Math in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The contention here seems to be that the way that math is taught in the US, separating out by subject, is better. However, given that the rest of the world mostly does not teach it this way and that the US does not rank particularly highly when it comes to math standards, the evidence not seem supportive that it is better.

Right, which is why it’s interesting to read that PPs think the integrated math offerings that do exist here are not good - whether IB or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Integrated math is taught poorly and doesn’t go in depth. Most district that try it switch back to Algebra and Geometry.

But the question is, why is it taught poorly?

Because there’s not enough time to go in depth, so the teacher does a quick review of a small number of topics each year.

As mentioned in the thread, other integrated math classes like IB are not very good. High level classes like AP Calculus and Statistics are focused on an overarching theme. For building connections it’s easy to set a few hours to study for example applications of algebra in geometry.

For integrated math there’s no opportunity to accelerate, which dissuades top students from following that route.

In which school district?

Integrated math is sequential so one has to do them in order, eg IM 1, IM 2, IM 3. Algebra and Geometry courses can be taken concurrently and students can double up in math in a given year.

School districts can still offer compacted versions of the courses. Which is how most kids are accelerated today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The contention here seems to be that the way that math is taught in the US, separating out by subject, is better. However, given that the rest of the world mostly does not teach it this way and that the US does not rank particularly highly when it comes to math standards, the evidence not seem supportive that it is better.

Right, which is why it’s interesting to read that PPs think the integrated math offerings that do exist here are not good - whether IB or otherwise.

Perhaps the PP is full of sht.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The contention here seems to be that the way that math is taught in the US, separating out by subject, is better. However, given that the rest of the world mostly does not teach it this way and that the US does not rank particularly highly when it comes to math standards, the evidence not seem supportive that it is better.

If you’re looking at Pisa math rankings as an indication of teaching integrated math is better than separated by area, then that’s not good supporting evidence either. There are a multitude of confounding variables, eg who takes the test, what curriculum they use, extracurricular preparation etc.

It may be that integrated math is better for the low to mid student, who will forget half the material taught the prior year and needs review, but for top students, honors classes are generally Algebra and Geometry, rarely integrated math.

Also integrated math seems to be favored by the equity, anti-tracking crowd which also contributes to a subpar curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Integrated math is taught poorly and doesn’t go in depth. Most district that try it switch back to Algebra and Geometry.

But the question is, why is it taught poorly?

Because there’s not enough time to go in depth, so the teacher does a quick review of a small number of topics each year.

As mentioned in the thread, other integrated math classes like IB are not very good. High level classes like AP Calculus and Statistics are focused on an overarching theme. For building connections it’s easy to set a few hours to study for example applications of algebra in geometry.

For integrated math there’s no opportunity to accelerate, which dissuades top students from following that route.

In which school district?

Integrated math is sequential so one has to do them in order, eg IM 1, IM 2, IM 3. Algebra and Geometry courses can be taken concurrently and students can double up in math in a given year.

School districts can still offer compacted versions of the courses. Which is how most kids are accelerated today.

Schools don't offer compacted IM classes, or compacted Algebra/Geometry, sometimes there’s a summer version. They do occasionally offer compacted IM3 and precalculus, which is a complete disaster.

That’s not how kids are accelerated today. That happens through outside classes like AOPS and once they know the material well they double up during the school year or take the summer version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The contention here seems to be that the way that math is taught in the US, separating out by subject, is better. However, given that the rest of the world mostly does not teach it this way and that the US does not rank particularly highly when it comes to math standards, the evidence not seem supportive that it is better.

If you’re looking at Pisa math rankings as an indication of teaching integrated math is better than separated by area, then that’s not good supporting evidence either. There are a multitude of confounding variables, eg who takes the test, what curriculum they use, extracurricular preparation etc.

It may be that integrated math is better for the low to mid student, who will forget half the material taught the prior year and needs review, but for top students, honors classes are generally Algebra and Geometry, rarely integrated math.

Also integrated math seems to be favored by the equity, anti-tracking crowd which also contributes to a subpar curriculum.

Do you mean in the US?

[Anonymous]

I went to high school in a state with a traditional math curriculum, but I went to college at an engineering school in New York state, so my classmates were mostly from New York State public schools which offered an integrated math curriculum.

From years of study groups and my now DH, I have a strong impression that the integrated curriculum was a whole lot weaker and less rigorous than what I learned, but also that the students who had taken a mixed up curriculum had no idea what they knew and didn't know. They couldn't identify something as algebra, statistics, trigonometry, geometry, or any particular type of math. They knew lots of random bits of stuff without knowing how it fit together or how it built on itself. Given that experience, I have a strong preference for a curriculum that builds linearly instead of jumping all over the place at random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Integrated math is taught poorly and doesn’t go in depth. Most district that try it switch back to Algebra and Geometry.

But the question is, why is it taught poorly?

Because there’s not enough time to go in depth, so the teacher does a quick review of a small number of topics each year.

As mentioned in the thread, other integrated math classes like IB are not very good. High level classes like AP Calculus and Statistics are focused on an overarching theme. For building connections it’s easy to set a few hours to study for example applications of algebra in geometry.

For integrated math there’s no opportunity to accelerate, which dissuades top students from following that route.

In which school district?

Integrated math is sequential so one has to do them in order, eg IM 1, IM 2, IM 3. Algebra and Geometry courses can be taken concurrently and students can double up in math in a given year.

School districts can still offer compacted versions of the courses. Which is how most kids are accelerated today.

Schools don't offer compacted IM classes, or compacted Algebra/Geometry, sometimes there’s a summer version. They do occasionally offer compacted IM3 and precalculus, which is a complete disaster.

That’s not how kids are accelerated today. That happens through outside classes like AOPS and once they know the material well they double up during the school year or take the summer version.

Most kids are accelerated with compacted classes in late elementary/middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Integrated math is taught poorly and doesn’t go in depth. Most district that try it switch back to Algebra and Geometry.

But the question is, why is it taught poorly?

Because there’s not enough time to go in depth, so the teacher does a quick review of a small number of topics each year.

As mentioned in the thread, other integrated math classes like IB are not very good. High level classes like AP Calculus and Statistics are focused on an overarching theme. For building connections it’s easy to set a few hours to study for example applications of algebra in geometry.

For integrated math there’s no opportunity to accelerate, which dissuades top students from following that route.

In which school district?

Integrated math is sequential so one has to do them in order, eg IM 1, IM 2, IM 3. Algebra and Geometry courses can be taken concurrently and students can double up in math in a given year.

School districts can still offer compacted versions of the courses. Which is how most kids are accelerated today.

Schools don't offer compacted IM classes, or compacted Algebra/Geometry, sometimes there’s a summer version. They do occasionally offer compacted IM3 and precalculus, which is a complete disaster.

That’s not how kids are accelerated today. That happens through outside classes like AOPS and once they know the material well they double up during the school year or take the summer version.

Most kids are accelerated with compacted classes in late elementary/middle school.

That’s one option. The other is to double up or take summer classes for credit.

IM classes are not compacted and you can’t double up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to high school in a state with a traditional math curriculum, but I went to college at an engineering school in New York state, so my classmates were mostly from New York State public schools which offered an integrated math curriculum.

From years of study groups and my now DH, I have a strong impression that the integrated curriculum was a whole lot weaker and less rigorous than what I learned, but also that the students who had taken a mixed up curriculum had no idea what they knew and didn't know. They couldn't identify something as algebra, statistics, trigonometry, geometry, or any particular type of math. They knew lots of random bits of stuff without knowing how it fit together or how it built on itself. Given that experience, I have a strong preference for a curriculum that builds linearly instead of jumping all over the place at random.

This is definitely true for me and how I learned math in the UK - I didn’t really know what anything was called. But the math in my math A Level (the exam taken at age 18) was generally much harder than the math I see in high school here, except for calculus which there seems to be much more of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Integrated math is taught poorly and doesn’t go in depth. Most district that try it switch back to Algebra and Geometry.

But the question is, why is it taught poorly?

Because there’s not enough time to go in depth, so the teacher does a quick review of a small number of topics each year.

As mentioned in the thread, other integrated math classes like IB are not very good. High level classes like AP Calculus and Statistics are focused on an overarching theme. For building connections it’s easy to set a few hours to study for example applications of algebra in geometry.

For integrated math there’s no opportunity to accelerate, which dissuades top students from following that route.

In which school district?

Integrated math is sequential so one has to do them in order, eg IM 1, IM 2, IM 3. Algebra and Geometry courses can be taken concurrently and students can double up in math in a given year.

School districts can still offer compacted versions of the courses. Which is how most kids are accelerated today.

Schools don't offer compacted IM classes, or compacted Algebra/Geometry, sometimes there’s a summer version. They do occasionally offer compacted IM3 and precalculus, which is a complete disaster.

That’s not how kids are accelerated today. That happens through outside classes like AOPS and once they know the material well they double up during the school year or take the summer version.

Most kids are accelerated with compacted classes in late elementary/middle school.

That’s one option. The other is to double up or take summer classes for credit.

IM classes are not compacted and you can’t double up.

You can’t double up but they can be compacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to high school in a state with a traditional math curriculum, but I went to college at an engineering school in New York state, so my classmates were mostly from New York State public schools which offered an integrated math curriculum.

From years of study groups and my now DH, I have a strong impression that the integrated curriculum was a whole lot weaker and less rigorous than what I learned, but also that the students who had taken a mixed up curriculum had no idea what they knew and didn't know. They couldn't identify something as algebra, statistics, trigonometry, geometry, or any particular type of math. They knew lots of random bits of stuff without knowing how it fit together or how it built on itself. Given that experience, I have a strong preference for a curriculum that builds linearly instead of jumping all over the place at random.

This is definitely true for me and how I learned math in the UK - I didn’t really know what anything was called. But the math in my math A Level (the exam taken at age 18) was generally much harder than the math I see in high school here, except for calculus which there seems to be much more of.

There's not really a standard level of math coming out of US high schools. The tops students will have taken Calc 3 and Differential Equations, so a full two years of college math. Struggling math students may have taken "Algebra concepts" and classes titled something like "math for every day". That's a huge span.

[Anonymous]

Examples of compacted integrated math:
https://elm.sweetwaterschools.org/compacted-integrated-math-integrated-math-course-i-placement/

https://rdmcounseling.weebly.com/7th-grade-course-selection.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Examples of compacted integrated math:
https://elm.sweetwaterschools.org/compacted-integrated-math-integrated-math-course-i-placement/

https://rdmcounseling.weebly.com/7th-grade-course-selection.html

You don’t seem to be familiar with the US curriculum, and just posted the first Google hits you could find.

Integrated math I, II, III refers to a mix of three years of algebra and geometry taught instead of the Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2 sequence.

Integrated compacted math 6/7/8 doesn’t really mean much it’s the same curriculum but compacted so kids can accelerate.

In California schools there’s a push for integrated math which originates with social justice champions like Jo Boaler, whose initiative received a lot of criticism.

A feature of CA math pathways is the compacted IM 3 with precalculus which is disastrous. Also they make AP Calculus AB a prerequisite for BC which is ill advised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to high school in a state with a traditional math curriculum, but I went to college at an engineering school in New York state, so my classmates were mostly from New York State public schools which offered an integrated math curriculum.

From years of study groups and my now DH, I have a strong impression that the integrated curriculum was a whole lot weaker and less rigorous than what I learned, but also that the students who had taken a mixed up curriculum had no idea what they knew and didn't know. They couldn't identify something as algebra, statistics, trigonometry, geometry, or any particular type of math. They knew lots of random bits of stuff without knowing how it fit together or how it built on itself. Given that experience, I have a strong preference for a curriculum that builds linearly instead of jumping all over the place at random.

This is definitely true for me and how I learned math in the UK - I didn’t really know what anything was called. But the math in my math A Level (the exam taken at age 18) was generally much harder than the math I see in high school here, except for calculus which there seems to be much more of.

There's not really a standard level of math coming out of US high schools. The tops students will have taken Calc 3 and Differential Equations, so a full two years of college math. Struggling math students may have taken "Algebra concepts" and classes titled something like "math for every day". That's a huge span.

This.

People that are new to math education in US are misinformed and rehash cliches of how bad the system is. The truth is there’s a huge variation and the system allows for the very top students to go very far up to second year of undergrad through community colleges. That’s impossible in other countries with a more uniform and rigid educational framework.

I’ll take the US system any day and I’m coming from a country that did the integrated route.