|
There are links to the recorded presentations now on the agenda document:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vR52D3SKMblb9yaVq3IE_R3lJv0TvyzRVlV6Zmeh2fWNI98y0Ub_9cWpGPlvHVUMpW-0BEngh-fuwZn/pubhtml |
Yes, AIM is the best math course MCPS has to offer. I hope they keep it. |
Can you say more about what makes AIM good? And it sounds like they are keeping AIM for 6th graders, but they plan to get rid of IM for 7th. |
| Is AIM different from IM? At the online curriculum night presentation that is now posted, the presenter makes it sound like they are different. |
To be clear, different beyond AIM having 6th graders and IM 7th graders. |
I think not much different. They supposedly add on some special projects to AIM, but that may not always occur. |
It's odd then that MCPS would say that IM has to be pulled because the curriculum doesn't align whereas AIM is fine to move forward. Why not just create a curriculum from Illustrative Mathematics, as they have for 6+ and 7+? |
| One 6th grade AIM teacher has gathered together their own curriculum for AIM using 2.0 as a base and using lessons from Illustrative Mathematics. They makes enough photo copies for all the students because MCPS won't buy the Illustrative Math books for the classes since the AIM curriculum is 2.0, which does not have books. The teacher seems to be doing a great job, and my kid is enjoying math this year, but it must have been so much work for the teacher to pull together this on their own. |
Central office should create a pacing guide for AIM/IM based on Illustrative Mathematics, rather than making teachers do it on their own. This is what they have done for compacted math 4/5 and 5/6 with Eureka rather than sticking with 2.0. |