In Stoneham, Michael Kennedy, program supervisor  for math in 
grades 6-12, said they're replacing the more exploratory University 
of Chicago math program with "more of a meat and potatoes, more 
drill and practice" texts.  ("Old Arithmetic Returns to Classroom," 
Boston Globe, April 7, 2002).  


Rocklin has been listed as a "success story" by EM.  However, the 
School Board voted to discontinue EM in February 2002.  ("Math 
Divides Folks in Rocklin," Sacramento Bee, 2-5-2002; 
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1584075p-1660349c.html )
"Myself and two colleagues are now elected school board members 
because our district had "Everyday Math" for 6 years; that's also 
part of the reason we are getting ready to hire a new 
superintendent.  It took 4 years, but the community was finally 
outraged.  Parents got no straight answers  Students who have an 
engineering bent and who already know the multiplication tables will 
do ok with EM; most others will fail miserably."  ("David Coffey: 
Everyday Mathematics, Fad or the Future," Oak Ridger Online, 4-6-



10. ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, ILL.  (Chicago area)
"In a recent study of the [EM] program done by a consultant, nearly 
30% of parents of 3rd, 4th and 5th-grades said they were concerned 
their children were not learning basic computational skills such as 
multiplication and division tables."  ("District 54 Board to Review 
Six New Math Curriculums," Elk Grove Times, 1-7-1999).
"EM is still controversial among parents.  In particular, parents 
have objected to the nontraditional teaching methods and the use of 
calculators in the classroom."  (Arlington Heights Post, April 22, 
1999, posted @ http://www.illinoisloop.org/chimath/html )
DISTRICT 109  (Chicago area)
School math committee voted to drop EM in fall 2001.  "District 109 
officials found that the Everyday Math spiral was steep.  "One of 
our biggest concerns was that spiral," [Ina] Kerrigan [assistant 
superintendent for curriculum and instruction] said."  ("Committee 
Proposes New Math Program, Deerfield Review, 5-10-2001).


"Since the UCMP emphasizes higher level thinking skills, it has 
become clear that children's computational skills have suffered.  
The district plans to provide additional help to children in grades 
2-4 through after-school math clubs for remedial work, and 
recommendations of computer programs and other resources.  Dr. 
Griffith stated that reinforcement of "math facts" by parents or 
other programs (i.e., Kumon, SCORE, tutoring) would be extremely 
helpful."  (Minutes of the Cherokee APT Meeting, 2-21-2001;
http://www.lfelem.lfc.edu/schools/apt/chaptmin2-2l.html )



ST. CHARLES, ILL.  DISTRICT 303  (Chicago area)
Parent group opposed EM.  See web-site @ 
School board voted to stop using EM in 2-2000.  Reported at 


School dropped EM after two years.  "When teachers started to review 
the materials from EM, they felt [another text] provided more 
practice and drill."  ("District 204 Launches New Math Text, Sun 
Publications, 3-8-2002).
"Edison Schools Inc.  has published test results revealing that 
elementary school math scores declined at an extraordinary number of 
the company's schools from 2000 to 2001  Chicago Math, the program 
used by Edison, has drawn criticism from activists who deride it 
as "fuzzy math.
               -- 2nd grade math scores declined at 5 of 23 schools (21.7%);
               -- 3rd grade math scores declined at 12 of 28 schools 
               -- 4th grade scores declined at 16 of 49 schools (32.6%);
               -- 5th grade scores declined at 6 of 41 schools (14.6%);
               -- 6th grade scores declined at 4 of 21 schools (19%)."  
Dodge-Edison School has been listed as a "success story" by EM on 
its website.
"At Dodge-Edison  math performance is below the average for 
comparable schools and shows no progress since 1996."  ("American 
Federation of Teachers Study of Edison Schools Shows Mixed Results," 
AFT press release, 10-19-2000.  See

16. Conejo School District in Southern California

Conejo school district in Southern California, which includes Thousand Oaks has been using Everyday Mathematics for several years.

Parents started a group called “Save Our Children from Mediocre Math”



These websites date back to 2005. Since then, Everyday Math managed to get approved by the state of California by adding standard algorithms into the program. However, all the other concerns about the program still apply.

Conejo stayed with Everyday Math. Elementary enrollment has been dropping despite growth in overall population. In 2008, Conejo had to close 2 elementary schools.

17. Columbia,  Missouri

District decides to go back to traditional math



Wednesday, September 24, 2008 | 10:39 p.m. CDT

BY Stephanie Call

COLUMBIA — As early as next fall, students in Columbia’s elementary classrooms will learn math with a traditional approach. After years of debate and discussion about the district’s math curriculum, the “investigations” program won’t be considered the district’s everyday math program anymore. The curriculum was under review as part of the district’s six-year curriculum revision cycle.

Linda Coutts, the district’s elementary math coordinator, told math curriculum committee members that the decision came from Interim Superintendent Jim Ritter. He met with Coutts and secondary math coordinator Chip Sharp on Sept. 9 and said he was concerned that the district’s math issues had divided the community.


The following are some stated facts which are part of the Minutes of the Math Committee Meetings (October 2008)

It is clear here that there was some reservation about the text selection by some teachers.  Also, it appears that additional texts were to be piloted, which did not get the opportunity to be shared in this process.

From the PAUSD Math Committee Minutes:

On October 7th , the committee took a poll to indicate which books it liked best.  In order:

(Link to the October 7, 2008 Minutes)


1.  SRA (all 6 yeses) (“was the publisher with the most yes votes and best met the criteria

according to every grade level”) (“Based on the above chart, it was clear that the group wanted to further review …SRA.”) (“majority agreed to focus on …SRA”)

2.  EDM (4 yeses and 1 maybe) (“was the next choice for further review according to the majorityof grade levels”)

After discussion, the group agreed to invite four publishers to present (per April 3rd Q&A) and then, after the presentations, decide which to pilot.  It voted to take a closer look at Envision, in addition to SRA and Everyday Math.

On October 16th [Presentations Meeting], 4 presentations were made:

(Link to October 16, 2008 Minutes)

–  Three textbooks the committee requested: (SRA (via Powerpoint), EDM and enVision), and

–  Harcourt

Group Vote Results:

Before Discussion/After Discussion:

Everyday Math 22/18
Envision 24/ 21
SRA 11/ 6

“A handful of teachers were not comfortable with piloting just Everyday Math and Envision. It was suggested that Everyday Math would be rejected by teachers as being too hard for them to read and prepare lessons. There might also be an issue with Envision; it comes with Investigations and buy-in for that program could be difficult. Teacher buy-in is crucial. Will adequate professional development be available? This group may not be representing those who are apprehensive about changing to a new text. Can all three texts be piloted if fewer units are tested? While Ginni Davis suggested piloting only two texts, she did not say that only two texts could be piloted. It was decided that Everyday Math, Envision, and SRA would be piloted.”