S/o middle school math next year

[Anonymous]

Heard from another parent that middle school math options won’t be as accelerated next year. Has anyone attended those curriculum nights where they address this? Or was this just rumors!

[Anonymous]

That’s incorrect. They are replacing the 6th grade advanced option of AIM or AMP 7+ with a new pre-algebras course based on Illustrative Mathematics. It will compact 7th and 8th grade standards into a year. (7+ is similar but skips some of the 7th grade standards.)

I wish my kid, who did AIM, could have done the new class. AIM was just a bad curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Every other year for teh past 6-8 years they keep changing the curriculum and calling it something different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s incorrect. They are replacing the 6th grade advanced option of AIM or AMP 7+ with a new pre-algebras course based on Illustrative Mathematics. It will compact 7th and 8th grade standards into a year. (7+ is similar but skips some of the 7th grade standards.)

I wish my kid, who did AIM, could have done the new class. AIM was just a bad curriculum.

Mine skippped AIM and did Algebra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s incorrect. They are replacing the 6th grade advanced option of AIM or AMP 7+ with a new pre-algebras course based on Illustrative Mathematics. It will compact 7th and 8th grade standards into a year. (7+ is similar but skips some of the 7th grade standards.)

I wish my kid, who did AIM, could have done the new class. AIM was just a bad curriculum.

Mine skippped AIM and did Algebra.

Good for your kid. I’m PP and my kid would not have done well with that. But she could have used a much stronger curriculum than 2.0. I mean, there were typos in the packets, and the skills didn’t build logically. She’s doing much. Enter in A1 with Illustrative Mathematics.

I don’t know why MCPS tries to write its own curriculum when there are better options out there. They just rewrote their bad HS English curriculum to make it slightly less bad, when there are strong external options they could have selected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every other year for teh past 6-8 years they keep changing the curriculum and calling it something different.

They think they are improving things. It's not. Ask your school's principal to share with you the data on math performance at your kid's school. Majority of the county's students are NOT meeting what is already a low standard. sudents perception of math or unwilling or unable to practice, too much screen use in class, people unable to teach the curriculum (they may be good at math but can they teach it?) = low math performance.

[Anonymous]

That’s ridiculous. Illustrative Mathematics is might-and-day better than Curriculum 2.0. No question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every other year for teh past 6-8 years they keep changing the curriculum and calling it something different.

They think they are improving things. It's not. Ask your school's principal to share with you the data on math performance at your kid's school. Majority of the county's students are NOT meeting what is already a low standard. sudents perception of math or unwilling or unable to practice, too much screen use in class, people unable to teach the curriculum (they may be good at math but can they teach it?) = low math performance.

C 2.0 didn't comport with state and federal standards on which the math performance is now measured. They had to change.

Since the vendor didn't have a ready-made acceleration that interleaved with MCPS's elementary acceleration ("compacted" Math 4/5 & 5/6), thry had to take soms time building a bridge. Either they had to use the old 2.0 AIM and miss items the new Algebra expected covered (but that 2.0 pre-Algebra did not) or they had to use the new AMP 7+ and miss items between that compacted into 5/6 and that contained in thr 7+ course (compacted, itself as part of the 6+/7+ acceleration of the new curriculum).

Initially, each school was given the missing pieces and asked to see if they could work in coverage. Then central had time to work towards a more holistic recommendation for 7+ as they worked the Illustrative Math 6 content into Math 5/6, which had been for a short time based on Eureka 5 and C 2.0 6 (they got Eureka for elementary before they got Illustrative Math for intermediate). Some schools created a new "AIM" with 7+ and adding back in everything that was noted as a gap, increasing the overall pace to accommodate.

It looks like now they have had time to completely reconstruct a full 7th & 8th compaction of Illustrative Math into a new, new AIM course, eliminating the disconnect between elementary and middle school compaction/acceleration. On the table, now, is the new MD state mandate for Integrated Algebra, combining, as the standard course set across the state, elements of Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2 into 2 years. (This typically is offered as a 3-year progression by most curriculum vendors.) After Integrated Algebra, the state plan calls for affording 4 different post-Algebra pathways, dependent on the interests (e.g., expected overall academic/career pathway) of the student.

One of those pathways will be the standard Calculus-focused path (pre-Calc & APs or HL IBs, etc.). This will be advised for those looking to Math/Engineering/Science undergraduate study, but I don't think it will exclude participation by others. I hope not, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every other year for teh past 6-8 years they keep changing the curriculum and calling it something different.

They think they are improving things. It's not. Ask your school's principal to share with you the data on math performance at your kid's school. Majority of the county's students are NOT meeting what is already a low standard. sudents perception of math or unwilling or unable to practice, too much screen use in class, people unable to teach the curriculum (they may be good at math but can they teach it?) = low math performance.

C 2.0 didn't comport with state and federal standards on which the math performance is now measured. They had to change.

Since the vendor didn't have a ready-made acceleration that interleaved with MCPS's elementary acceleration ("compacted" Math 4/5 & 5/6), thry had to take soms time building a bridge. Either they had to use the old 2.0 AIM and miss items the new Algebra expected covered (but that 2.0 pre-Algebra did not) or they had to use the new AMP 7+ and miss items between that compacted into 5/6 and that contained in thr 7+ course (compacted, itself as part of the 6+/7+ acceleration of the new curriculum).

Initially, each school was given the missing pieces and asked to see if they could work in coverage. Then central had time to work towards a more holistic recommendation for 7+ as they worked the Illustrative Math 6 content into Math 5/6, which had been for a short time based on Eureka 5 and C 2.0 6 (they got Eureka for elementary before they got Illustrative Math for intermediate). Some schools created a new "AIM" with 7+ and adding back in everything that was noted as a gap, increasing the overall pace to accommodate.

It looks like now they have had time to completely reconstruct a full 7th & 8th compaction of Illustrative Math into a new, new AIM course, eliminating the disconnect between elementary and middle school compaction/acceleration. On the table, now, is the new MD state mandate for Integrated Algebra, combining, as the standard course set across the state, elements of Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2 into 2 years. (This typically is offered as a 3-year progression by most curriculum vendors.) After Integrated Algebra, the state plan calls for affording 4 different post-Algebra pathways, dependent on the interests (e.g., expected overall academic/career pathway) of the student.

One of those pathways will be the standard Calculus-focused path (pre-Calc & APs or HL IBs, etc.). This will be advised for those looking to Math/Engineering/Science undergraduate study, but I don't think it will exclude participation by others. I hope not, anyway.

MCPS should just add an integrated math 3 to cover the missing content — or have an honors version that covers all 3 courses (alg 1/2 and geo) 2 years so that kids enter pre-calculus able to succeed. Kids are already having trouble with pre calc with three years of math leading up.

[Anonymous]

Many students shouldn't be sent to next level but they get promoted because Larlo's parent wants their kid to keep up with Larla. Sorry but Larlo isn't ready for the same level as Larla.

[Anonymous]

Do all students in 5th grade compacted math 5/6) move to pre algebra?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do all students in 5th grade compacted math 5/6) move to pre algebra?

No. Some move to 6+. It depends on how they do on district assessments and MAP-M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s incorrect. They are replacing the 6th grade advanced option of AIM or AMP 7+ with a new pre-algebras course based on Illustrative Mathematics. It will compact 7th and 8th grade standards into a year. (7+ is similar but skips some of the 7th grade standards.)

I wish my kid, who did AIM, could have done the new class. AIM was just a bad curriculum.

Mine skippped AIM and did Algebra.

Good for your kid. I’m PP and my kid would not have done well with that. But she could have used a much stronger curriculum than 2.0. I mean, there were typos in the packets, and the skills didn’t build logically. She’s doing much. Enter in A1 with Illustrative Mathematics.

I don’t know why MCPS tries to write its own curriculum when there are better options out there. They just rewrote their bad HS English curriculum to make it slightly less bad, when there are strong external options they could have selected.

This is why you supplement at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s incorrect. They are replacing the 6th grade advanced option of AIM or AMP 7+ with a new pre-algebras course based on Illustrative Mathematics. It will compact 7th and 8th grade standards into a year. (7+ is similar but skips some of the 7th grade standards.)

I wish my kid, who did AIM, could have done the new class. AIM was just a bad curriculum.

Mine skippped AIM and did Algebra.

Good for your kid. I’m PP and my kid would not have done well with that. But she could have used a much stronger curriculum than 2.0. I mean, there were typos in the packets, and the skills didn’t build logically. She’s doing much. Enter in A1 with Illustrative Mathematics.

I don’t know why MCPS tries to write its own curriculum when there are better options out there. They just rewrote their bad HS English curriculum to make it slightly less bad, when there are strong external options they could have selected.

2.0 has been gone for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s incorrect. They are replacing the 6th grade advanced option of AIM or AMP 7+ with a new pre-algebras course based on Illustrative Mathematics. It will compact 7th and 8th grade standards into a year. (7+ is similar but skips some of the 7th grade standards.)

I wish my kid, who did AIM, could have done the new class. AIM was just a bad curriculum.

Mine skippped AIM and did Algebra.

Good for your kid. I’m PP and my kid would not have done well with that. But she could have used a much stronger curriculum than 2.0. I mean, there were typos in the packets, and the skills didn’t build logically. She’s doing much. Enter in A1 with Illustrative Mathematics.

I don’t know why MCPS tries to write its own curriculum when there are better options out there. They just rewrote their bad HS English curriculum to make it slightly less bad, when there are strong external options they could have selected.

2.0 has been gone for many years.

Not for AIM. My kid suffered through it last year, and our school continues to use it this year.