Middle school math pathways changing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then they should ask for the exemption. Take the regular MCAP after IM2. Why are we waiting to Malie needed curriculum changes for a state test. That’s what’s wrong with society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then they should ask for the exemption. Take the regular MCAP after IM2. Why are we waiting to Malie needed curriculum changes for a state test. That’s what’s wrong with society.

This is a message for MSDE, then.

Illustrative Math produces an Integrated Math curriculum. It's a three year sequence, though, and it would be a colossal waste for MCPS to take that and try to compact it independently into two years without knowing what the new MSDE standards would be. Forget about coming up with an independent "Curriculum 3.0" Integrated Math of its own.

The state is the entity requiring the MCAP, its timing and its impact on a grade. Students failing to meet the requirement because of an interim disconnect between the curriculum and the state testing requirement would bear significant cost to MCPS in addition to the negative impact for students. Assuming that the state even could provide the standard in time, an exemption for early-adopting districts would be far more reasonable than fitting the square old MCAP peg into the round new curricular approach hole.

Even with that, there also would need to be time for teacher training, etc.

One wonders why MSDE is aiming at 2 years as the base curricular path instead of 3, allowing for acquisition of an off- the- shelf curriculum and then working with curriculum vendors to create an accelerated/compacted version for kids truly needing that. It's almost as if they want to penalize districts like MCPS that offer earlier acceleration, when that can help hold a student's interest during instruction in easier concepts that tend to be repeated in later coursework, by forcing additional content-skipping acceleration at a level where ensuring absorption is most critical, as repetition of concepts in higher-level courses trends to cease.

[Anonymous]

It's obvious that the people who wrote the proposal don't know what they are talking about. This is going to be a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

The strong curriculum is only in use up to Alg 1. Everything after is using something else. Last year, Alg II was still using Curriculum 2.0 stuff which is why CO noted that it needed to be changed out. Not to mention the upper division classes need full text. The draft policy and standards are already available. Even if they are tweaked some, folks can take the draft and have any good idea of about 90% of what’s needed.

Based on the timeline this isn’t going to be implemented until the 26-27 school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

The strong curriculum is only in use up to Alg 1. Everything after is using something else. Last year, Alg II was still using Curriculum 2.0 stuff which is why CO noted that it needed to be changed out. Not to mention the upper division classes need full text. The draft policy and standards are already available. Even if they are tweaked some, folks can take the draft and have any good idea of about 90% of what’s needed.

Based on the timeline this isn’t going to be implemented until the 26-27 school year.

So, what should I expect or advocate for for a kid going into 6th grade in fall of 2025? Currently in compacted math with high map scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

The strong curriculum is only in use up to Alg 1. Everything after is using something else. Last year, Alg II was still using Curriculum 2.0 stuff which is why CO noted that it needed to be changed out. Not to mention the upper division classes need full text. The draft policy and standards are already available. Even if they are tweaked some, folks can take the draft and have any good idea of about 90% of what’s needed.

Based on the timeline this isn’t going to be implemented until the 26-27 school year.

So, what should I expect or advocate for for a kid going into 6th grade in fall of 2025? Currently in compacted math with high map scores.

At present, assuming kid is doing well in compacted math, I would expect that kid to be in AMP7+. Be sure you school has accounted or the initial content that they’ll be missing. And the in 7th grade they’ll likely be one of the first groups taking IM1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then they should ask for the exemption. Take the regular MCAP after IM2. Why are we waiting to Malie needed curriculum changes for a state test. That’s what’s wrong with society.

This is a message for MSDE, then.

Illustrative Math produces an Integrated Math curriculum. It's a three year sequence, though, and it would be a colossal waste for MCPS to take that and try to compact it independently into two years without knowing what the new MSDE standards would be. Forget about coming up with an independent "Curriculum 3.0" Integrated Math of its own.

The state is the entity requiring the MCAP, its timing and its impact on a grade. Students failing to meet the requirement because of an interim disconnect between the curriculum and the state testing requirement would bear significant cost to MCPS in addition to the negative impact for students. Assuming that the state even could provide the standard in time, an exemption for early-adopting districts would be far more reasonable than fitting the square old MCAP peg into the round new curricular approach hole.

Even with that, there also would need to be time for teacher training, etc.

One wonders why MSDE is aiming at 2 years as the base curricular path instead of 3, allowing for acquisition of an off- the- shelf curriculum and then working with curriculum vendors to create an accelerated/compacted version for kids truly needing that. It's almost as if they want to penalize districts like MCPS that offer earlier acceleration, when that can help hold a student's interest during instruction in easier concepts that tend to be repeated in later coursework, by forcing additional content-skipping acceleration at a level where ensuring absorption is most critical, as repetition of concepts in higher-level courses trends to cease.

👆This. And currently MCPS only accelerates into Algebra not through Algebra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

The strong curriculum is only in use up to Alg 1. Everything after is using something else. Last year, Alg II was still using Curriculum 2.0 stuff which is why CO noted that it needed to be changed out. Not to mention the upper division classes need full text. The draft policy and standards are already available. Even if they are tweaked some, folks can take the draft and have any good idea of about 90% of what’s needed.

Based on the timeline this isn’t going to be implemented until the 26-27 school year.

Illustrative math current toy goes through Algevra 2, and MCPS definitely uses it through geometry at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

The strong curriculum is only in use up to Alg 1. Everything after is using something else. Last year, Alg II was still using Curriculum 2.0 stuff which is why CO noted that it needed to be changed out. Not to mention the upper division classes need full text. The draft policy and standards are already available. Even if they are tweaked some, folks can take the draft and have any good idea of about 90% of what’s needed.

Based on the timeline this isn’t going to be implemented until the 26-27 school year.

So, what should I expect or advocate for for a kid going into 6th grade in fall of 2025? Currently in compacted math with high map scores.

At present, assuming kid is doing well in compacted math, I would expect that kid to be in AMP7+. Be sure you school has accounted or the initial content that they’ll be missing. And the in 7th grade they’ll likely be one of the first groups taking IM1.

Not next year. They are introducing a new class called Pre-a algebra for kids who took 5/6. It incorporated more of the 7th grade standards than 7+. It will use Illustrative Mathematics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

The strong curriculum is only in use up to Alg 1. Everything after is using something else. Last year, Alg II was still using Curriculum 2.0 stuff which is why CO noted that it needed to be changed out. Not to mention the upper division classes need full text. The draft policy and standards are already available. Even if they are tweaked some, folks can take the draft and have any good idea of about 90% of what’s needed.

Based on the timeline this isn’t going to be implemented until the 26-27 school year.

So, what should I expect or advocate for for a kid going into 6th grade in fall of 2025? Currently in compacted math with high map scores.

At present, assuming kid is doing well in compacted math, I would expect that kid to be in AMP7+. Be sure you school has accounted or the initial content that they’ll be missing. And the in 7th grade they’ll likely be one of the first groups taking IM1.

Not next year. They are introducing a new class called Pre-a algebra for kids who took 5/6. It incorporated more of the 7th grade standards than 7+. It will use Illustrative Mathematics.

It will use Illustrative Mathematics or is a full class by Illustrative Mathematics. Many of the current AIM classes currently use Illustrative Mathematics now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

The strong curriculum is only in use up to Alg 1. Everything after is using something else. Last year, Alg II was still using Curriculum 2.0 stuff which is why CO noted that it needed to be changed out. Not to mention the upper division classes need full text. The draft policy and standards are already available. Even if they are tweaked some, folks can take the draft and have any good idea of about 90% of what’s needed.

Based on the timeline this isn’t going to be implemented until the 26-27 school year.

So, what should I expect or advocate for for a kid going into 6th grade in fall of 2025? Currently in compacted math with high map scores.

At present, assuming kid is doing well in compacted math, I would expect that kid to be in AMP7+. Be sure you school has accounted or the initial content that they’ll be missing. And the in 7th grade they’ll likely be one of the first groups taking IM1.

Not next year. They are introducing a new class called Pre-a algebra for kids who took 5/6. It incorporated more of the 7th grade standards than 7+. It will use Illustrative Mathematics.

It will use Illustrative Mathematics or is a full class by Illustrative Mathematics. Many of the current AIM classes currently use Illustrative Mathematics now.

Overall, is this a positive change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Agree, and in addition, I don’t know how MCPS can move ahead when there is not a 2-year integrated math curriculum available. They will want to stay with what we have for as long as possible now that they have a strong curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics). I don’t think they will pay a vendor to come up with a new curriculum u til it is absolutely necessary.

The strong curriculum is only in use up to Alg 1. Everything after is using something else. Last year, Alg II was still using Curriculum 2.0 stuff which is why CO noted that it needed to be changed out. Not to mention the upper division classes need full text. The draft policy and standards are already available. Even if they are tweaked some, folks can take the draft and have any good idea of about 90% of what’s needed.

Based on the timeline this isn’t going to be implemented until the 26-27 school year.

So, what should I expect or advocate for for a kid going into 6th grade in fall of 2025? Currently in compacted math with high map scores.

At present, assuming kid is doing well in compacted math, I would expect that kid to be in AMP7+. Be sure you school has accounted or the initial content that they’ll be missing. And the in 7th grade they’ll likely be one of the first groups taking IM1.

Not next year. They are introducing a new class called Pre-a algebra for kids who took 5/6. It incorporated more of the 7th grade standards than 7+. It will use Illustrative Mathematics.

It will use Illustrative Mathematics or is a full class by Illustrative Mathematics. Many of the current AIM classes currently use Illustrative Mathematics now.

Overall, is this a positive change?

Yes. It covers missing standards from 7+ that were not offered in 5/6. And there are schools still using Curriculum 2.0 in AIM, so an improvement there too.