Talk:Everyday Mathematics

6/5F

Bias towards Everyday Math

This article most definitely has a bias toward EM. The arguments are weak and they do not incorporate the very strong arguments against the curriculum. It is missing a whole lotta info.

I find it interesting that Chicago approves of this article - uh, Everyday Math used to be called Chicago Math

Harriska2 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I Agree completely. Duckwariorrandom (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the article in October 2011, and it looks like someone who is heavily biased against EDM has been adjusting the article. The tone is currently set as an attack on EDM. This is a very controversial topic among parents and educators. I'd really suggest flagging it as a controversial topic and getting someone to watch edits closely. --labradane (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Effectiveness section and copyright

This section needs to be rewritten, as the majority of the quotes praising the program are from the U of Chicago, which developed it. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section. Segregating POV comments into sections (Pro or Con) are discouraged (see WP:NPOV#Article structure). The guidelines suggest merging such sections into other sections, and I am moving related information into the History section. Such information speaks for itself, one does not need to interpret facts for others. mordel (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted text

Additionally, good-sized chunks of this article were lifted verbatim from another wiki with no citations identifying which material came from there. The material is covered by a Creative Commons license. Could an editor who is sharper than me on copyright issues look into this? — Twisted86 - Talk - at 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Scope and sequence

I'm removing the following quote, as it doesn't really help describe the system, and I think that every curriculum trying to teach mathematics wants to teach basic concepts as early as possible. mordel (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

   According to the developers, “…[t]he developers of Everyday Mathematics
   believe that the groundwork for mathematical literacy should begin at a
   much earlier age than offered by traditional mathematics programs…”(Current Curriculum 2002).

External links

I'm removing all the external links besides the official website. The rest, if they contain useful information, should be cited properly in the text. Listed below are the deleted sites, so that I don't lose track of these resources for possible citation. Once I'm satisfied with their use in the text, I'm going to delete them from here.

• http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/educators/references.shtml
• http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Everyday_Mathematics (on which this article is based)
• http://www.everydaymathsuccess.com
• http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/bishop4.htm
• http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/everyday.htm
• http://www.chatham.edu/PTI/2003%20Units/Looking%20at%20Everyday%20Mathematics/abstracts%20math.htm
• http://www.nychold.com/let-carson-031218.html
• http://www.nychold.com/em.html
• Video: "Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth", M.J. McDermott, Q13 FOX KCPQ-TV

Pro-everyday Bias

As it reads now, nearly any information about critics is of the form "invalid criticism comes from these people". It needs to be built up so that both sides have valid viewpoints. Bachcell (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

garbled text, missing content

The following sentence appears in the text. It appears to be missing content following citation [5].

"The letter [4] appeared in the November 18, 1999 edition of the Post and was eventually signed by over two hundred prominent mathematicians and scientists including four Nobel Laureates [5] , has since become Secretary of Energy and three Fields Medalists, a National Medal of Science winner from the University of Chicago, and the some chairs of math departments.[6]"

Also, despite being described in the first sentence as "a controversial pre-K and elementary school mathematics curriculum," there is not a word in the remainder of the article about the content of that controversy. I'd edit it, except I don't know what the controversy is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsantow (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing left.

This article is currently terrible. I cannot tell one single thing about the program at all except that it is controversial. This article has been gutted by edit wars and badly needs attention. 68.44.132.25 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)