Reply to PSA MCPS math warning

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "PSA MCPS math warning"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yes, it's the MS math sequence under 2.0.  Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II are weak on symbolic computation.  Even something as simple as rationalizing a denominator, is [b]explicitly forbidden[/b] by the curriculum even in Algebra II.  I guess this is considered too pedantic, but it's the sort of practice that is needed for radicals to become second nature.  Instead there is lots of examining graphs and qualitative work.  But a qualitative understanding isn't of much use to someone who never develops a muscle memory for computation.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse since I said something similar in another thread, but MCPS math actually doesn't begin until pre-calc.  Unfortunately, it's sink or swim at that point, because suddenly all these un-practiced skills are expected to be solid.  Which means a lot of material crammed into one year.   [/quote]
Interesting. It seems like many of the curricula designed to fit common core standards focus a lot on qualitative work, whereas private schools tend more to be sticking with their historic practices (including more focus on proofs for students in honors tracks). From what you read on these boards, the big problem with math in MCPS right now is that unless you end up in the middle and high school science/math/computer magnets, there isn't much opportunity for more advanced kids. Yes, you can take compacted match in 4th/5th to get on a faster track and take Geometry in 8th (which some privates don't offer), but the actual teaching of math seems weak outside of those programs. Would love to hear from people who have experienced otherwise though...[/quote]

It's possible some teachers still put more into the classes, similar to the magnet, I'd like to hear it, too.  But the county packets they begin with are such poor quality and it's not as if there are text books with additional activities to fall back on.  I know that the qualitative approach took off some time in the nineties, idea being that tools like graphing calculators could give students with shaky fundamentals access to bigger concepts.  But now this concept has completely overtaken these classes.

My DC is in geometry and it's fluff.  The two weeks spent on proofs were just fill in the blanks in three lines of argument.  There was a table of arguments to be used but it was worded as if each was a one way implication and not an equivalency. The table was titled "Acceptable [u]Reasons[/u] when writing a triangle congruence proof" with entries like "Alternate Interior Angles: Used ONLY when you have parallel lines! to describe why angles in this position are congruent."  But no entry to suggest converse that equal Alternate Interior Angles implies parallel lines.  And the wording of the statement is forceful enough to suggest this [i]isn't[/i] true.

I know that proofs based geometry is long since out of favor, but even the small glimpse they get is so imprecisely written and incomplete, it does more harm than good.[/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