Some of the following is from the Palo Alto Online Paper and from parents who have shared their first hand experiences with EDM:

Posted by Deb, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 10:52 am (Palo Alto Online)
I am a disinterested observer since my children are already in college, but I have some experience with Everyday Mathematics, which was foisted on my children when they were in Elementary School in Ann Arbor, MI. We were all frustrated with the program’s “multiapproach” to solving math problems – there was no mastery and no solid foundation built. They were both saved by their 5th grade teacher, a stubborn, independent and gifted teacher who used his seniority to basically refuse to teach the program. He taught math his own way, using a combination of traditional methods and “mindstretching problems” for kids who wanted to explore further, and as a result, both my children finally developed a solid competence with math. I encourage Palo Alto parents to reject Everyday Mathematics.

Posted by Been There, Done That, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2009 at 1:05 pm (Palo Alto Online)
To those new to this topic, math programs need to be reviewed every 7 years and the current math program is not longer acceptable to CA math standards. Here is the original posting on the topic: Web Link
When we lived in another state, my child experienced several years of EDM. My son is earning A’s in math now due to the help of Kumon supplementing EDM. Pulling ups stats on this past school district, of the students in high school who learned EDM, almost half cannot pass their state math exam. PAUSD should choose a math program which does not require so much supplementing.
We witnessed frustration in the teachers who taught EDM, the students who could not understand EDM, and as educated parents, there were math problems we could not help our child with due to the alternative math language and alternative algorithms. I remember some math problems being way beyond his reach (i.e. a problem involving multiplication when he had not been taught multiplication yet). Or the spiraling in which children are introduced to topics and before they can really learn it and understand it fully, EDM moves onto another topic. By the time the topic spirals back again, students oftentimes have forgotten since they never learned it well the first time. Math is easy for my son so he could remember but many children were frustrated and confused, especially the ones who had no help from home.
PAUSD claims they will have parent information nights and online classes for the parents to learn EDM so they can help their children at home. Should a math program be so off base that they need to teach parents with 4year and graduate degrees a new system?
The flaws of EDM are not fully apparent by viewing the texts or piloting for a couple of months. When I went to the district office to fill out a comment card, I flipped through the EDM books. The books looked fine to me, but then I remembered the spiraling, the abstract questions, the frustrated teachers, parents, and children.
So the administraton and community needs to look at the data of failure rates of EDM rather than adopting EDM simply because other comparable districts have adopted it. Just because others have adopted it doesn’t make it the right program for Palo Alto. That would be like jumping off the bridge with a friend and not knowing what lies below. Some will make it, some will not.
A phone call from a board member questioning EDM will likely receive a positive response because the school does not want to admit they made a mistake. Have their test scores improved? Where’s the data other than an opinion that the administration is satisfied with it?
Why do people think EDM is the only program out there which encourages more analytical thinking? There are plenty of others which encourage analytical thinking but they are less confusing to students and taught without spiraling or new vocabulary.
Had it been communicated to the parents that EDM was being considered for adoption, there would have been an uproar then instead of now. Believe me, I would have stepped forward.
All the data available shows that parents do not like EDM and many districts have eliminated the program. Question why the districts dumped the program.
And for those who say the staff can fill in the gaps? There are so many flaws in EDM that they will basically have to rewrite the program, which is what many districts have done. Why not choose a program with proven success? No, there is not one program which will satisfy everyone, but EDM will surely upset the majority.
Let’s give all our children a chance at succeeding in math, not only the children who have a lot of outside help. EDM will surely widen the achievement gap.
 Speech given by a Palo Alto Mom with EDM Experience:
I am the parent of a Duveneck third grader and a preschooler. I am also an educator and a social scientist. I come to this meeting tonight having moved to Palo Alto from New Jersey, where my daughter studied Everyday Math for three years. To share our experiences with the Board, I posted an open letter on the Silicon Valley Moms Blog with some specific examples. I hope that you have had a chance to read that blog post and the comments from readers. The letter has received over 1500 unique page views, and I ask you to note that of the 19 comments on the piece, only one favors Everyday Math versus 18 who do not, including several comments from teachers themselves.
Beyond my objection to this curriculum, though, I’m here tonight to speak with you about this problem that’s been framed as “squeaky wheel parents versus the committee.” As both teachers and parents educate our children, the objections of parents like me who are here tonight need to be heard. The committee, even those parents on it, did not seek to vet concerns prior to making their recommendation. I thought that might happen in the March 11 meeting and was sorely disappointed as the two curricula under review were not even discussed. For me, while I know that the Everyday Math materials have been vetted and that confirming data regarding the program has been sought, there is a big piece of review missing that would have addressed the objections at hand. What’s missing is data that refutes this selection – data that acknowledges the parents and teachers in a host of communities who are having problems with Everyday Math. The committee has called plenty of districts that use and like Everyday Math, but, except for one conversation with Dr. Skelly’s former district, Poway, we have no information from districts that have abandoned it. The only empirical data that we have on Everyday Math is from the publisher. That is a problem. It is a problem because mathematicians at Stanford, Berkeley, Cal Poly and other institutions do not think that Everyday Math is a credible curriculum. At Duveneck last night, Dr. Skelly suggested that there’s a distinction between these mathematicians and elementary school math teachers. Considering that some of these gentleman taught some of our elementary math teachers, I reject the idea that their opinion is in any way invalid – especially since Dr. Milgram at Stanford is among the authors of the state math standards.
To use a metaphor, when a pharmaceutical company tests a new drug, it puts that drug through trials. That company does not seek data solely in support of the drug’s efficacy; it seeks data regarding the drug’s adverse effects. A drug is not approved if the adverse effects are significant. A math curriculum so critical to the education of our children merits no less scrutiny.
Last night at Duveneck, I asked Dr. Skelly who will advocate for the many parents who are opposed to Everyday Math. He pointed me to you, the Board. Thus, I ask you to postpone your decision on the adoption of this new math curriculum. This postponement will give the committee time to gather the data that it is missing and to work with the community to find out why opposition to this program is so strong. Perhaps their recommendation will still be Everyday Math, but at least that recommendation will be informed by all participants. We’re just not there yet, and with this much parent opposition, it cannot be okay to proceed with an adoption. Thank you for your time.
I have not read through this website extensively so I am not sure if you already have this information somewhere, but I found the following website interesting:
http://www.lit.net/orschools/everydaymath2.htm