A prior response from Isaacs to a paper now being cited on local blogs is also available here. The original paper, written in 2001, can be found here.  

Everyday Math writers have also published a response to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, available here.

Community members have asked for input from local districts that have already adopted the program. Menlo Park most recent fact sheet

Answers to Questions from the PAUSD Community from Andy Isaacs

Andy Isaacs, director of Everyday Mathematics (EDM) Third Edition, from University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, has written responses to several questions that community members have sent to the PAUSD district office. 

Background Information on Andy Isaacs
Andy Isaacs received a BA in classical Greek from Northwestern University in 1974, an MST in elementary education from the University of Chicago in 1977, an MS in mathematics from the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) in 1987, and a DA in mathematics (with concentrations in abstract algebra and theoretical computer science) from UIC in 1994. Philip Wagreich directed Isaacs’s dissertation, "Whole number concepts and operations in grades 1 and 2: Curriculum and rationale."

From 1977 to 1985, Isaacs taught fourth and fifth grades in Chicago-area public schools. In 1985, he joined the Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science at UIC as a lecturer in mathematics education. Beginning in 1986, Isaacs worked closely with Wagreich and Howard Goldberg on the NSF-funded Teaching Integrated Mathematics and Science Project (TIMS). In 1989 and 1990, he worked with Wagreich and David Page on UIC’s Maneuvers with Mathematics Project, another NSF-funded curriculum development effort. From 1990 to 1995, he was a full time writer for Math Trailblazers, a comprehensive mathematics curriculum for grades K–5 based on TIMS and funded by NSF.

In 1995, Isaacs joined the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project to work on the Bridges to Classroom Mathematics Project, which was directed by Sheila Sconiers. Isaacs was an author on the second edition of Everyday Mathematics, published in 2000 and 2001, and directed revisions that led to a third edition of Everyday Mathematics in 2007 and California and Texas editions of Everyday Mathematics in 2008. He currently directs a project that is working to improve mathematics achievement in ten Chicago elementary schools that are undergoing "restructuring" mandated by No Child Left Behind. He is Co-Director of the University's Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education, and a Senior Research Associate in the University’s Physical Sciences Division.

Do you know if any assessments/studies/measures have been done on EDM 3rd edition yet and if so can you lead me to the links?
There haven't been any such studies done by us or by researchers we know of. I suspect there are school districts who have some local results -- people who upgraded from second to third edition last year would have one year of third edition data to compare with second edition results from earlier years -- but I haven't seen any.

Can you address what changes have been made between the 2nd and CA 3rd edition of Everyday Math?

• Spiraling
  The "spiraling" in the third edition is much more deliberate and finely tuned than in prior editions. For the third edition, we made giant charts that tracked dozens of specific skills and concepts across every activity (Part 1, 2, or 3), Mental Math and Reflex, assessment, and so on. The Everyday Mathematics Goals were incredibly detailed, down to the level of individual Math Box problems. So the distributed practice (and instruction and assessment) is better executed in third edition than in previous editions.
• Calculators
  Our approach to calculators has not changed all that much in the third edition. When kids are working on mental or paper-and-pencil arithmetic, calculators are not allowed. For problem solving, pattern exploration, and other things, calculators are used as tools when appropriate.
  
  Sometimes people count up all the pages with no-calculator icons, subtract them from the total pages, and come up with outlandish estimates for the use of calculators in EDM. But this can be silly. A geometry page would not have a no-calculator icon, but one should not count such a page as encouraging inappropriate calculator use, which is what some of our critics are doing.
• Standard algorithms - especially long division
  The California edition includes a series of projects and other work about the U.S. Traditional Algorithms, including long division. The treatment of the algorithms across these projects is conceptually driven and grade-appropriate. Computational practice is found in many places throughout the program and almost never specifies any method.  So the kids can learn the traditional algorithms in the projects and then do the practice in the Home Links, Study Links, Math Boxes, and elsewhere as follow-up.
  
  
• Automaticity on basic math facts drill/recall
  This has always been an emphasis in EDM. One thing you should know is that a good bit of the facts practice is formatted as games, so teachers can't skip the games. Every lesson starts with Mental Math and Reflexes exercises. There is a lot of facts (and other) practice in the program, but it's spread out (because that's more efficient) so sometimes people who are used to massed practice think there's not enough.
  
  
• Differentiation and ELL
  Differentiation was a major focus both in the national third edition and in the California edition. You might look at the introduction to the Differentiation Handbook for details about our approach. There's also an English Language Handbook for California.

How much time does Everyday Math feel is needed for professional development?
This varies widely.  Many districts get by with what the company supplies, which is about a day and a half or so. Other districts provide much more. Our center has developed some tools – workshop write-ups and so on -- that districts can use to conduct professional development. Or we can work with you.

How much time should teachers spend teaching the program in the classroom each
week?
An hour per day is a minimum. In the first year, you might want to devote more time since the kids won't have the background the program assumes at the upper grades, which will slow things down a bit, and also teachers won't be as efficient since they too will be getting used to the program. 75 or even 90 minutes in Year 1 might be advisable. Then in Year 2 you can reduce the time.

It is said that EDM is a very carefully articulated program that works best in districts that teach it exclusively.  Is that true and what does or doesn't EDM recommend if teachers want to supplement it with non-EDM materials that they are already comfortable using?
I think that in the beginning, teachers would be well advised to try to teach the program as it's written with minimal supplementation.  This is a bit like when I cook: When I first make a recipe, I try to follow the directions as closely as I can. After I've made it a few times, I can start to fiddle around with it. Similarly, teachers should try to teach the program as written -- even the counterintuitive parts, such as the distributed practice -- and only later, after a year or two, start to modify it as necessary to meet local conditions.

For example, some teachers skip the EDM games because they feel rushed and don't see the value of the games. Then they notice that the kids aren't getting enough practice. Then they start to supplement with drill sheets. But if they had allowed the kids to play the games in the first place, they wouldn't have needed to supplement.

Could an average teacher in a district like ours do it in 5 hours a week?  If more, how much more is recommended? 
I think I addressed this above. If you want grade-by-grade recommendations, I can query my grade-level leaders.

One thing you might consider is trying to squeeze some more math in at odd minutes of the day -- the Minute Math books at the various grades are filled with exercises that can be done when the kids are lining up etc. Some teachers have the kids do their Math Boxes as seatwork during language arts. In general, as you know, if you devote more time to a subject, learning will increase, so as a math guy, I am in favor of more time for math.

Should you have questions or concerns, contact Ginni Davis or at (650) 329-3709

Revised April 2009