New Math Curriculum

[Anonymous]

Did anyone else get the email from the PTA that the board is announcing the finalists for and voting on the new math curriculum on the same day April 30 and there will be little chance for input? Apparently the committee is all bound by NDAs but the chatter is that we could be going backward in math and only one curriculum seems to be an advancement.

I doubt anyone is willing to break the NDA but does anyone know anything more? With the new math pathways I am very worried about what this will mean for my advanced math kid who is already bored.

[Anonymous]

That sounds illegal

[Anonymous]

Has no one heard anything? This is really concerning

[Anonymous]

Looks like Evelyn Chung's testimony from today's Board working session relates: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DT5RY27034F2/$file/BOE%20Math%20Testimony.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Evelyn Chung's testimony from today's Board working session relates: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DT5RY27034F2/$file/BOE%20Math%20Testimony.pdf

It sounds like there was only one good choice among the final choices. That's definitely concerning.

[Anonymous]

I have worked for MCPS through several curriculum changes. This is the first time there haven’t been any whispers of what is going to happen. It is odd.

[Anonymous]

I googled math curricula that could meet MD requirements. It looks like there's an IM Math update that meets new requirements. Guessing that's what they'll do?

IM math fwiw has been touted as a great curriculum but from my vicarious experience of it (scripted, Eureka-torture-lite, having kids talk to each other to discuss problems (LOL, theory not practice), it's a far cry from what I remember as MCPS basic standards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I googled math curricula that could meet MD requirements. It looks like there's an IM Math update that meets new requirements. Guessing that's what they'll do?

IM math fwiw has been touted as a great curriculum but from my vicarious experience of it (scripted, Eureka-torture-lite, having kids talk to each other to discuss problems (LOL, theory not practice), it's a far cry from what I remember as MCPS basic standards

As a parent, I have been happy with both Eureka and IM for ES/MS. I hope they go with one of those because at least for my kids, they work well. Our only bad experience was in 6th grade AIM, where they used C 2.0. That was terrible, and I'm glad they finally replaced that with IM.

[Anonymous]

I thought Eureka was actually better than IM. Eureka was torture. Torture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Evelyn Chung's testimony from today's Board working session relates: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DT5RY27034F2/$file/BOE%20Math%20Testimony.pdf

It sounds like there was only one good choice among the final choices. That's definitely concerning.

I heard they picked the good curriculum.

[Anonymous]

My question is why has this gone so under the radar and why are they keeping it so quiet that they’re presenting on it and voting the same day. Clearly they’re worried about backlash here.

[Anonymous]

Guessing that whatever is easiest for current teachers (math teacher or not math teacher w math script) + seems best will be approved.

They probably want no drama. I can understand that. It sounds like there are no better options for large school systems anyway, other than scripted curricula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I googled math curricula that could meet MD requirements. It looks like there's an IM Math update that meets new requirements. Guessing that's what they'll do?

IM math fwiw has been touted as a great curriculum but from my vicarious experience of it (scripted, Eureka-torture-lite, having kids talk to each other to discuss problems (LOL, theory not practice), it's a far cry from what I remember as MCPS basic standards

As a parent, I have been happy with both Eureka and IM for ES/MS. I hope they go with one of those because at least for my kids, they work well. Our only bad experience was in 6th grade AIM, where they used C 2.0. That was terrible, and I'm glad they finally replaced that with IM.

Do either Eureka or Illustrative Math have a lot of tech/AI components? Apparently the other finalists besides the one MCCPTA likes are tech,/AI heavy.

[Anonymous]

tech/ai is probably better but could be a nightmare for teachers to learn new approaches that are also likely continuing to evolve

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I googled math curricula that could meet MD requirements. It looks like there's an IM Math update that meets new requirements. Guessing that's what they'll do?

IM math fwiw has been touted as a great curriculum but from my vicarious experience of it (scripted, Eureka-torture-lite, having kids talk to each other to discuss problems (LOL, theory not practice), it's a far cry from what I remember as MCPS basic standards

As a parent, I have been happy with both Eureka and IM for ES/MS. I hope they go with one of those because at least for my kids, they work well. Our only bad experience was in 6th grade AIM, where they used C 2.0. That was terrible, and I'm glad they finally replaced that with IM.

Do either Eureka or Illustrative Math have a lot of tech/AI components? Apparently the other finalists besides the one MCCPTA likes are tech,/AI heavy.

As far as I can tell from my kids (one in ES and one in MS), both are light on tech. Basically there are just the workbooks kids get and a powerpoint the teacher uses.