Reply to S/O Integrated Algebra 3 course

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "S/O Integrated Algebra 3 course"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

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

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

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

-OP[/quote]

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

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

There are the edge cases and imperfections, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics