S/O Integrated Algebra 3 course

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could call the pre-Precalc course Foundations of Intermediate Mathematics. To be sure it wasn't a waste of time, they could combine the missing bits from the 2-year Integrated Algebra with Prob/Stats and Financial Math, giving it some applications orientation and solid underpinnings for some of the more important concepts encountered in the real world, maybe throwing in some History of Math for fun/enrichment.

If I had faith that MCPS would use a high-quality curriculum for such a course, I would be on board. But I worry that they would write a bad curriculum for this. My kids were burned by 2.0.

Given that Illustrative Mathematics is open source, they could go through the integrated math curriculum and rearrange topics to create a new three-year sequence that follows the required MSDE standards for the first two years, and then adds whatever is missing in the third year for kids on the calc track. They could also create a compacted version of that class (integrated math 1+ and integrated math 2+), but I doubt they will without strong push from parents/students.

Central office already tried to decrease math acceleration options, including by trying to get rid of compacted math and AIM several years ago. If that had happened, students would only have be able to get through Algebra 1 by 8th grade. Parents pushed hard to keep the current accelerated options.

-OP

Or, how about since kids are declining in math, go back to traditional teaching and do the normal sequence with textbooks, structured classes and homework for reinforcement. Stop changing things when all the changes don't work.

+1 this is so obviously what they should do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could call the pre-Precalc course Foundations of Intermediate Mathematics. To be sure it wasn't a waste of time, they could combine the missing bits from the 2-year Integrated Algebra with Prob/Stats and Financial Math, giving it some applications orientation and solid underpinnings for some of the more important concepts encountered in the real world, maybe throwing in some History of Math for fun/enrichment.

If I had faith that MCPS would use a high-quality curriculum for such a course, I would be on board. But I worry that they would write a bad curriculum for this. My kids were burned by 2.0.

Given that Illustrative Mathematics is open source, they could go through the integrated math curriculum and rearrange topics to create a new three-year sequence that follows the required MSDE standards for the first two years, and then adds whatever is missing in the third year for kids on the calc track. They could also create a compacted version of that class (integrated math 1+ and integrated math 2+), but I doubt they will without strong push from parents/students.

Central office already tried to decrease math acceleration options, including by trying to get rid of compacted math and AIM several years ago. If that had happened, students would only have be able to get through Algebra 1 by 8th grade. Parents pushed hard to keep the current accelerated options.

-OP

Or, how about since kids are declining in math, go back to traditional teaching and do the normal sequence with textbooks, structured classes and homework for reinforcement. Stop changing things when all the changes don't work.

The state is decidedly nit allowing that.

[Anonymous]

What is the problem this is trying to solve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could call the pre-Precalc course Foundations of Intermediate Mathematics. To be sure it wasn't a waste of time, they could combine the missing bits from the 2-year Integrated Algebra with Prob/Stats and Financial Math, giving it some applications orientation and solid underpinnings for some of the more important concepts encountered in the real world, maybe throwing in some History of Math for fun/enrichment.

If I had faith that MCPS would use a high-quality curriculum for such a course, I would be on board. But I worry that they would write a bad curriculum for this. My kids were burned by 2.0.

Given that Illustrative Mathematics is open source, they could go through the integrated math curriculum and rearrange topics to create a new three-year sequence that follows the required MSDE standards for the first two years, and then adds whatever is missing in the third year for kids on the calc track. They could also create a compacted version of that class (integrated math 1+ and integrated math 2+), but I doubt they will without strong push from parents/students.

Central office already tried to decrease math acceleration options, including by trying to get rid of compacted math and AIM several years ago. If that had happened, students would only have be able to get through Algebra 1 by 8th grade. Parents pushed hard to keep the current accelerated options.

-OP

Getting rid of early acceleration is the wrong thing to do. Too many kids, prepped or not, are far enough ahead of on-grade-level math through Algebra 1 & Geometry that they need the acceleration to keep interest/focus. The "standard" for those, prior to the intro of Integrated Algebra, is 9th/10th grade (national, not MCPS average, of course), and there clearly are a sizeable minority where finishing those in 7th/8th is right.

The current mix of standard MCPS acceleration options works both for this group and the large group that might find either "Compacted" Math (4/5 & 5/6 in Elementary) or PreAlgebra (new name for AIM-type course) a bit too fast-paced. Slowing down with Math 7 & Math 8 from Compacted or speeding up with AMP6+ & AMP7+ from non-Compacted are good options for those finding themselves developing capacities less or more in line with acceleration as they grow. On-grade-level Math serves another large minority, and math supports in MS and HS are available for those with some difficulty.

There are the edge cases and imperfections, of course.

The smaller minority who need acceleration beyond the five-years-in-three can be accomodated by grade-skipping. Logistics is a challenge, and that trade-off requires consideration for any family pursuing such. A lack of standardization across the system in offering/evaluating for this also is a problem.

A larger issue may be the tendency of families to seek acceleration as some kind of race to be won instead of a means of meeting a need. Poor available metrics for evaluation of a student's ability contribute to this, as outside prep, then, more greatly facilitates accelerated placement.

Reluctance to hold back students who at the time have not mastered or cannot master on-grade-level material is, likewise, an issue. While 2-year Algebra 2 is available in HS (while Algebra 2 continues to exist, at any rate), some earlier curricular flexibility might be worthwhile.

With current MSDE dictates about Algebra 1 & Geometry effectively requiring their being taken over 2 consecutive years, this has meant a slowing of content delivery for those coming from higher accelerations and inflexibility beyond retaking the courses, burdensome bridge projects (now in the past) and/or accepting a poor grade for those finding it a bit of a challenge.

Though not all are very attuned to Geometry, Algebra 2 typically is where concepts started to become more complex/abstract/non-intuitive, and that, along with PreCalc, is where a shifting to a more standard progression made sense for those having been accelerated but not readily accommodating the conceptual differences. Enrichment ("Honors") with selections from the plethora of even more advanced Algebraic concepts, if well employed, would be there to address the needs of most for whom the standard pace at that level otherwise would be stultifying.

Integrated Algebra, itself, with the more typical 3-year sequence incorporating current Algebra 2 concepts, came about in part to address this concept-level impediment, both spreading out the Algebraic concepts to allow absorption for many who might need that and ensuring relative continuity of these concepts from year to year instead of introducing the Geometry gap. Again, due to the differential abundance and depth of those available at this level, well considered and well employed enrichments in honors versions of classes under this newer approach may be the better thing, versus acceleration, to afford those continuing to find themselves more Math-attuned at this level.

MSDE's 2-year Integrated Algebra idea is that several of the concepts from the decades-standard Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 progression, kept but rearranged in currently available 3-year sequences of Integrated Algebra, simply are not of great value in today's society, if they ever were. Personally, I would suggest otherwise, and, much as with other subjects, I find a well rounded education has less tangible but nonetheless real benefits in life.

Still, I can see what they may have been thinking -- to do the jobs expected to be available, one might not need much beyond a foundational level of Algebra with some more task-facilitating coursework (e.g., data analytics of a HS-level variety) prior, perhaps, to plussing that up in college. And they are keenly aware of significant proportions of populations in several other counties where that approach might be more valuable (and, where early acceleration unfortunately not being available can mean that that is as far as many might get). MoCo, as large as it is and with continuing demographic change, actually may have greater numbers of students in that target range than many of those other counties, though the proportions remain different (especially among those represented here on DCUM :wink.

I doubt that MCPS will look to add acceleration through compacting into 2 years IA 1, IA 2 and a third course covering that which was cut from the standard Integrated Algebra 3-year sequence to get to the new 2-year MSDE curricular standard. I'm not even sure they would be allowed to veer from implementing that standard as a 2-year progression for all. I understand the wariness from the Curriculum 2.0 experience, but if MCPS goes the route of a post-IA-but-before-preCalc class, I hope they incorporate a lot more than just the redacted IA standards -- that would be a pretty uninspiring course for those heading into STEM, as envisioned on the Calc track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the problem this is trying to solve?

A three-year sequence rearranges content so that students have geo and algebra each year — so there is not a one-year gap between the end of algebra 1 and the start of algebra 2, which is a reason some students who were successful with A1 struggle wuth A2.

The two-year MD sequence though is trying to cover just the basics so that students who will not take calc are not covering standards that aren’t relevant to them. They can pursue other courses after integrated algebra 2 rather than preparing for precalc. I guess the problem as they see it is that many students struggle with this content. They want to provide them with alternative choices.

-OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could call the pre-Precalc course Foundations of Intermediate Mathematics. To be sure it wasn't a waste of time, they could combine the missing bits from the 2-year Integrated Algebra with Prob/Stats and Financial Math, giving it some applications orientation and solid underpinnings for some of the more important concepts encountered in the real world, maybe throwing in some History of Math for fun/enrichment.

If I had faith that MCPS would use a high-quality curriculum for such a course, I would be on board. But I worry that they would write a bad curriculum for this. My kids were burned by 2.0.

Given that Illustrative Mathematics is open source, they could go through the integrated math curriculum and rearrange topics to create a new three-year sequence that follows the required MSDE standards for the first two years, and then adds whatever is missing in the third year for kids on the calc track. They could also create a compacted version of that class (integrated math 1+ and integrated math 2+), but I doubt they will without strong push from parents/students.

Central office already tried to decrease math acceleration options, including by trying to get rid of compacted math and AIM several years ago. If that had happened, students would only have be able to get through Algebra 1 by 8th grade. Parents pushed hard to keep the current accelerated options.

-OP

Or, how about since kids are declining in math, go back to traditional teaching and do the normal sequence with textbooks, structured classes and homework for reinforcement. Stop changing things when all the changes don't work.

The state is decidedly nit allowing that.

They spend a fortune fighting parents with attorneys, so take some of that money and fight the state for a better curriculum and plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

This is why the outcome of the Program Analysis needs to include MVC as a standard offering. Acceleration by 2 years heading into Algebra is and has been available across the county. Even before any shift to a 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence, a STEM-oriented "Calc path" at all high schools should be available as:

7th Algebra 1 (in MS)
8th Geometry (in MS)
9th Algebra 2
10th PreCalculus
11th AP Calculus BC
12th Multivariable Calculus

It doesn't meet need to force, unnecessarily, AB before BC for those capable when the latter encompasses the former or to fail to offer MVC immediately after BC to ensure conceptual/learning continuity (e.g., suggesting a student take Stats, instead). Some high schools clearly understand this and offer MVC. It isn't equitable if some do and others don't.

Of course, if they guarantee admission to the regional STEM magnet for any on that path in 7th/8th who might want it, they can reserve the teaching of MVC just to those magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They could call the pre-Precalc course Foundations of Intermediate Mathematics. To be sure it wasn't a waste of time, they could combine the missing bits from the 2-year Integrated Algebra with Prob/Stats and Financial Math, giving it some applications orientation and solid underpinnings for some of the more important concepts encountered in the real world, maybe throwing in some History of Math for fun/enrichment.

If I had faith that MCPS would use a high-quality curriculum for such a course, I would be on board. But I worry that they would write a bad curriculum for this. My kids were burned by 2.0.

Given that Illustrative Mathematics is open source, they could go through the integrated math curriculum and rearrange topics to create a new three-year sequence that follows the required MSDE standards for the first two years, and then adds whatever is missing in the third year for kids on the calc track. They could also create a compacted version of that class (integrated math 1+ and integrated math 2+), but I doubt they will without strong push from parents/students.

Central office already tried to decrease math acceleration options, including by trying to get rid of compacted math and AIM several years ago. If that had happened, students would only have be able to get through Algebra 1 by 8th grade. Parents pushed hard to keep the current accelerated options.

-OP

Or, how about since kids are declining in math, go back to traditional teaching and do the normal sequence with textbooks, structured classes and homework for reinforcement. Stop changing things when all the changes don't work.

The state is decidedly nit allowing that.

They spend a fortune fighting parents with attorneys, so take some of that money and fight the state for a better curriculum and plan.

You want MCPS to take on the state regulator? That also decidedly is not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

This is why the outcome of the Program Analysis needs to include MVC as a standard offering. Acceleration by 2 years heading into Algebra is and has been available across the county. Even before any shift to a 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence, a STEM-oriented "Calc path" at all high schools should be available as:

7th Algebra 1 (in MS)
8th Geometry (in MS)
9th Algebra 2
10th PreCalculus
11th AP Calculus BC
12th Multivariable Calculus

It doesn't meet need to force, unnecessarily, AB before BC for those capable when the latter encompasses the former or to fail to offer MVC immediately after BC to ensure conceptual/learning continuity (e.g., suggesting a student take Stats, instead). Some high schools clearly understand this and offer MVC. It isn't equitable if some do and others don't.

Of course, if they guarantee admission to the regional STEM magnet for any on that path in 7th/8th who might want it, they can reserve the teaching of MVC just to those magnets.

I completely agree but our prinicipal has been clear he will not support the class at our school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Honors precalc is already a very challenging class, which many students who have done well with acceleration to that point struggle with. I don’t think they will add more standards to that.

They could create an honors integrated math sequence to cover 3 years of standards in 2, but they would also continue to have to offer integrated math 3 for students who are on the calc track but not ready for the accelerated course.

I also think that MCPS will try to get rid of compacted math, particularly if they offer the accelerated integrated math option to cover 3 years in 2. Otherwise, students on the advanced track will need to get through MVC in MCPS, and I doubt they want to offer this in all school (or think it is appropriate for most advanced kids).

-OP

They don’t want to offer this at every school. The program design team said calc ab/bc had to be offered for advanced students every single HS. No mention of mv

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the problem this is trying to solve?

A three-year sequence rearranges content so that students have geo and algebra each year — so there is not a one-year gap between the end of algebra 1 and the start of algebra 2, which is a reason some students who were successful with A1 struggle wuth A2.

The two-year MD sequence though is trying to cover just the basics so that students who will not take calc are not covering standards that aren’t relevant to them. They can pursue other courses after integrated algebra 2 rather than preparing for precalc. I guess the problem as they see it is that many students struggle with this content. They want to provide them with alternative choices.

-OP

Thanks for the explanation. The idea of removing the 1 year gap between Algebra 1/2 makes sense to me; condensing 3 years’ worth of math into 2 years at that level (elementary is different) does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They can offer an accelerated/enriched Honors PreCalc for those doing well in Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 (and, perhaps, on the new state test at the end of IA2) that fills in the missing bits, like some of Trig. For those not flying through but wanting to pursue the Calc pathway defined by the state, they can offer the bridge course you mention leading to a following-year PreCalc (AP or otherwise). Either should allow for a student then to take it slower with AP Calc AB, followed by Calc BC if a year remains) or more directly with AP Calc BC (AB is not necessary to take before this), followed by MVC if a year remains.

None of the 3-year off-the-shelf Integrated Algebra curricula are likely to comport with the standards mandated by MSDE for Integrated Algebra over 2 years.

Not all schools have MV.

Yup, but they will need to.

Not necessarily. Our school has been clear they will not have it and you have to go to MC or go without.

This is why the outcome of the Program Analysis needs to include MVC as a standard offering. Acceleration by 2 years heading into Algebra is and has been available across the county. Even before any shift to a 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence, a STEM-oriented "Calc path" at all high schools should be available as:

7th Algebra 1 (in MS)
8th Geometry (in MS)
9th Algebra 2
10th PreCalculus
11th AP Calculus BC
12th Multivariable Calculus

It doesn't meet need to force, unnecessarily, AB before BC for those capable when the latter encompasses the former or to fail to offer MVC immediately after BC to ensure conceptual/learning continuity (e.g., suggesting a student take Stats, instead). Some high schools clearly understand this and offer MVC. It isn't equitable if some do and others don't.

Of course, if they guarantee admission to the regional STEM magnet for any on that path in 7th/8th who might want it, they can reserve the teaching of MVC just to those magnets.

Well, they're going to have to figure something out because the state is requiring that all proficient math students be offered Algebra 1 no later than 8th grade, and since it will be a 2 year sequence they will finish that in 9th grade. So 3 years of post-IA math classes will be the standard for a large fraction of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They should not write own curricula..so help us all. New name same old problems will continue

Improve math instruction. Each math class should have an assistant who can help 1:1 or small group. Families should not be expected to get a tutor.

Pre Alg
Alg 1
Math 2
Math 3
Pre-calc if going that route, Stats or other if not
Precalc 2, Stats 2
Calc 1
Advanced 2
Advanced 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread in response to the back-and-forth we had on the GT programs thread re the new integrated math sequence.

Background: The state is requiring a new math sequence starting with the 2027-2028 school year. Instead of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, they will require Integrated Algebra 1 and Integrated Algebra 2 based on some, but not all, of the standards from the three-course sequence. The thought is that many kids don't go onto calculus and therefore don't need all the standards to prepare for pre-calculus. Those who don't take pre-calculus will take Integrated Algebra 2 (presumably sophomore year) and then take two non-calculus courses for the next two years (say, stats and financial mathematics).

Those who are on the calculus track need a third course to learn the standards needed to succeed in pre-calc. Many already have problems with precalc after the current three-course sequence; they will do even worse if only two courses are offered.

MCPS will have to create its own Integrated Math 3 course and add in the missing standards so that students will succeed. However, it's not simple -- there are currently three-year integrated math curricula on the market because integrated algebra tends to be offered as a three-year sequence. There is even one from Illustrative Mathematics. None of these curricula, however, align neatly with the standards that the state will have covered in the first two years of the integrated math sequence.

With a kid who suffered through C2.0, I am very wary of MCPS writing its own curriculum, and I am not sure that Illustrative Mathematics would want to create a curriculum aligned with the state requirements. MCPS and the state just aren't big enough markets to warrant this investment -- it's not like MD is leading the way on this and other states will follow.

They should not write own curricula..so help us all. New name same old problems will continue

Improve math instruction. Each math class should have an assistant who can help 1:1 or small group. Families should not be expected to get a tutor.

Pre Alg
Alg 1
Math 2
Math 3
Pre-calc if going that route, Stats or other if not
Precalc 2, Stats 2
Calc 1
Advanced 2
Advanced 3

Nicely said but this only works for a select group. We gave up and got a tutor as the curriculum and teaching style was not working for our kids.