by Sugi Sorensen
Nov. 28, 2025
In my earlier article for La Canada Math Parents (LCMP) reporting on La Canada Unified School District’s (LCUSD) first elementary math adoption parent information meeting on November 05, 2025, I talked about the elephant in the room – how a top-performing public school district in California selected a controversial inquiry-based curriculum – Everyday Mathematics – that parents and 2nd and 6th grade teachers strongly opposed adopting in the first place in 2015, preferring instead Math In Focus, and wound up ten years later in exactly the place parents had warned about.
Parents of current elementary students were unlikely to have been present during the Everyday Math adoption battle in LCUSD during the 2014-17 timeframe. It is thus useful for current LCUSD elementary parents – those with the most at stake in the current elementary math adoption – to be reminded of the present state of elementary math in the district with Everyday Mathematics used in K through 5th grade classrooms, and Math In Focus in grades 6 through 8. That adoption and the problems it created for years are extensively documented on this website (start here.)
Seeking an independent outside opinion, I described LCUSD’s present situation and asked three leading AI large language models (LLM) – ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok, “If a school district uses Everyday Mathematics for grades K-5 and then switches abruptly to a Singapore Math, traditional curriculum (i.e. Math In Focus) in 6th grade, does that reflect a logical, consistent and compatible thought process to how the district’s math is sequenced?”
Grok v.5.1
“Switching abruptly from Everyday Mathematics (a spiral, constructivist curriculum) in grades K-5 to Math in Focus (a mastery-based, Singapore Math approach) in 6th grade does not inherently reflect a fully logical, consistent, or compatible sequencing strategy for a district’s math program. While some districts implement this exact setup and report eventual benefits, the transition often introduces disruptions due to fundamental differences in philosophy, structure, and topic progression.”
Grok’s full response can be read here.
ChatGPT (4.1 beta)
“A district using Everyday Mathematics K–5 and switching abruptly to Singapore Math in Grade 6 is making a pedagogically inconsistent choice. The two curricula differ profoundly in structure, pacing, fluency expectations, and the philosophical model of how children learn mathematics. Without intentional bridge structures, the transition will create gaps, inequities, and student confusion, particularly in fraction and ratio reasoning—foundational domains for Grades 6–8.”
ChatGPT’s full response can be read here.
Claude (Opus 4.5):
Here is Claude’s full response, which best details the problems:
No, that reflects a fundamentally incoherent and incompatible approach to mathematics instruction. It’s essentially asking students to switch philosophical universes mid-stream.
The Profound Mismatch:
Everyday Mathematics (K-5) teaches students to:
- Explore multiple strategies without necessarily mastering any
- Construct their own understanding through discovery
- Experience brief, spiraled exposures to topics
- Rely heavily on teacher guidance and class discussion
- View algorithms as one option among many
- Expect concepts to reappear and be retaught
Singapore Math (Grade 6) expects students to:
- Have mastered standard algorithms and procedures
- Build new concepts on solid prerequisite knowledge
- Work independently from a textbook with logical explanations
- Follow coherent, sequential topic development
- Apply previously mastered skills to new contexts
- Have deep conceptual understanding through procedural fluency
What Happens to Students:
Students arriving in 6th grade will likely:
- Lack prerequisite mastery – Singapore Math assumes fluency with operations, fractions, decimals that EM’s spiral approach may not have solidified.
- Struggle with independent learning – They haven’t learned to learn from a textbook or work through structured examples.
- Experience cognitive whiplash – The pedagogical approach is completely different.
- Have gaps in foundational skills – Topics EM spiraled through briefly may not be internalized.
- Face a “remediation crisis” – The 6th grade teacher must both catch students up AND teach grade-level content.
What This Reveals:
This sequence suggests the district either:
- Doesn’t understand the philosophical incompatibility.
- Made curriculum decisions at different times without coordination.
- Is responding to different pressures at different grade levels (elementary vs. middle school.)
- Recognizes problems with EM but won’t commit to systematic change.
A Coherent Approach Would:
- Use compatible curricula across K-8
- Transition gradually if changing philosophies
- Provide intensive intervention/bridge programs if switching
- Make decisions based on consistent learning theory
This is pedagogical malpractice disguised as curriculum planning.
Limitations of AI
While the limitations of LLMs are well-known and AIs are only as good as the data they are trained on, the alignment of the three leading LLMs in their response is useful in illustrating fundamental structural problems in LCUSD’s elementary math program, which it can hopefully fix once and for all with its current elementary math adoption process.