Middle school math pathways changing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is most likely to align better with the changes coming from MSDE in math and to account for compacted 5/6 students being able to take AMP 7+ but needing a unit before getting started.

One of the changes(or at least new options from MSDE) will be Integrated Algebra which I fully support.

What is integrated algebra? I think of integrated math as a combo of algebra (or pre-algebra) and geometry so you have a bit of both each year. I do not know what integrated algebra would be.

Yes, it's "integrated math 1/2/3" replacing the ridiculous 'algebra1/geometry/algebra2", not "integrated algebra".

(And it's much, much better than non-integrated. It eliminates the "wall of algebra" that interferes with kids' opportunity to accelerate or decelerate after math 8 / 7+ / AIM "prealgebra" -- which is actually already "integrated math 0" )

Easier acceleration is a benefit but not the goal. The goal is to better integrate teaching and learning of math subjects that rely on and build together. Additionally it ensures that Algebra is continuously being used as opposed to taking a year off for geometry. A practice most engineers and advance mathematicians will tell you makes more sense. Math should be looked at as a language that helps solve problems and explain/rationalize concepts. Most folks just see it as plug and chug of numbers and formulas. Integrated math helps you see how to apply math.

That makes sense, except that the MSDE plan appears to be to have Integrated Math 1 & 2 (no 3) cover some, but not all, of the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra II curriculum. That's different from other jurisdictions, like California, where they're introducing Integrated Math as a 1-2-3 series, replacing the classes of the old curriculum on a 1-for-1 basis. The result would be de facto acceleration by a year, with the loss of some curricular concepts -- hopefully those deemed repetitive of prior years, but, still, possibly making that integration/touch on application more tenuous with the rush.

If curriculum vendors, like Illustrative Mathematics (can name confusion get worse?), which MCPS uses currently, do not have an Integrated Math offering that matches a 2-year series -- maybe the equivalent of an AMP6+/AMP7+ at the next level -- that would require MCPS to create its own compaction to align to whichever 2-year content standard MSDE defines. That is, unless MSDE is offering the curriculum/materials, itself (or has arranged for such), and not just the standards/guidelines.

One artifact of this would be a de facto catch-up for those being placed in AMP6+ or Math 7 this coming year (2025-26) for 6th grade. They would take AMP7+ or Math 8 in 7th (2026-27), then the 2 years of Integrated Math in 8th (2027-28 is the first year it will be available) & 9th, putting them in preCalc in 10th. Their classmates who get placed in AIM/AMP7+ this coming fall would not have Integrated Math available yet the following year (2026-27) , and would take Algebra in 7th, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th, with preCalc also coming in 10th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is most likely to align better with the changes coming from MSDE in math and to account for compacted 5/6 students being able to take AMP 7+ but needing a unit before getting started.

One of the changes(or at least new options from MSDE) will be Integrated Algebra which I fully support.

What is integrated algebra? I think of integrated math as a combo of algebra (or pre-algebra) and geometry so you have a bit of both each year. I do not know what integrated algebra would be.

Yes, it's "integrated math 1/2/3" replacing the ridiculous 'algebra1/geometry/algebra2", not "integrated algebra".

(And it's much, much better than non-integrated. It eliminates the "wall of algebra" that interferes with kids' opportunity to accelerate or decelerate after math 8 / 7+ / AIM "prealgebra" -- which is actually already "integrated math 0" )

Easier acceleration is a benefit but not the goal. The goal is to better integrate teaching and learning of math subjects that rely on and build together. Additionally it ensures that Algebra is continuously being used as opposed to taking a year off for geometry. A practice most engineers and advance mathematicians will tell you makes more sense. Math should be looked at as a language that helps solve problems and explain/rationalize concepts. Most folks just see it as plug and chug of numbers and formulas. Integrated math helps you see how to apply math.

That makes sense, except that the MSDE plan appears to be to have Integrated Math 1 & 2 (no 3) cover some, but not all, of the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra II curriculum. That's different from other jurisdictions, like California, where they're introducing Integrated Math as a 1-2-3 series, replacing the classes of the old curriculum on a 1-for-1 basis. The result would be de facto acceleration by a year, with the loss of some curricular concepts -- hopefully those deemed repetitive of prior years, but, still, possibly making that integration/touch on application more tenuous with the rush.

If curriculum vendors, like Illustrative Mathematics (can name confusion get worse?), which MCPS uses currently, do not have an Integrated Math offering that matches a 2-year series -- maybe the equivalent of an AMP6+/AMP7+ at the next level -- that would require MCPS to create its own compaction to align to whichever 2-year content standard MSDE defines. That is, unless MSDE is offering the curriculum/materials, itself (or has arranged for such), and not just the standards/guidelines.

One artifact of this would be a de facto catch-up for those being placed in AMP6+ or Math 7 this coming year (2025-26) for 6th grade. They would take AMP7+ or Math 8 in 7th (2026-27), then the 2 years of Integrated Math in 8th (2027-28 is the first year it will be available) & 9th, putting them in preCalc in 10th. Their classmates who get placed in AIM/AMP7+ this coming fall would not have Integrated Math available yet the following year (2026-27) , and would take Algebra in 7th, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th, with preCalc also coming in 10th.

This is a bad plan. They need to cover all the standards. Even though the state only requires 2 years, could MCPS add a third year including in that class the standards the two-year curriculum does not cover?

[Anonymous]

They need to stop mucking around with these new ways as the kids math scores keep declining and get back to basics with traditional teaching and textbooks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to stop mucking around with these new ways as the kids math scores keep declining and get back to basics with traditional teaching and textbooks.

Yes, please.

There is no consistency and there is no resource (textbook) for the kids to turn to. Not all kids can learn from these random videos. It would be helpful to have a book for reference.

[Anonymous]

Illustrative Mathematics is creating an integrated math series, but it's based on a three-course sequence, not two courses. Why would the state want to do something where there is not an existing curriculum? Why go with 2 years rather than 3, when we know kids need more time to develop deep understanding of math? Why would they want to accelerate kids and/or skip standards when our math scores are already so low?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to stop mucking around with these new ways as the kids math scores keep declining and get back to basics with traditional teaching and textbooks.

Yes, please.

There is no consistency and there is no resource (textbook) for the kids to turn to. Not all kids can learn from these random videos. It would be helpful to have a book for reference.

Exactly, learning algebra to calculus with no book is impossible. This year the teacher has a book but doesn’t use it and tells the kids to watch videos to learn it. We had to get a tutor a few hours a week to actually teach and review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Illustrative Mathematics is creating an integrated math series, but it's based on a three-course sequence, not two courses. Why would the state want to do something where there is not an existing curriculum? Why go with 2 years rather than 3, when we know kids need more time to develop deep understanding of math? Why would they want to accelerate kids and/or skip standards when our math scores are already so low?

They want trendy to say they made a great change. However, since they got away from traditional teaching methods gives knowledge and understanding has and continues to decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is most likely to align better with the changes coming from MSDE in math and to account for compacted 5/6 students being able to take AMP 7+ but needing a unit before getting started.

One of the changes(or at least new options from MSDE) will be Integrated Algebra which I fully support.

What is integrated algebra? I think of integrated math as a combo of algebra (or pre-algebra) and geometry so you have a bit of both each year. I do not know what integrated algebra would be.

Yes, it's "integrated math 1/2/3" replacing the ridiculous 'algebra1/geometry/algebra2", not "integrated algebra".

(And it's much, much better than non-integrated. It eliminates the "wall of algebra" that interferes with kids' opportunity to accelerate or decelerate after math 8 / 7+ / AIM "prealgebra" -- which is actually already "integrated math 0" )

Easier acceleration is a benefit but not the goal. The goal is to better integrate teaching and learning of math subjects that rely on and build together. Additionally it ensures that Algebra is continuously being used as opposed to taking a year off for geometry. A practice most engineers and advance mathematicians will tell you makes more sense. Math should be looked at as a language that helps solve problems and explain/rationalize concepts. Most folks just see it as plug and chug of numbers and formulas. Integrated math helps you see how to apply math.

That makes sense, except that the MSDE plan appears to be to have Integrated Math 1 & 2 (no 3) cover some, but not all, of the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra II curriculum. That's different from other jurisdictions, like California, where they're introducing Integrated Math as a 1-2-3 series, replacing the classes of the old curriculum on a 1-for-1 basis. The result would be de facto acceleration by a year, with the loss of some curricular concepts -- hopefully those deemed repetitive of prior years, but, still, possibly making that integration/touch on application more tenuous with the rush.

If curriculum vendors, like Illustrative Mathematics (can name confusion get worse?), which MCPS uses currently, do not have an Integrated Math offering that matches a 2-year series -- maybe the equivalent of an AMP6+/AMP7+ at the next level -- that would require MCPS to create its own compaction to align to whichever 2-year content standard MSDE defines. That is, unless MSDE is offering the curriculum/materials, itself (or has arranged for such), and not just the standards/guidelines.

One artifact of this would be a de facto catch-up for those being placed in AMP6+ or Math 7 this coming year (2025-26) for 6th grade. They would take AMP7+ or Math 8 in 7th (2026-27), then the 2 years of Integrated Math in 8th (2027-28 is the first year it will be available) & 9th, putting them in preCalc in 10th. Their classmates who get placed in AIM/AMP7+ this coming fall would not have Integrated Math available yet the following year (2026-27) , and would take Algebra in 7th, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th, with preCalc also coming in 10th.

Then I would say this presents and opportunity for parents and teachers to raise these question and concerns up with MSDE while their in the planning and curriculum standard process. Not to mention MCPS. You can show support for integrated Algebra but also express need for ensure coverage of topics with depth to ensure proper foundational and application learning. Additionally it will show that people are paying attention.

Another idea, have you PTA bring this up to its members. Start informing early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is most likely to align better with the changes coming from MSDE in math and to account for compacted 5/6 students being able to take AMP 7+ but needing a unit before getting started.

One of the changes(or at least new options from MSDE) will be Integrated Algebra which I fully support.

What is integrated algebra? I think of integrated math as a combo of algebra (or pre-algebra) and geometry so you have a bit of both each year. I do not know what integrated algebra would be.

Yes, it's "integrated math 1/2/3" replacing the ridiculous 'algebra1/geometry/algebra2", not "integrated algebra".

(And it's much, much better than non-integrated. It eliminates the "wall of algebra" that interferes with kids' opportunity to accelerate or decelerate after math 8 / 7+ / AIM "prealgebra" -- which is actually already "integrated math 0" )

Easier acceleration is a benefit but not the goal. The goal is to better integrate teaching and learning of math subjects that rely on and build together. Additionally it ensures that Algebra is continuously being used as opposed to taking a year off for geometry. A practice most engineers and advance mathematicians will tell you makes more sense. Math should be looked at as a language that helps solve problems and explain/rationalize concepts. Most folks just see it as plug and chug of numbers and formulas. Integrated math helps you see how to apply math.

That makes sense, except that the MSDE plan appears to be to have Integrated Math 1 & 2 (no 3) cover some, but not all, of the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra II curriculum. That's different from other jurisdictions, like California, where they're introducing Integrated Math as a 1-2-3 series, replacing the classes of the old curriculum on a 1-for-1 basis. The result would be de facto acceleration by a year, with the loss of some curricular concepts -- hopefully those deemed repetitive of prior years, but, still, possibly making that integration/touch on application more tenuous with the rush.

If curriculum vendors, like Illustrative Mathematics (can name confusion get worse?), which MCPS uses currently, do not have an Integrated Math offering that matches a 2-year series -- maybe the equivalent of an AMP6+/AMP7+ at the next level -- that would require MCPS to create its own compaction to align to whichever 2-year content standard MSDE defines. That is, unless MSDE is offering the curriculum/materials, itself (or has arranged for such), and not just the standards/guidelines.

One artifact of this would be a de facto catch-up for those being placed in AMP6+ or Math 7 this coming year (2025-26) for 6th grade. They would take AMP7+ or Math 8 in 7th (2026-27), then the 2 years of Integrated Math in 8th (2027-28 is the first year it will be available) & 9th, putting them in preCalc in 10th. Their classmates who get placed in AIM/AMP7+ this coming fall would not have Integrated Math available yet the following year (2026-27) , and would take Algebra in 7th, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th, with preCalc also coming in 10th.

Then I would say this presents and opportunity for parents and teachers to raise these question and concerns up with MSDE while their in the planning and curriculum standard process. Not to mention MCPS. You can show support for integrated Algebra but also express need for ensure coverage of topics with depth to ensure proper foundational and application learning. Additionally it will show that people are paying attention.

Another idea, have you PTA bring this up to its members. Start informing early.

Reminder that MCPS is hosting math curriculum nights on 3/18 (Wheaton HS) & 3/26 (Watkins Mill HS):

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/news/mcps-news/2025/02/math-curriculum-nights-scheduled-for-march/

[Anonymous]

Math pathways have been a mess since curriculum 2.0. People complained about the curriculum before 2.0 also (I have 2 kids that were pre-2.0, and then 2 kids post 2.0). At least pre 2.0 we had textbooks, (easier for parents to follow along with assignments), and in ES teachers were clear about what we needed to drill at home (pre-2.0 curriculum was light on math fact drilling).

It is absolutely appalling that a school system with our budget resources can not implement a math curriculum that meets the needs of students across all levels (remedial, on-level, advanced).

MCPS, do better!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is most likely to align better with the changes coming from MSDE in math and to account for compacted 5/6 students being able to take AMP 7+ but needing a unit before getting started.

One of the changes(or at least new options from MSDE) will be Integrated Algebra which I fully support.

What is integrated algebra? I think of integrated math as a combo of algebra (or pre-algebra) and geometry so you have a bit of both each year. I do not know what integrated algebra would be.

Yes, it's "integrated math 1/2/3" replacing the ridiculous 'algebra1/geometry/algebra2", not "integrated algebra".

(And it's much, much better than non-integrated. It eliminates the "wall of algebra" that interferes with kids' opportunity to accelerate or decelerate after math 8 / 7+ / AIM "prealgebra" -- which is actually already "integrated math 0" )

Easier acceleration is a benefit but not the goal. The goal is to better integrate teaching and learning of math subjects that rely on and build together. Additionally it ensures that Algebra is continuously being used as opposed to taking a year off for geometry. A practice most engineers and advance mathematicians will tell you makes more sense. Math should be looked at as a language that helps solve problems and explain/rationalize concepts. Most folks just see it as plug and chug of numbers and formulas. Integrated math helps you see how to apply math.

That makes sense, except that the MSDE plan appears to be to have Integrated Math 1 & 2 (no 3) cover some, but not all, of the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra II curriculum. That's different from other jurisdictions, like California, where they're introducing Integrated Math as a 1-2-3 series, replacing the classes of the old curriculum on a 1-for-1 basis. The result would be de facto acceleration by a year, with the loss of some curricular concepts -- hopefully those deemed repetitive of prior years, but, still, possibly making that integration/touch on application more tenuous with the rush.

If curriculum vendors, like Illustrative Mathematics (can name confusion get worse?), which MCPS uses currently, do not have an Integrated Math offering that matches a 2-year series -- maybe the equivalent of an AMP6+/AMP7+ at the next level -- that would require MCPS to create its own compaction to align to whichever 2-year content standard MSDE defines. That is, unless MSDE is offering the curriculum/materials, itself (or has arranged for such), and not just the standards/guidelines.

One artifact of this would be a de facto catch-up for those being placed in AMP6+ or Math 7 this coming year (2025-26) for 6th grade. They would take AMP7+ or Math 8 in 7th (2026-27), then the 2 years of Integrated Math in 8th (2027-28 is the first year it will be available) & 9th, putting them in preCalc in 10th. Their classmates who get placed in AIM/AMP7+ this coming fall would not have Integrated Math available yet the following year (2026-27) , and would take Algebra in 7th, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th, with preCalc also coming in 10th.

Then I would say this presents and opportunity for parents and teachers to raise these question and concerns up with MSDE while their in the planning and curriculum standard process. Not to mention MCPS. You can show support for integrated Algebra but also express need for ensure coverage of topics with depth to ensure proper foundational and application learning. Additionally it will show that people are paying attention.

Another idea, have you PTA bring this up to its members. Start informing early.

Basic Documentation
https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/2025/0225/Math-Policy-A.pdf

Also, note there is already plenty of curricula available for Integrated Math over three years, including Khan Academy. Illustrative mathematics is creating an IM course which would provide continuity with a curriculum. Particular as some students would be starting in MS.

Most importantly for most students there is no need to accelerate it into 2 years, particularly as the advance students would be still be able to start in MS as they do now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is most likely to align better with the changes coming from MSDE in math and to account for compacted 5/6 students being able to take AMP 7+ but needing a unit before getting started.

One of the changes(or at least new options from MSDE) will be Integrated Algebra which I fully support.

What is integrated algebra? I think of integrated math as a combo of algebra (or pre-algebra) and geometry so you have a bit of both each year. I do not know what integrated algebra would be.

Yes, it's "integrated math 1/2/3" replacing the ridiculous 'algebra1/geometry/algebra2", not "integrated algebra".

(And it's much, much better than non-integrated. It eliminates the "wall of algebra" that interferes with kids' opportunity to accelerate or decelerate after math 8 / 7+ / AIM "prealgebra" -- which is actually already "integrated math 0" )

Easier acceleration is a benefit but not the goal. The goal is to better integrate teaching and learning of math subjects that rely on and build together. Additionally it ensures that Algebra is continuously being used as opposed to taking a year off for geometry. A practice most engineers and advance mathematicians will tell you makes more sense. Math should be looked at as a language that helps solve problems and explain/rationalize concepts. Most folks just see it as plug and chug of numbers and formulas. Integrated math helps you see how to apply math.

That makes sense, except that the MSDE plan appears to be to have Integrated Math 1 & 2 (no 3) cover some, but not all, of the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra II curriculum. That's different from other jurisdictions, like California, where they're introducing Integrated Math as a 1-2-3 series, replacing the classes of the old curriculum on a 1-for-1 basis. The result would be de facto acceleration by a year, with the loss of some curricular concepts -- hopefully those deemed repetitive of prior years, but, still, possibly making that integration/touch on application more tenuous with the rush.

If curriculum vendors, like Illustrative Mathematics (can name confusion get worse?), which MCPS uses currently, do not have an Integrated Math offering that matches a 2-year series -- maybe the equivalent of an AMP6+/AMP7+ at the next level -- that would require MCPS to create its own compaction to align to whichever 2-year content standard MSDE defines. That is, unless MSDE is offering the curriculum/materials, itself (or has arranged for such), and not just the standards/guidelines.

One artifact of this would be a de facto catch-up for those being placed in AMP6+ or Math 7 this coming year (2025-26) for 6th grade. They would take AMP7+ or Math 8 in 7th (2026-27), then the 2 years of Integrated Math in 8th (2027-28 is the first year it will be available) & 9th, putting them in preCalc in 10th. Their classmates who get placed in AIM/AMP7+ this coming fall would not have Integrated Math available yet the following year (2026-27) , and would take Algebra in 7th, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th, with preCalc also coming in 10th.

Then I would say this presents and opportunity for parents and teachers to raise these question and concerns up with MSDE while their in the planning and curriculum standard process. Not to mention MCPS. You can show support for integrated Algebra but also express need for ensure coverage of topics with depth to ensure proper foundational and application learning. Additionally it will show that people are paying attention.

Another idea, have you PTA bring this up to its members. Start informing early.

Basic Documentation
https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/2025/0225/Math-Policy-A.pdf

Also, note there is already plenty of curricula available for Integrated Math over three years, including Khan Academy. Illustrative mathematics is creating an IM course which would provide continuity with a curriculum. Particular as some students would be starting in MS.

Most importantly for most students there is no need to accelerate it into 2 years, particularly as the advance students would be still be able to start in MS as they do now.

They are not accelerating the curriculum. That would mean they are covering 3 years of standards in 2. Instead, they are wholesale leaving standards out. Really not clear why the state doesn't just move to a 3-year integrated math curriculum, which would allow districts to use the Illustrative Math program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They still hit the wall of Algebra 2 and Precalculus in High school ...

Almost all do when they take Honors Alg 2 and Honors PreCalc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is most likely to align better with the changes coming from MSDE in math and to account for compacted 5/6 students being able to take AMP 7+ but needing a unit before getting started.

One of the changes(or at least new options from MSDE) will be Integrated Algebra which I fully support.

What is integrated algebra? I think of integrated math as a combo of algebra (or pre-algebra) and geometry so you have a bit of both each year. I do not know what integrated algebra would be.

Yes, it's "integrated math 1/2/3" replacing the ridiculous 'algebra1/geometry/algebra2", not "integrated algebra".

(And it's much, much better than non-integrated. It eliminates the "wall of algebra" that interferes with kids' opportunity to accelerate or decelerate after math 8 / 7+ / AIM "prealgebra" -- which is actually already "integrated math 0" )

Easier acceleration is a benefit but not the goal. The goal is to better integrate teaching and learning of math subjects that rely on and build together. Additionally it ensures that Algebra is continuously being used as opposed to taking a year off for geometry. A practice most engineers and advance mathematicians will tell you makes more sense. Math should be looked at as a language that helps solve problems and explain/rationalize concepts. Most folks just see it as plug and chug of numbers and formulas. Integrated math helps you see how to apply math.

That makes sense, except that the MSDE plan appears to be to have Integrated Math 1 & 2 (no 3) cover some, but not all, of the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra II curriculum. That's different from other jurisdictions, like California, where they're introducing Integrated Math as a 1-2-3 series, replacing the classes of the old curriculum on a 1-for-1 basis. The result would be de facto acceleration by a year, with the loss of some curricular concepts -- hopefully those deemed repetitive of prior years, but, still, possibly making that integration/touch on application more tenuous with the rush.

If curriculum vendors, like Illustrative Mathematics (can name confusion get worse?), which MCPS uses currently, do not have an Integrated Math offering that matches a 2-year series -- maybe the equivalent of an AMP6+/AMP7+ at the next level -- that would require MCPS to create its own compaction to align to whichever 2-year content standard MSDE defines. That is, unless MSDE is offering the curriculum/materials, itself (or has arranged for such), and not just the standards/guidelines.

One artifact of this would be a de facto catch-up for those being placed in AMP6+ or Math 7 this coming year (2025-26) for 6th grade. They would take AMP7+ or Math 8 in 7th (2026-27), then the 2 years of Integrated Math in 8th (2027-28 is the first year it will be available) & 9th, putting them in preCalc in 10th. Their classmates who get placed in AIM/AMP7+ this coming fall would not have Integrated Math available yet the following year (2026-27) , and would take Algebra in 7th, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th, with preCalc also coming in 10th.

Then I would say this presents and opportunity for parents and teachers to raise these question and concerns up with MSDE while their in the planning and curriculum standard process. Not to mention MCPS. You can show support for integrated Algebra but also express need for ensure coverage of topics with depth to ensure proper foundational and application learning. Additionally it will show that people are paying attention.

Another idea, have you PTA bring this up to its members. Start informing early.

Basic Documentation
https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/2025/0225/Math-Policy-A.pdf

Also, note there is already plenty of curricula available for Integrated Math over three years, including Khan Academy. Illustrative mathematics is creating an IM course which would provide continuity with a curriculum. Particular as some students would be starting in MS.

Most importantly for most students there is no need to accelerate it into 2 years, particularly as the advance students would be still be able to start in MS as they do now.

They are not accelerating the curriculum. That would mean they are covering 3 years of standards in 2. Instead, they are wholesale leaving standards out. Really not clear why the state doesn't just move to a 3-year integrated math curriculum, which would allow districts to use the Illustrative Math program.

Leaving out standards makes little sense unless they are fully encompassed in other standards. Leaving out content makes even less sense as that occurs now and is not netting overall positive results.
Moving to IM makes sense and then moving when the Algebra MCAP should be taken. Even better would be adding in standards for Financial Literacy.

Is MCPS going to get ahead of this a move to an IM curriculum? They were supposed to be looking at curriculum for course the courses beyond Alg 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is most likely to align better with the changes coming from MSDE in math and to account for compacted 5/6 students being able to take AMP 7+ but needing a unit before getting started.

One of the changes(or at least new options from MSDE) will be Integrated Algebra which I fully support.

What is integrated algebra? I think of integrated math as a combo of algebra (or pre-algebra) and geometry so you have a bit of both each year. I do not know what integrated algebra would be.

Yes, it's "integrated math 1/2/3" replacing the ridiculous 'algebra1/geometry/algebra2", not "integrated algebra".

(And it's much, much better than non-integrated. It eliminates the "wall of algebra" that interferes with kids' opportunity to accelerate or decelerate after math 8 / 7+ / AIM "prealgebra" -- which is actually already "integrated math 0" )

Easier acceleration is a benefit but not the goal. The goal is to better integrate teaching and learning of math subjects that rely on and build together. Additionally it ensures that Algebra is continuously being used as opposed to taking a year off for geometry. A practice most engineers and advance mathematicians will tell you makes more sense. Math should be looked at as a language that helps solve problems and explain/rationalize concepts. Most folks just see it as plug and chug of numbers and formulas. Integrated math helps you see how to apply math.

That makes sense, except that the MSDE plan appears to be to have Integrated Math 1 & 2 (no 3) cover some, but not all, of the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra II curriculum. That's different from other jurisdictions, like California, where they're introducing Integrated Math as a 1-2-3 series, replacing the classes of the old curriculum on a 1-for-1 basis. The result would be de facto acceleration by a year, with the loss of some curricular concepts -- hopefully those deemed repetitive of prior years, but, still, possibly making that integration/touch on application more tenuous with the rush.

If curriculum vendors, like Illustrative Mathematics (can name confusion get worse?), which MCPS uses currently, do not have an Integrated Math offering that matches a 2-year series -- maybe the equivalent of an AMP6+/AMP7+ at the next level -- that would require MCPS to create its own compaction to align to whichever 2-year content standard MSDE defines. That is, unless MSDE is offering the curriculum/materials, itself (or has arranged for such), and not just the standards/guidelines.

One artifact of this would be a de facto catch-up for those being placed in AMP6+ or Math 7 this coming year (2025-26) for 6th grade. They would take AMP7+ or Math 8 in 7th (2026-27), then the 2 years of Integrated Math in 8th (2027-28 is the first year it will be available) & 9th, putting them in preCalc in 10th. Their classmates who get placed in AIM/AMP7+ this coming fall would not have Integrated Math available yet the following year (2026-27) , and would take Algebra in 7th, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th, with preCalc also coming in 10th.

Then I would say this presents and opportunity for parents and teachers to raise these question and concerns up with MSDE while their in the planning and curriculum standard process. Not to mention MCPS. You can show support for integrated Algebra but also express need for ensure coverage of topics with depth to ensure proper foundational and application learning. Additionally it will show that people are paying attention.

Another idea, have you PTA bring this up to its members. Start informing early.

Basic Documentation
https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/2025/0225/Math-Policy-A.pdf

Also, note there is already plenty of curricula available for Integrated Math over three years, including Khan Academy. Illustrative mathematics is creating an IM course which would provide continuity with a curriculum. Particular as some students would be starting in MS.

Most importantly for most students there is no need to accelerate it into 2 years, particularly as the advance students would be still be able to start in MS as they do now.

They are not accelerating the curriculum. That would mean they are covering 3 years of standards in 2. Instead, they are wholesale leaving standards out. Really not clear why the state doesn't just move to a 3-year integrated math curriculum, which would allow districts to use the Illustrative Math program.

Leaving out standards makes little sense unless they are fully encompassed in other standards. Leaving out content makes even less sense as that occurs now and is not netting overall positive results.
Moving to IM makes sense and then moving when the Algebra MCAP should be taken. Even better would be adding in standards for Financial Literacy.

Is MCPS going to get ahead of this a move to an IM curriculum? They were supposed to be looking at curriculum for course the courses beyond Alg 1.

They'd need to get a blanket exemption from the Algebra MCAP to get ahead of the state move to IM. The new test won't be available until the second year of the state rollout, when those having taken first IM 1 and then IM 2 would sit for the exam. Those taking the prior track still would take the Algebra MCAP in the year they take Algebra 1.