Barry Garelick discusses the Washington, D.C. school board’s decision to adopt Everyday Math as an elementary curriculum despite considerable opposition. One key tactic is to “disparage testimony from those against the adoption as ideological and politically motivated arguments,” he writes. Another is to invite teachers from affluent districts to testify that EM works with their students, ignoring evidence that it doesn’t work as well for low-income students whose parents can’t tutor them at home or pay for tutoring.
The after-school tutoring offered to low-income students may be worthless, writes Instructivist, who quotes the pitch of a Chicago company advertising its program for sixth-graders who need math and reading help:
The curriculum is hands-on and utilizes multiple intelligences. Students love it! Students learn math and reading by solving mysteries, playing games, acting out plays, and doing art projects. The program makes learning and teaching fun!
Instructivist doubts students will play their way to math proficiency. It’s certainly not the kind of tutoring provided to students whose parents can pay the cost.