I am quite curious. So is my seven year old. He's always game for something challenging so I decided to have him take the Everyday Math pre-tests on the University of Chicago website. He's going into second grade so we started there.
I am assuming, of course, that a pre-test covers topics that will be taught during the year so that a post-test can be given at the end of the year to measure learning and growth. I hope I'm wrong. I really do. The results were depressing.
He took the second grade pre-test and scored 100% in short order and with no fuss. He asked for the next one, so I obliged. Third grade pre-test completed with another score of 100%. I haven't given him the fourth grade test yet (though he asked) because I'm wondering what good will really come of it.
It's frustrating, actually. It means he's going to have to sit through an entire year of Everyday Math that covers topics that he already understands. I am saddened by this waste of learning opportunity and the lack of recourse to bring about change. Our district has chosen Everyday Math and despite all the talk about differentiation and meeting the needs of every learner, my son is doomed to boredom in mathematics during school hours from September through June.
He's finishing up Singapore Math 2B soon, and will likely finish Singapore 3A/3B before the end of the school year. But this huge disparity between what he is learning in math class and what he is learning at home is only certain to grow wider. Lots of children like him won't be challenged in math this year because the school doesn't consider it a priority to make the effort to challenge them and teach to their potential. What a collosal waste of talent.
The result of my pre-test experiment was what I had expected it to be. Absolutely pointless.